News items that look towards Ezekiel 38 & 39

[Shammu]

Peres warns: One morning we'll wake to a nuclear Iran

Israeli President Peres meets with former American Secretary of State, exhorting world not to compromise with Iran over nukes

Roni Sofer
Published: 12.05.07, 16:49
Israel News

According to President Shimon Peres, historically, intelligence reports sometimes turn out to be inaccurate, but on the Iranian issue the international community must eschew compromise and focus on a few clear warning signs.

Peres thus spoke during a meeting with former American Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who is visiting Israel. He warned that whenever Iran develops a successful civilian nuclear energy program, the transition to developing nuclear weapons will be quick and easy.

Furthermore, Peres warned that it was impossible for any intelligence agency to know the exact nature and scope of the technological knowledge purchased from North Korea and Russia at high prices. "We are likely to wake up one morning and discover that comprehensive nuclear technology was passed on without interruption and is close to implementation," he said.

The President spoke with Albright regarding Israeli fears of Iranian investment in developing long-range ballistic missiles capable of hitting targets in Europe. Peres said that Iran has no justification for building these conventional missiles, hides its intentions and activities, and feeds the international community nothing more that crumbs of information.

Peres indicated that he was concerned by remarks made by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, pointing to the extremist leader's declared intention to destroy Israel and sow destruction upon the democratic world. The President concluded by saying that the international community must not cease its efforts against Ahmadinejad and the Iranian nuclear weapons program.

Livni: World can't afford Iran as nuclear superpower

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni reiterated Wednesday that sanctions must be tightened. "As we speak," Livni said to Slovenia's President Danilo Türk during a meeting in Ljubljana, "Iran continues to work towards nuclear capabilities. It is clear the world can not afford that."

Livni emphasized that Iran repeatedly defied the UN Security Council's decisions and praised the reactions in Washington and Europe to the report "that show they understand Iran must be prevented from becoming a nuclear superpower."

NIE and the intelligence u-turn

The American National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) — a report representing the collective views of all 16 US intelligence agencies — which was published Monday, asserted that Iran froze its nuclear weapons program as far back as 2003, and that the country no longer works toward developing the technology apart from uranium enrichment. The estimate contradicts the picture accepted by western intelligence agencies over the past two years, according to which Iran was zealously working to build a nuclear weapon.

Ahmadinejad responded to the NIE Wednesday morning by declaring that Iran has no intention of forfeiting its plans for a civilian nuclear program and called the American report a "declaration of victory" for the Iranian Nuclear Program. "Today, the Iranian nation is victorious but you (the US) came out empty handed…. The report declares the victory of the Iranian nation on the nuclear issue over the international community."

Peres warns: One morning we'll wake to a nuclear Iran

[Shammu]

Rise of India and China will lead to a new world order
Jonathan Manthorpe, Vancouver Sun
Published: Monday, December 03, 2007

In the deal between Washington and New Delhi under which India is forgiven for having ignored every treaty in the book on nuclear power we have been given a glimpse into the future.

And the future is going to be a difficult place for countries like Canada.

The rule-based international system that we and like-minded countries have spent so much effort putting in place for the last century or so is not going to survive the rise to superpower status of India and China.

They will make their own rules and impose their own values.

In an unusual moment of realism, the administration of president George W. Bush recognized this when it decided it was better to be India's nuclear partner than to continue berating New Delhi for having shot the carefully constructed nuclear management regime full of holes.

Canada, still smoldering with resentment that it was a Candu reactor that India used in the early 1970s to provide the makings for its first nuclear weapon, has yet to make the same leap.

But, as C. Raja Mohan, a former member of India's National Security Advisory Board, said here last week, Canada and similar small but wealthy western countries should take a cool, hard-nosed look into the future and decide where their best interests lie.

Speaking in a lecture series sponsored by the BMO Financial Group and the Canadian Institute for International Affairs, Mohan said he does not think the western world has grasped the full implications of the rise of Asia, especially India and China.

Both, he said, will match or overtake the superpower status of the United States within 30 years. And with combined populations of about 2.5 billion people the demands India and China are going to make on world resources once they begin to achieve real prosperity is almost beyond imagination.

A major challenge for both countries will be to avoid their contest to control resources leading to military confrontations.

But Mohan said he expects both countries to continue the already evident contest for access to resources, especially energy.

Neither country fully accepts the Western belief that they should trust the marketplace to provide the resources they need to develop. They want control.

So it would be a big mistake for western countries, Mohan said, to imagine that China and India as superpowers will slot into the template for international behaviour that has been created by the nations of the North Atlantic basin.

It is in the nature of superpowers throughout history that they fashion the international system to meet their own interests, and China and India will be no different, he said.

Mohan pointed out that although India is the world's largest democracy, it does not automatically support other democratic countries rather than authoritarian regimes. In its support for the regimes in Sudan and Burma (Myanmar), for example, New Delhi has made a classic trade-off between its values and its national interest in securing access to the resources of those two countries.

Despite that, Mohan said, India's political and social attitudes stem from the West. Indeed, "India is the most important place outside the West that is built on the values of the Enlightenment. We may well become the leader of the West in the future."

But as the experience of New Delhi's refusal to go along with the rules of the international nuclear club has shown, India is going to be a revisionist power, Mohan said.

"The issue for countries like Canada is if India and China have the power to change the rules, you are going to have to deal with it. You can have as many international norms as you like, but if India and China have the power to ignore them, you are going to have deal with it," he said.

"If India and China decide to melt the ice cap, you are going to have to deal with it."

ON THE SHELF

The implications of China's return to superpower status after a centuries on the sidelines are difficult enough to grasp. For us in Canada there is the added perplexity of trying to work out what the dominant attitude is in the U.S. The picture south of the border is usually of a clash between extreme optimists and pessimists. Former Beijing bureau chief for the Los Angeles Times, James Mann has come to our aid with a neat little volume examining American attitudes towards China. The China fantasy: How Our Leaders Explain Away

Chinese Repression is a series of essays perfect for keeping in a pocket for reading on the commuter bus or train. Mann is of the view that the frequently voiced American opinion that China will adopt western liberal democratic values is dangerous wishful thinking. Much more likely, he thinks, is a China governed by "authoritarian capitalism," a phrase synonymous with fascism.

Rise of India and China will lead to a new world order

[Shammu]

Russian navy to start sorties in northern Atlantic
Wed Dec 5, 2007 4:16pm EST

By Guy Faulconbridge

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia said on Wednesday it would start the first major navy sortie into the Mediterranean since Soviet times, the latest move by an increasingly assertive Moscow to demonstrate its military might.

"The aim of the sorties is to ensure a naval presence in tactically important regions of the world ocean," Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov told President Vladimir Putin, who wished the sailors well. The rest of the meeting was closed.

Serdyukov said 11 ships, including an aircraft carrier, would take part in the sortie and be backed up by 47 aircraft -- including strategic bombers.

Buoyed by huge oil revenues, Russia under Putin has been boosting military spending while at the same time using diplomacy to broaden Moscow's influence.

