News items that look towards Ezekiel 38 & 39

[HisDaughter]

Israel and Iran: the Armageddon scenario

It is becoming increasingly likely that Israel will attack Iran's nuclear facilities in the next few months. Indeed, over the past few weeks, signs of an impending strike have been widely reported, with the Israeli government itself fuelling much of the speculation.

While much of the recent media commentary has revolved around the question of whether Israel has the military capability to undertake such a difficult mission, this emphasis misses the larger point, which is that an Israeli strike may set off a chain reaction that could prove difficult to control.

Assuming that the Israeli Air Force attacks -- regardless of whether or not the raid is successful -- the Iranian response will be the key to determining how serious the crisis becomes. Thus, how Tehran retaliates will result in either a tense -- but ultimately limited -- crisis, one where threats will be issued and warnings made but military action will be measured and somewhat predictable, or conversely, in a rapidly escalating crisis that might threaten the stability of the entire region, and may result in the total devastation of some states.

The former scenario is easier to envisage. Under it, after the Israeli strike, Iran's leaders would issue numerous threats, but in the end Tehran would limit its military activities to sponsorship of terrorism through its regional proxies (i.e. Hamas and Hezbollah) and the stepping up of attacks against American forces in Iraq. In addition, Iran would likely attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping, which could cause panic on world oil markets.

While such actions would no doubt cause considerable casualties and damages (any attempt to close the strait will likely push oil above $200 a barrel), it is unlikely that they would cause the crisis to deteriorate further. Thus, after some time, acts of terrorism against Israel would gradually diminish, and while Iran has the ability to seriously threaten American forces in Iraq, it is unlikely to do so, as any such attempt would set the stage for a larger confrontation with Washington, a development not in Tehran's interest.

As a result, within a few months, the region would settle into its "normal" pattern -- albeit one that will remain very unsettled for some time, and one where the U.S. will be widely vilified (as it will be blamed in the Arab world for assisting Israel, regardless of whether or not it does).

The second scenario, however, is much more unpredictable, and