Earlier this year Putin announced that long-range strategic bombers would resume patrols around the world and Russia's long-range nuclear forces have test-fired new missiles.

But analysts say the navy, once the focus of national pride and symbol of the Soviet Union's military might, is still reeling from more than a decade of underfunding.

A series of accidents -- such as the sinking of the Kursk nuclear submarine in 2000 -- have hurt the Russian navy's reputation at home and abroad.

Serdyukov said the navy's flagship aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, and anti-submarine ships had set out for the Mediterranean on Wednesday from the Northern Fleet's base in Severomorsk, in the Arctic Circle.

Black Sea fleet ships and aircraft support would meet them in the Mediterranean. He said military exercises would be held during the sorties and that the group would visit six foreign states. He did not name them.

He also said Northern Fleet would make sorties into the northern Atlantic.

Russia has long been talking about reviving a permanent naval base in the Mediterranean. During the Cold War, the Soviet navy had a permanent presence on the Mediterranean, using the Syrian port of Tartus as a supply point.

Russian navy to start sorties in northern Atlantic

[Shammu]

Gulf states urge peace with Iran
4 December 2007

Gulf leaders have ended their summit in Qatar reiterating their desire for a peaceful solution to the conflict over Iran's nuclear ambitions.

The Gulf Co-operation Council's final communique said the body would examine the Iranian president's offer of closer security and economic ties.

It did not mention the US intelligence assessment that said Iran had halted its nuclear arms programme.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the first Iran president to attend a GCC summit.

The final GCC communique also said members would form a common market in 2008 and remained committed to a target date of 2010 for the achievement of monetary union.

"The Gulf common market aims to create one market... raising production efficiency and optimum usage of available resources and improving the six countries' negotiating position among international economic forums," said the final declaration.

Citizens of the six Gulf states will have equal rights to carry out business in any GCC country and equal residency rights.

 But BBC economics correspondent Andrew Walker says the most interesting issue for international financial markets was not mentioned - the question of whether Gulf states would stop linking their currencies to the US dollar.

After the meeting, Qatar's prime minister said the policy was for now to stick with the dollar link.

Such policies can help maintain financial stability, our correspondent says, but the recent decline of the dollar in the currency markets has created problems for the Gulf states.

'Mutual respect'

Summit host Qatar welcomed Mr Ahmadinejad's proposals on security and forming an organisation to improve economic co-operation.

"They will be examined by the GCC in a way to reinforce the relations of good neighbourhood and mutual respect... and to contribute to strengthening security and stability in the region," a statement said.

Correspondents say, however, that Mr Ahmadinejad's speech was received coolly by some national delegations and one official was quoted complaining that he had referred to the stretch of water separating Iran and the Arab Gulf states as the "Persian Gulf".

The council, made up of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates was founded in 1980 to strengthen Arab Gulf States after the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq war.

Gulf states urge peace with Iran

[Shammu]

President proposes formation of Int'l Islamic Criminal Court
Tehran, Dec 4, IRNA

Iran-Judiciary-Court
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad proposed on Tuesday an International Islamic court be formed to prosecute international criminals.

He made the suggestion in his opening speech at the first meeting of judiciary heads of the Islamic states, started in Tehran this morning.

"An international Islamic court should be established to prosecute international criminals, war criminals and those who fearlessly violate others' rights and bring threats and bitterness to their lives," said the president.

Addressing judiciary heads of 57 Islamic states from Asia, Africa and Central Asia, President Ahmadinejad stressed that formation of the international Islamic court "is a must."

"This will present to the world a pattern of justice-based judgment and free the Islamic states from referring to others," the president stressed.

He also urged Muslim scholars in the field of Islamic laws "to formulate a plan for holding permanent consultations to review ways of prosecution."

President Ahmadinejad also called for establishment of a judiciary union by Islamic states for following up suggestions discussed during the three-day meeting of the Islamic states judiciary heads.

Respecting justice is the basis in all judiciary affairs, stressed the president.

President proposes formation of Int'l Islamic Criminal Court

[Shammu]

Lebanese minister praises Iran's new interaction with regional countries
Beirut, Dec 5, IRNA

Lebanon-Minister-Iran
Lebanese Labor Minister Trad Hamadeh praised Iran's new interaction with regional countries, which started by President Ahmadinejad's speech in the 28th Summit meeting of the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council in Doha, and called it in benefit of the whole region.

In an interview with IRNA on Wednesday, Hamadeh said, "Participation of Iran's president in the meeting removed Arabs' concerns and opened a new chapter for cooperation between Arab countries with a big power like Iran."
He called leaders of the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council member states to strengthen ties with Iran and continue consultations and visits with Iranian officials.

Hamadeh added, "Visits between Iranian leaders and littoral states of Persian Gulf and dialogue about regional issues can strengthen public security in the region and create confidence for expansion of bilateral or multilateral cooperation among them."

He expressed hope that President Ahmadinejad's proposals in the Doha meeting can be put in practice, because they come from regional countries's beliefs and not dictated by aliens.

The Lebanese official continued, "Now, everybody has realized the danger of unilateral policy of the USA in support of Israel."

Lebanese minister praises Iran's new interaction with regional countries

[Shammu]

German Christian Democrats Oppose Turkey's EU Bid

By Andreas Cremer

Dec. 3 (Bloomberg) -- German Chancellor Angela Merkel said her Christian Democratic Union opposes Turkey's bid to become a full member of the European Union, the first time she has articulated outright opposition to Turkish EU membership.

``We are, have been and will remain in favor of a privileged partnership with Turkey, but we're against full membership in the European Union,'' Merkel said in a speech to the Christian Democrats' annual convention in Hanover today.

Merkel's CDU party has until now said that accession talks between the EU and Turkey mustn't rob Turkey of the eventual possibility of becoming a full member. The CDU is now ``right to clarify'' its opposition, Merkel said.

Turkey has made little headway toward joining the EU since it started membership talks in October 2005. Rising European opposition to admitting the predominantly Muslim nation has triggered a backlash against the 27-nation EU in Turkey. Sixty- eight percent of Germans oppose Turkey's EU entry, according to a Forsa poll on Aug. 10.

German Christian Democrats Oppose Turkey's EU Bid

[Shammu]

Germany has quite a sizable Turkish immigrant population, and there has been a lot of tension built up over it.

Now I bet your wondering why, I put this here, instead of in the "Revived Roman Empire News - the E.U." Just what part does Turkey play in the end times you may be wondering.............

It's allied to Magog  in Ezekiel 38 and 39, Beth-togarmah. Meshech and Tubal were also tribes located in Asia Minor in ancient times although they may have migrated to become Moscow and Tobolsk in Russia. Based up that prophecy and the fact that the rest of the allies named are muslim I would expect. Turkey to be continually rejected by the EU and for Turkey to become increasingly radicalized and throw in with the rest of the Middle East.

But these are just my thoughts on this.

[Shammu]

Iran, Lebanon, Russia, and India—It is about Power and Oil
By David J. Jonsson

For Muslims, three cities of the Christian faith have particular significance: Jerusalem, Constantinople and Rome. The fall of Constantinople is described in detail in my earlier book, The Clash of Ideologies--The Making of the Christian and Islamic Worlds. Iran with its relations and support of Hamas and Hezbollah now has access to the Mediterranean and is the neighbor of Jerusalem. Italy was the first country from which Iran withdrew is funds. In my new book, Islamic Economics and the Final Jihad – The Muslim Brotherhood to the Leftist/Marxist – Islamist Alliance, I discuss how this Alliance is coalescing on a global scale through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and Mercosur in South America. Although, the world is focused on the potential for destruction by Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), the real potential for an economic holocaust exists as discussed in the book: Islamic Economics and the Final Jihad. The asymmetric War being waged is occurring simultaneously through terrorism, military action and economic means. The conflicts in the Middle East can not resolved leading to sustainable peace until the U.S. and the West develop a strategy for energy security and self-sufficiency. Implementing a strategy for self-sufficiency will needless to say be expensive and require sacrifice. Continued military action and endless conferences will not resolve the issues. The unacceptable alternate option is to accept totalitarian rule and elimination of our freedom and liberty.

# Similarities to Events Leading up to WW1
# The Rise of Shiite Power in the Gulf
# The Three Factions in the Struggle for World Domination
# The Rome Conference, the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973-4 and the Euro-Arab Dialog (EAD)
# The Taef Accord of 1989
# The Arc of Shiite Control vs. the Sunni Pan-Islam
# The Roles of Hezbollah and Al Qaeda
# Russia and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)
# Venezuela and Mecosur Flame the Fires of Conflict
# Venezuela and Egypt to Gain Seats on the United Nations Security Council
# Russia and Iran Challenge OPEC – Russia Leaves the West?
# The Role of the Petroleum Commons
# Sunni Terrorism Spreads East
# The Apocalyptic Teaching of Islam
# Conclusion

Similarities to Events Leading up to WW1

Recent events in Palestine, Lebanon and Egypt make it imperative that we pay heed to the apocalyptic teachings of Islam—both Shia and Sunni. Then you must also recall the events of 1914 leading up to WW1. One should also consider that following WW1 and the fall of Ottoman Empire’ the secular government of Ataturk in Turkey was formed and also that following these events the Muslim Brotherhood was formed. Today, Turkey is again an Islamic state.

The assassination of the Austrian archduke by a Serbian nationalist terrorist provided the senescent Austro-Hungarian Empire the excuse it had been looking for to wipe out the Serbian nationalists, which provoked the pan-Slavic nationalists at work for the czar to threaten the Austro-Hungarians with destruction, which led Germany's Kaiser to pledge retaliatory war against Russia, which prompted the French, who had an anti-German alliance with Russia, to begin mobilization. . . . Nobody wanted global conflagration, yet nobody knew how to stop it, and the American president (Woodrow Wilson, who was not yet a Wilsonian) did nothing to help avert the coming war. Within a month, the war came, and it took the remainder of the 20th century for the world to fully recover.

The Leftist activists of the world are decrying the “lack of proportionality” in Israel’s response to the unprovoked attack on its military personnel and civilians within the State of Israel, it would be important to recall a similar episode in United States history.

In a personal communication from Dr. Steve Carol Senior Fellow Center for Advanced Middle East Studies he recalled the situation on March 6, 1916, where a group of 360 Villistas (followers of Pancho Villa) crossed the international border between the United States and Mexico and attacked the town of Columbus, New Mexico. Their immediate goal was to obtain weapons from the nearby headquarters of the U.S. 13th Cavalry. 18 Americans were killed and additional 9 were killed in pursuit of the attackers back to the border. German agents directed by Luther Wertz, a key German operative in Mexico, led the raid. Germany wanted to keep the United States out of World War I, which was then raging, and sought to divert U.S. attention from Europe to south of the border.

The unprovoked attack on the United States triggered demands for retaliation and punishment of the raiders. There was no talk of “proportional” response.

As a result, President Woodrow Wilson ordered General John J. “Blackjack” Pershing and 6,000 American troops on a “Punitive Expedition” into Mexico. The force crossed into Mexico some two weeks after the initial attack and would penetrate some 300 miles into Mexico. During its nine-month stay in Mexico, U.S. forces would clash with Villistas as well as with Mexican Federal troops.

The Villistas again attacked the United States on May 5, 1916, raiding Glen Springs and Borquilla, Texas. This prompted President Wilson to send an additional force of 8,000 troops into Mexico. On June 18th he additionally called up the Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona National Guard and sent 150,000 men to patrol the U.S. border. Wilson also placed an arms embargo on Mexico, which included food and even horses.

On June 24th there was a clash between U.S. and Mexican forces at Carrizal, with 84 U.S. soldiers being surrounded by superior Mexican forces. Over half escaped but 14 were killed and 24 U.S. servicemen were taken prisoner.

Wilson’s reaction was immediate. The next day he demanded the released of the captured soldiers and to back up his demands he mobilized the entire U.S. National Guard and incorporated it into the regular army. He dispatched American warships to patrol and enforce a blockade on Mexican ports on both its east and west coasts. All the American prisoners were released five days later on June 30th. There was no talk of a “lack of proportionality.”

U.S. forces while in Mexico, did not catch Pancho Villa, but they crippled his ability to strike at the United States and inflicted heavy casualties on his forces.

The American force was withdrawn, unexpectedly, on January 25, 1917, not due to any Mexican or international pressure, but rather because the U.S. had obtained information that Germany intended to resume unrestricted submarine warfare, a step that would bring the U.S. into World War I. Additionally the U.S. had obtained proof, via the Zimmermann Telegram that Germany was seeking an anti-U.S. alliance with both Mexico and Japan. Thus the U.S. force was withdrawn so as not to give Mexico additional cause for considering such an alliance.

I review this familiar history for those of us (myself included) who've been wondering how the kidnapping of three Israeli soldiers (and the killing of eight others in the Hezbollah raid) has escalated in less than a week to what may be the brink of a cataclysmic regional war with ghastly global implications. The two crises and the sets of conflicting forces are by no means parallel, but in each the power of nationalism, the sense of national victimization, the need for revenge, the opportunity for miscalculation, the illusion of attainable victory, and all-around fear and rage loom large.

If you thought that the latest Middle East crisis is just another in the endless war of Arabs and Jews killing each other, you’re wrong. There is a telltale sign that there is a major new development underlying this bloodshed and mayhem.

That sign: the world's Arab powers have not launched their customary tirades against Israel. Indeed, astonishingly, the collective voice of the Arab world, the 22-nation Arab League, has criticized the Hezbollah, the Iranian Shiite Muslim sponsored terrorist group that is attacking Israel from Lebanese territory. This should not be interpreted, as some have described, as a moderation of their anti-Semitic position toward Israel. The Arab League blamed Hezbollah for “unexpected, inappropriate and irresponsible acts” in kidnapping two Israeli soldiers and launching missiles at Israel. It is the first time that the Arab League has criticized any Muslim force engaged in a war against Israel. Thus, setting the stage for the renewed conflict between Shia and Sunni on a world scale.

cont'd next post!!

[Shammu]

The Rise of Shiite Power in the Gulf

Although there is no such thing as pan-Shiism, or even a unified leadership of the community, the Shiites share a coherent religious view since splitting off from the Sunnis in the seventh century over who was the legitimate successor that was to lead the Muslims. As described in Islamic Economics and the Final Jihad, the lack of a unified leadership does not preclude their desire to form the Ummah (Islamic community) among all Shiites. The Shia have developed their own concept of jurisprudence (Shariah – Islamic Law) and practice. The separate schools of jurisprudence do in fact complicate Islamic financial transactions.

The sheer size of the Shia population today makes them a powerful constituency. Shiite population accounts for 90 percent of Iranians, the majority in Iraq, some 75 percent in Bahrain and 45 percent of Lebanon. Some 70 percent of the people living in the Gulf region are Shiites.

Why is Hezbollah making provocative attacks on Israel? Iran sees itself as the region's great power. Iran is feeling under threat, and, at the same time, feeling a surge in its own potential power. It feels under threat because the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have brought American forces onto its frontiers. However the Shiites seek to cooperate in a limited fashion with the U.S. in Iraq, maintaining a measured degree of instability to keep the pressure on the Sunnis until they have accomplished their goal of total control. Keeping the U.S. bogged down in Iraq, opening the new front in Lebanon reduces the pressure on Iran and their nuclear ambitions and prevents attention to potential near conflicts in Latin America as we discuss below.

This role of the U.S. in Iraq emboldened the rise of Shiism throughout the region. The Middle East that will emerge from the crucible of the Iraq War may not be more democratic, but it will be more Shiite and it will be more fractious. Such actions will lead to the desire of both Shia and Sunnis to increase armaments of WMDs including nuclear capability and likelihood of further armed conflict. It should be remembered that far more people have been killed in the conflicts between Sunni and Shiites than between the Arabs and Israel.

And it is this sense of vulnerability that is helping stir the thrill of its own potential power. Yes, the invasion of Iraq did bring the U.S. uncomfortably close to Iran, but it also removed the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, a trenchant enemy.

The invasion of Iraq also gave new urgency to the Iranian project to acquire the nuclear bomb, an act of insurance lest the U.S. decides to move against another of the “axis of evil” states. In the interim, however, the chaos in Iraq and America's apparent helplessness has tempted Iran to think of the U.S. as being weak.

And the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as President has reinvigorated the revolutionary fervor and apocalyptic teaching in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of Iraq on July 19 forcefully denounced the Israeli attacks on Lebanon, marking a sharp break with President Bush's position and highlighting the growing power of a Shiite Muslim identity across the Middle East.

The comments by al-Maliki, a Shiite Arab whose party has close ties to Iran, were noticeably stronger than those made by Sunni Arab governments in recent days. Those governments have refused to take an unequivocal stand on Lebanon, reflecting their concern about the growing influence of Iran, which has a Shiite majority and has been accused by Israel of providing weapons to Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite militant group.

A growing number of Iraqi officials have stepped forward in recent days to condemn Israel. Their stance also calls into question one of the rationales for the U.S. invasion of Iraq - that a U.S.-backed democratic state here would become an ally of Israel and catalyze a change of attitude across the rest of the Arab world.

Saudi Arabia is also upset by the possibility of Iran developing nuclear capability and hence will probably not standby without developing their nuclear capability, which in all likelihood is underway.


The Three Factions in the Struggle for World Domination

The recent world events lead one to the conclusion that there are three principle players in this current struggle—the Shia faction represented by Iran and their surrogate pawns represented by the Hezbollah or Hizbollah/Hizbullah or Hezb'Allah (meaning Party of God) in Lebanon and Syria, Hamas in Palestine, the Sunni faction including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other predominant Sunni countries and the Israel aligned with the United States. However as reported by Lydia Georgi - RIYADH in Middle East Online it should be noted that Saudi Arabia, has indirectly blamed the Iranian-backed Hezbollah for Israel's onslaught against Lebanon, is wary of Tehran using Arab states to pursue its own agenda, experts said July 18, 2006. The oil-rich kingdom last week accused the Shiite militant movement, without naming it, of “adventurism” that put all Arab countries at risk by capturing two Israeli soldiers and triggering Israel's offensive.

“It is necessary to make a distinction between legitimate resistance and uncalculated adventurism by certain elements,” an official source said.

“The kingdom is not concerned by the extension of Iran's influence per se but by the fact that it uses Arab countries such as Syria, Lebanon and Iraq to pursue its political interests,” commentator Qenan al-Ghamdi a columnist for the Saudi Al-Watan daily, said.

“When these countries land in trouble, it is Saudi Arabia that bears the consequences, as happened in Lebanon in the past and will happen again now” after the devastation caused by Israel's attacks, he said.

Some will recall that back in 2000, Hezbollah was held up by fellow Shiites as well as Sunnis and some Christians as a model for resisting Israel. The division today springs from the reality that did not exist six years ago—the rise to power of the Shiites in Iraq and the recurrence of increasing tensions between the Shiites and Sunni.

The withholding of condemnation of Israel by Saudi Arabia did not last long. In a report by Aljazeera on July 25, 2006, the Saudi king Abdullah has warned that war could break out in the Middle East if attempts to broker peace in the region fail. In a statement read out on state television on Tuesday, King Abdullah said, "If the option of peace fails as a result of Israeli arrogance, then the only option remaining will be war, and God alone knows what the region would witness in a conflict that would spare no one."

His remarks were unusually forthright for the world's top oil exporter, which has called for ceasefire but blamed Lebanon's Hizbollah guerrilla group for the crisis that has so far killed at least 413 people in Lebanon and 42 Israelis.

The comments also appeared to be aimed at the United States, Israel's ally that has resisted calls for an immediate ceasefire.

Saudi Arabia pledged $500 million to rebuild Lebanon and $250 million for the Palestinians. The kingdom will also transfer $1 billion to Lebanon's central bank to help its economy.

The diplomat said the financial support was a sign of a tussle for influence once the fighting stops in Lebanon between Iran, backing Hizbollah, and Arab states, behind the government.


The Rome Conference, the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973-4 and the Euro-Arab Dialog (EAD)

The Rome Conference on Lebanon takes place on July 26. Among those expected at the Rome conference are: the United States, Russia, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the World Bank, the United Nations and the European Union.

The recent events are a reminder of the events leading to the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973-74, which then led to the Euro-Arab Dialog (EAD) that pitted European countries against the U.S. in need to gain access to oil. It was also the EAD that led to the beginning of the Islamization of Europe. The events surrounding the Embargo and the EAD are documented in Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis by Bat Ye’Or and Islamic Economics and the Final Jihad.

Senator Richard Lugar, a Republican from Indiana who is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a speech this year, “No one who is honestly assessing the decline of U.S. leverage around the world due to our energy dependence can fail to see that energy is the albatross of U.S. national security.”


The Taef Accord of 1989

Saudi Arabia sponsored and hosted the Taef accord of 1989 which ended Lebanon's 15-year civil war in 1990 and has since helped fund its reconstruction. In the current crisis, it has offered 50 million dollars in immediate aid.

The Taif accords transferred power away from the Lebanese presidency, traditionally given to Maronites, and invested it in a cabinet divided equally between Muslims and Christians. The Taif accords also declared the intention of extending Lebanese government sovereignty over southern Lebanon. Though Israel eventually withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000, armed Hizbollah militia remained in control of the area, apparently maintaining a tacit arrangement whereby Hezbollah could harass Israel within limits, but not so seriously that it would provoke a massive retaliation. The Hezbollah essentially created a separate state within Lebanon. A state that did not benefit from the economic gains in the Lebanon reconstruction after the civil war.

Even if Syria, which is an ally of Shiite Iran and likewise a supporter of Hezbollah, were attacked by Israel, Saudi Arabia would also end up footing the bill.

A member of the appointed Shura (consultative) Council, who asked not to be named, said Saudi Arabia could not sit back and watch Lebanon being used “as an arena for settling scores or waging proxy wars”.

cont'd next post!!

[Shammu]

The Arc of Shiite Control vs. the Sunni Pan-Islam

At the same time the Shia faction has built up their alliance of countries stretching from Iran to the Mediterranean—including Iraq, Syria and recently Lebanon and Palestine. It has been the long-term goal of the Sunnis to build a Pan-Arabic Ummah stretching from Indonesia to Andalusia (Spain). The only country blocking total access is Israel. A result of the Iraq war was to oust control by the Sunnis from Iraq and replace it with a Shia dominated government. In many respects this has placed the U.S. military in the crosshairs of the Sunni faction. According to report in the Financial Times on July 20, 2006, to appease the Sunnis, the U.S. yesterday said it had decided not to impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia over its policies towards religious practices and minorities following commitments by the kingdom to halt the dissemination of extremist ideology and to promote tolerance of non-Muslims.

John Hanford, ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom, was due to explain to Congress why the State Department would issue a waiver for Saudi Arabia under the Religious Freedom Act. Saudi Arabia was designated a “country of particular concern” under the act in 2004.

The Roles of Hezbollah and Al Qaeda

Hezbollah and al Qaeda are known to have cooperated in the past, but it doesn't appear they have worked together closely. The main reason for this is sectarian. Al-Qaeda is mostly made up of Sunni Muslims and Hezbollah is mostly Shiite Muslims. However, in spite of comments above, there is a recent trend for Sunnis and Shiites to cooperate against a common enemy, i.e., the United States and Israel, so don't be surprised if something more turns up. Hezbollah is trying to both destabilize Lebanon's anti-Syrian government and promote itself as a powerful, regional, revolutionary group. Hezbollah seeks influence beyond Lebanon.

According to Daniel Byman director of Georgetown University's Center for Peace and Security Studies writing in Foreign Affairs in the November/December 2003 issue: “In the U.S. demonology of terrorism, Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda are relative newcomers. For most of the past two decades, Hezbollah has claimed pride of place as the top concern of U.S. counter terrorism officials. It was Hezbollah that pioneered the use of suicide bombing, and its record of attacks on the United States and its allies would make even bin Laden proud: the bombing of the U.S. marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 and the U.S. embassy there in 1983 and 1984; the hijacking of TWA flight 847 and murder of U.S. Navy diver Robert Stethem in 1985; a series of lethal attacks on Israeli targets in Lebanon; the bombing of the Israeli embassy in Argentina in 1992 and of a Buenos Aires Jewish community center in 1994. More recently, Hezbollah operatives have plotted to blow up the Israeli embassy in Thailand, and a Lebanese member of Hezbollah was indicted for helping to design the truck bomb that flattened the Khobar Towers U.S. military base in Saudi Arabia in 1996. As CIA director George Tenet testified earlier this year, “Hezbollah, as an organization with capability and worldwide presence, is [al Qaeda's] equal, if not a far more capable organization. I actually think they're a notch above in many respects.”“

Aside from al Qaeda, no terrorist group has killed more Americans than Hezbollah, which is bankrolled by Iran to the tune of at least $100 million a year. Hezbollah's main theaters of operation are Lebanon, its home country (where it killed hundreds of Americans during the 1980s), and the West Bank and Gaza, where it helps Palestinian rejectionists target Israel. But the group is active in the United States as well. Hezbollah is believed to have cells in at least 10 U.S. cities, according to an article in the Washington Times on May 24, 2005. It is interesting to note that Hezbollah operatives have sneeked into the U.S from Mexico. In March 2005, Mahmoud Kourani of Dearborn pleaded guilty to providing material support for Hezbollah. He will be sentenced next month. Kourani (whose brother is Hezbollah's chief of military security in southern Lebanon) is an illegal alien who sneaked into the United States from Mexico in February 2001. Federal authorities have repeatedly arrested suspected Hezbollah operatives for attempting to smuggle night-vision goggles and other military equipment to the organization. One suspect, arrested in 1998, skipped bail and fled to Lebanon before returning to the United States last year to face federal charges. In 2003, a federal court convicted a Hezbollah cell based in Charlotte, N.C., on charges of aiding Hezbollah by operating a cigarette-smuggling ring. The leader of that group, Mohammed Hammoud, received 155 years in prison.


Russia and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)

Russia also has a stake in this conflict. Russia brought Iran into the SCO and was rewarded by being admitted as an observer into the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC). Iran is also a major market for Russia and China—both members of the SCO. Both Russia and China are active in investment and weapon supply to Venezuela—a leading member of Mercosur. Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez said on July 14 that U.S. backing of Israel is responsible for flaming tensions in the Middle East and putting the world on course toward another “Holocaust.”

cont'd next post!!

[Shammu]

Venezuela and Mecosur Flame the Fires of Conflict

“The fundamental blame falls again on the U.S. empire. It's the empire that armed and supported the abuses of the Israeli elite, which has invaded, abused and defied the United Nations for a long time,” Chávez said in a speech during a military act in Caracas.

It should be noted that Venezuela is a major oil suppler to the U.S. and through their Citgo, which is wholly-owned by Petróleos de Venezuela. On July 12, Venezuela's state-owned oil refining subsidiary in the U.S. is to halt petrol distribution to about 1,900 filling stations in the U.S., although the company denied on Wednesday the decision was motivated by tensions between Caracas and Washington.

Latin America accounts for 8.4 per cent of daily world oil output, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, but energy supplies from the region make up 30 per cent of U.S. energy imports, or about 4m barrels a day.

According to an article in the Financial Times on June 25, future supplies of oil from Latin America are at risk because of the spread of resource nationalism [The doctrine of the Petroleum Commons.], a study by the U.S. military that reflects growing concerns in the U.S. administration over energy security has found.

An internal report prepared by the U.S. military’s Southern Command and obtained by the Financial Times follows a recent U.S. congressional investigation that warned of the U.S.’s vulnerability to Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez’s repeated threats to “cut off” oil shipments to the U.S.

In an article in the Financial Times on July 24, Andy Webb-Vidal in Caracas reported that: Richard Lugar, chairman of the US Senate foreign relations committee, has urged the Bush administration to adopt specific “contingency plans” for a potential disruption to oil supplies from Venezuela.

In a letter sent to Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state, last Friday, a copy of which has been obtained by the Financial Times, Mr Lugar warned the US that it needed to “abandon” reliance on a “passive approach” to energy diplomacy.

Mr Lugar's warning follows the release last month of an investigation by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) which found that the US was ill-prepared for an oil embargo by Venezuela, the world's fifth largest exporter. President Hugo Chávez, whose government has been emboldened by a torrent of oil revenues, has several times warned that he would “cut off” oil supplies to the US if Washington persisted in allegedly plotting his overthrow.

“Venezuela's leverage over global oil prices and its direct supply lines and refining capacity in the US give Venezuela undue ability to impact US security and our economy,” Mr Lugar wrote in his letter to Ms Rice.

The GAO study, commissioned by Mr Lugar, a Republican, estimated that a Venezuelan oil boycott would raise oil prices by $11 (€9, £6) per barrel over a six-month period and reduce US economic output by $23bn.

Bernardo Alvarez, Venezuela's ambassador to the US, dismissed as “absurd” the GAO study's premise that Mr Chávez would purposefully shut off oil supplies, citing the economic impact it would have on his own country. Venezuela ships two-thirds of its oil to the US, or about 1.5m b/d and oil accounts for about 80 per cent of export revenue and half of fiscal revenue.

However it should be noted that Venezuela is currently constructing super tankers to move its oil to China.

Hugo Chávez, a cast of thousands of demonstrators and a guest appearance by Cuba's Fidel Castro made the July 20, 2006 summit of Mercosur, the South American trade pact, very different from those of the past. Normally a humdrum affair, full of dull deliberations about trade technicalities and pious hopes for a brighter, more integrated future, the presence of Venezuela's always-controversial leader in particular livened up proceedings.

Having dropped the suit and tie sported at the Mercosur presidential summit earlier on Friday in favour of his customary olive-green fatigues, the Cuban leader's anti-US rhetoric was rivalled - if not in length - by a fiery warm-up address from his admirer, Hugo Chávez of Venezuela.

Following formal accession this month, Venezuela is one of five full members of Mercosur, along with Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. The bloc's area of influence now stretches from the Caribbean in the north to Patagonia in the south.

Indeed, both Argentina and Brazil formally encouraged Bolivia to become the sixth full member of the group, while Mexico's foreign minister, Ernesto Derbez, said he hoped Mexico would become an associate member of the group - along with Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru - before Vicente Fox's presidency comes to an end in December.

On paper at least, Venezuelan membership ought to be good news, but for the U.S and the West, is it?

Together, the pact's five countries constitute what should become a single market of 250m people. Intra-regional trade, already recovering strongly from the financial crises of 1999 and 2001-2002, should get a fresh boost from Venezuela's vast oil wealth - and Mr. Chávez.

Venezuela, for example with Argentina, have also unveiled plans to jointly raise money on international markets, with a bond deal that Néstor Kirchner, Argentina's president, said could be “the first step in the construction of a multinational development bank, a financial space in the South”. See: Venezuela to put pep into Mercosur summit. One target of such a bank is to attack the hegemony of the U.S. dollar.

Hugo Chávez's appearance at the Mercosur summit in the Argentine city of Córdoba will be just the first stage of his most extensive global tour to date.

Over the next two weeks, the Venezuelan president will visit at least seven countries, mostly in Asia, plus, as he put it before his departure, “perhaps some in the Middle East and a few in Africa on the way”.

Officially, the former army officer says his oil-financed mission is to deliver a “message of peace” and to “save the world”.

But his journey will also entail a serious lobbying effort to secure diplomatic support for Venezuela's bid to secure a temporary seat on the United Nations Security Council that will be available soon.

cont'd next post!!

[Shammu]

Venezuela and Egypt to Gain Seats on the United Nations Security Council

According to a report on Venezuela Analysis.com on July 19, 2006, Venezuela is being granted observer member status in the Arab League, which is also expected to support Venezuela’s bid for a UN Security Council seat. These two announcements coincide with the second Arab-South American Summit, which took place the week of July 19 in Caracas. These events of the recent weeks give further credibility of the Leftist/Marxist – Islamist Alliance and their control of world oil and other natural resources.

Under the shadow of an escalating war in the Middle East, the second Arab-South American Summit got underway in Caracas. Building on the first ever meeting a year ago in Brazil, delegations from fifteen Arab countries and twelve South American nations are gathering for two days to assess the progress of political, economics, cultural, environmental, and technological agreements reached in 2005. In addition, leaders attending the summit focused attention on the host country’s admission into the Arab league, the UN Security Council bids of Venezuela and Egypt, and the current crisis engulfing the Middle East.

In the first order of business, Venezuela was granted observer status in the Arab league. Membership will be formalized in September, when Venezuela joins its neighbor Brazil and several OPEC partners in the 22-nation group. More than 10 million people of Arab descent live in South America, most of them in Brazil.

President Chávez also secured Arab League support for Venezuela’s UN Security Council bid. “We expect 22 countries to support the (Venezuela) candidacy.” Stated Ahmed Benhelli, Secretary General of the Arab League of Nations. With Arab League assistance, Foreign Affairs Minister Alí Rodríguez Araque on Tuesday guaranteed Venezuela has obtained more than the 128 votes necessary to win a non-permanent seat at the Security Council, as a number of international organizations have already agreed to support Caracas, including the Caribbean Community and Common Market (Caricom) and the Common Market of the South (Mercosur). In return for Arab league backing, Egypt is seeking South American support in its Security Council bid.

This development comes on the heels of President Chávez’s harsh condemnation of recent Israeli attacks against Lebanon. On Sunday President Chávez bashed the “elite” in Israel, whom he accused of being aggressive at the behest of the United States. The incursions into Lebanon and Gaza were labeled “madness” by the President, as he went on to note Israel has nuclear weapons of mass destruction, “but nobody says anything because behind it is the empire” – a reference to the Bush Administration.

The official position of the Venezuelan government was released the day before when the Foreign Affairs Ministry issued a press release that stated, “The Bush Administration veto to impede the consideration of this crisis within the framework of the U.N. Security Council is unacceptable. The hegemony exercised over this body is the clearest denial of said organization as a space for reasonable settlement of conflicts. This is the reason why our country keeps firmly upholding the necessity of democratizing this body, and therefore endeavors for a seat on the Security Council.”

It should be noted that Russia as a result of control of large hydrocarbon reserves is a major economic power to contend with. Europe is beholden to gas supplies from Russia. Russia supports Iran—both in support of the Hezbollah and the nuclear program and as a weapon supplier to Latin America-Venezuela and Africa. Russia and China are the leading members of the SCO with Iran in an observer status. Russia also holds observer status in the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC).

Russia and Iran Challenge OPEC – Russia Leaves the West?

Russia on the one hand is challenging OPEC for oil dominance and simultaneously challenging the hegemony of the U.S. dollar through the oil weapon. These actions merge in the form of Leftist/Marxist – Islamist Alliance. From the Russian perspective, the Saudi role and OPEC model have benefited the United States, which can pressure Saudi Arabia into opening the spigot to deal with supply emergencies; the U.S. also pressures other oil producers, such as Libya, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, and Indonesia, by military methods, diplomacy, and economic sanctions. In the Russian alternative, the U.S. will be far less influential, and have fewer levers, commercial or military, to effect pressure on the energy suppliers. Russian arms and defense-industry partnerships are on offer to relatively weak, intervention-prone energy producers in Africa and Latin America to offset U.S. pressure.

A global movement toward the Russian model would greatly increase the impact of the oil weapon.

In the OPEC model, the benchmark is Brent crude, priced in U.S. dollars. In the Russian model, the discount and disadvantage between the Brent and Urals benchmarks will be reduced, and pricing will evolve toward a currency basket, including the ruble. According to the Moscow Times on May 16, a senior economic official said Monday that Russia would have a domestic petroleum exchange—an idea backed by President Vladimir Putin last week—up and running by year's end, but experts doubted whether oil would trade internationally in rubles anytime soon.

Deputy Economic Development and Trade Minister Kirill Androsov, who is also a Rosneft board director, said a domestic exchange for oil products would begin trading by the end of 2006 and an international exchange that would sell crude oil sometime in 2007, RIA-Novosti reported.

According to Iran News and Iranian Culture Journal of July 6, Iran will start the initial phase of its planned Iranian oil bourse at the end of September. An oil ministry official told that his ministry had already presented the relevant documents to the economic and finance ministry and the bourse organization. See also: Structural Changes – Destruction Of The U.S. Dollar.

In the OPEC model, suppliers hold much of their cash and government securities in U.S.-controlled institutions. In the Russian model, cash is held in the form of a currency basket; conversion from cash is sought into non-U.S. assets, particularly in the European market. In the Iran Oil Bourse oil trade would be Euro initally.

In the OPEC model, investment in new energy reserves should be open to, and may be controlled by, U.S. corporations and foreign government national oil companies. However, in most Islamic countries, private and foreign ownership is governed by Islamic Law (Shariah) laws.

According to the Topic Report: Access to Global Oil & Gas Reserves by Britt Dearman published January 23, 2006 Dearman is the originator and editor of Weekly Energy Perspective; IOC’s can participate to some extent in the upstream business in these countries, the bulk of the reserves ownership is dominated by countries with national oil companies (NOC’s). An estimated two-thirds of all global oil reserves are controlled by NOC’s. A large number of countries require that IOC’s partner with NOC’s in upstream developments or they allow IOC’s to provide only services. An internal Apache study estimates that IOC’s have full access to less than 10% of all of the world’s reserves.

IOC’s generally have strict investment guidelines. Limited access to upstream investment opportunities tends to increase competition among IOC’s, which reduces the return for the eventual winners. In addition, countries are extracting more from IOC’s and/or changing the rules. For example, Russia and Venezuela have collected back taxes from companies because of new tax law interpretations. They have also used the state’s power to acquire assets or to force more favorable terms for upstream activity.

The extraction of more money from oil companies is not limited to Russia and Venezuela. The U.K. raised the corporate tax rate on oil companies and some politicians in the U.S. are considering a windfall profits tax again. The timing for the U.K is remarkable because they became net importers of gas last year, thus making them partially dependent on Russian gas supply and are expected to become a net oil importer this year. The U.K. is taking away from oil company’s funds that could be reinvested to increase production and energy security in the country. Countries including Ecuador and Bolivia have also imposed new restrictions or nationalized the assets of the IOC’s.

Even the Democrat controlled State Legislature in California is attempting to pass laws that are hostile to the IOCs, including a plan to tax windfall profits and a proposal to regulate refineries as public utilities.

Some countries with NOC’s have different incentives than IOC’s such as security of supply. They have more at stake (e.g. - growing an entire economy) than earning a rate of return on its investment. NOC’s are also in a position to make different types of offers that IOC’s cannot match. For example, China NOC’s can work in countries that are off-limits to U.S. companies. China can also offer trade agreements and potential political support.

cont'd next post!!

[Shammu]

The Role of the Petroleum Commons

IOC’s have the technology, the capital and the expertise needed to increase global production. The political actions of countries, state legislatures and potentially the actions of the Global Compact within the framework of the United Nations have done more to limit the availability of oil than any other factor.

Demand for natural gas is rising rapidly. Russia and Iran control 50 per cent of global reserves. For a comprehensive analysis of the role of Petroleum Commons influence on the International Oil Companies (IOCs) see: Islamic Economics and the Final Jihad – The Muslim Brotherhood to the Leftist/Marxist – Islamist Alliance. In the Russian model, national companies, state-controlled champions, or joint ventures in which Russian interests are in the majority should control strategic reserves. According to MOSCOW Reuters on July 16, Russian state oil firm Rosneft, which last week raised $10.4 billion (5.7 billion pounds) in the country's largest-ever IPO, said on Monday the government would control around 85 percent of its stock after the flotation.

Rosneft said in its final IPO prospectus the share of the Russian Federation would be 85.2 percent if the IPO's global coordinators do not exercise the over-allotment option, and 84.8 percent if they exercise it in full.

According to John Helmer writing in the Asia Times on July 18, in the U.S.-backed OPEC model, national suppliers depend on U.S.-controlled market intermediaries, traders, pipeline and shipping companies, and retail distributors for access to markets and point of sale. In the Russian model, in exchange for access to Russian energy supplies, there will be Russian state-controlled champions in energy transportation. Russian state-controlled corporations will also have investments and influence over trade and market retail networks.

The Russian model also extends to energy-convertible coal, uranium, and other mineral resources. Through negotiations for Russian accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO), the U.S., Australia, Canada and other resource-exporting states have sought to gain unlimited access to search and development of Russian mineable resources. The Russian model rejects this, and instead assigns priority and equity control of domestic resources to national resource companies. The model proposes tradeoffs and partnerships in resource exploitation in third countries, especially the developing states.

The U.S.-backed OPEC model assigns international priority to the Arab states. The Russian model assigns priority to the Central Asian alliance, including China, India, and Iran—all members of the SCO; secondarily to Latin America (Venezuela, Brazil—Mercosur); and ultimately Africa.

On this fundamental choice between the Russian and OPEC models, Russia is waiting to hear where South Africa stands. One thing is clear - South Africa's dependence on OPEC for its crude-oil imports has been growing. In 1996, 75% of South Africa's oil imports came from the Persian Gulf states, led by Iran. In 2003 - the latest year for which figures are available - this had grown to 78%. Saudi Arabia has also jumped ahead of Iran as the leading supplier. Nigeria is the leading African supplier of oil to South Africa, with 16% of total in 2003. Imports from Russia are possible, but have been negligible so far.


Sunni Terrorism Spreads East

The Sunnis are active in the terrorism war with bomb attacks on transportation infrastructure in London, Spain, and India. The Bangalesh and Pakistan links are also connected to the terrorist acts in India. Since the last few years, it came to light that ISI and various militant organizations based in Pakistan are using Bangladesh as a transit point for pushing terrorists into India. Indian security agencies have flight details and details of armed training camps in the neighboring country. With the tightening of security on the Pakistan border, export of terror from Bangladesh has become a reality, and the extension of the terror network to other parts of the country is a potential threat to India’s security.

The Washington-DC based human rights group, International Christian Concern (ICC) www.persecution.org has learned that Bangladesh's ruling party (the BNP) is becoming ideologically allied with fundamentalist Islamic elements within the country and is maneuvering to steal the upcoming election. If this effort succeeds it will have disastrous results for democracy and for Christians alike.

ICC is especially concerned that the inclusion of Islamic fundamentalist parties in the government threatens to undermine this country's democratic process and commitment to human rights, especially religious freedom. It is extremely disconcerting that the current ruling party's senior joint secretary-general recently proclaimed at a Jamaat meeting that, “We are members of the same family.”

If the BNP is truly in bed with Islamic fundamentalists, it is no wonder that Islamic militants have been so successful in carrying out terrorist attacks in recent months. Within the past year more than 30 have died and 150 have been wounded in terrorist attacks by Muslim extremists, including two Christian health workers who were hacked to death on July 29, 2005.


The Apocalyptic Teaching of Islam

The totalitarian temptation remains powerfully in place. Muslims across the world are drawn by the apocalyptic teachings of Islam with its slogan “Islam is the solution.” That was the case from Iran in 1979 to Algeria in 1992 to Turkey in 2002, to the Paris riots in 2005 to the actions of the Hezbollah and Hamas in recent weeks.


Conclusion

The world stands today at the precipice dividing the eras of the post-Cold War which we have know since 1989–one of expanding democracy and free markets–and a new world order which is unknown and certainly a much less prosperous and friendly place. The Leftist/Marxist - Islamist Alliance through joining together a global cabal of nations for the control of the world’s energy infrastructure, finance, media and transportation assets present a real and current danger to the West. The cost of defending a policy of Energy Interdependence as a cornerstone of foreign policy is huge in terms of potential loss of lives and impact on our economy. The West and particularly America cannot maintain our economy by assuming that the developing world along with the “recycle” of oil wealth will continue to provide a market for debt and our energy resources without extracting the huge price of our security, freedom and liberty. Spreading democracy requires us to take responsibility for our financing and energy needs. A program leading to Energy Independence is both feasible and desirable. The risk is failing to act now to make the world a safer and environmentally sustainable place for our children to grow up.

Iran, Lebanon, Russia, and India—It is about Power and Oil

[Shammu]

Cold War deja vu in Kosovo

Russia and the U.S. are on opposing sides of the dispute between Serbs and ethnic Albanians.

By Tracy Wilkinson, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
December 6, 2007

KOSOVSKA MITROVICA, SERBIA -- Stand on the blue neon bridge over the Ibar River here and straddle the frontline of today's Cold War.

To the south is Kosovo, an ethnic Albanian province propped up and championed by the United States. To the north is Serbia, a state that looks solidly to Russia for support and protection.

Kosovo's quest for independence from Serbia is one of several issues (Iran is another) that have brought the U.S. and Russia into opposition in ways not seen for many years. And so far, Moscow has managed to seize the initiative here and thwart Washington's plans.

Nine months ago, Kosovo's independence seemed inevitable and imminent. Instead, talks dragged on until last week, and the breakaway republic's status remains unsettled, its resolution delayed at least until next year. The deadlock threatens regional stability, many officials warn.

That Russia has been able to undermine U.S. intentions owes to the rising influence of President Vladimir V. Putin and the reluctance of numerous European governments, dependent on Russian oil and gas, to challenge Moscow, analysts say.

Russian support has emboldened the Serbian government in a manner that could hinder democratic reforms.

Russia and Serbia have been allies for generations, thanks in part to their common history, Slavic language and Orthodox Christian faith. But that alliance, in the Serbian government's view, often was more lip-service than real support. Russia, for example, did not block United Nations sanctions imposed in 1992 on what was then Yugoslavia as it suppressed rebellions in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia.

Kosovo, with its ethnic Albanian majority, has proved a different cause, however.

"Today, when Serbia is at a certain crossroads, she certainly counts on Russia understanding her position," Serbian President Boris Tadic said as his nation began lobbying for Moscow's support on Kosovo several months ago. "Russia is one of the pillars of our foreign policy."

In 1999, to a weakened Russia's chagrin, U.S.-led forces of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization bombed Serbian troops out of Kosovo. The province has been governed by the United Nations since, with the West supporting its bid for statehood.

Moscow says it is especially concerned about Kosovo because of the precedent it says independence would set for separatist movements closer to home, such as in the Russian republic of Chechnya. Maintaining territorial integrity, along with strengthening the state, have been cornerstones of the Putin administration.

The fervor of Russia's support surprised even some Serbian officials and has pushed the government in Belgrade to harden its positions, making compromise virtually impossible. This week, for the first time a member of Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica's inner circle, Aleksandar Simic, raised the prospect of warfare as a legitimate option to be considered by the government.

With U.S. encouragement, the Kosovo Albanians long ago hardened their bottom line. But they were willing to accept a U.N. plan of "supervised independence." Belgrade rejected the proposal, saying independence was like pregnancy: either you are or you're not.

So instead of agreement, it now seems probable that the Kosovo Albanian government will at some point in the next few months declare independence unilaterally, having been assured that key states, starting with the United States, will quickly recognize its new status.

If that happened, Belgrade probably would argue that such independence is illegal and not permanent, since it does not bear the imprimatur of the U.N. Security Council. And Putin's intervention has seen to it that the matter would not go before the council because of Russia's veto power.

Backing Belgrade and undercutting the West has allowed Moscow to reassert its regional authority and regain much of the influence it lost with the humiliating NATO intervention in Kosovo, especially in Europe, analysts say. Weakening transatlantic solidarity was a time-honored Cold War-era strategy.

For Serbia's leaders, Russian support is good for domestic consumption, especially before the presidential election to be held in the first part of next year.

"It's safe politics for them," said Cedomir Antic, a historian with the Institute for Balkan Studies in Belgrade. "They are trying to stay in power, be on good terms with world powers, and protect the interests of the Serbian nation."

Among Kosovo's Albanians, there is a sense that they should have moved to independence a year or two ago, before Putin had a chance to seize the issue.

"Maybe our mistake was not settling this earlier," said Shpend Ahmeti of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Pristina, the Albanian-controlled capital of Kosovo.

This Russian-American Cold War-redux is etched on the ground here.

On one side, few places on Earth are more pro-United States than Kosovo. A boulevard in Pristina is named after Bill Clinton, a larger-than-life poster of him waving to passersby. Pictures of President Bush graced campaign promos in this month's provincial election. U.S. flags flutter everywhere.

Stepping right over the border, however, it all changes. And here in Kosovska Mitrovica, the dividing line is several miles inside Kosovo because the northern half of the city is still controlled by Serbs, which will further complicate any separation.

An enormous monument at the Ibar River bridge, staring from the Serb-controlled side to the Albanian-controlled part of the province, pays tribute to the Serbs killed by NATO bombings and the Albanian "terrorists and criminals" of Kosovo.

Cold War deja vu in Kosovo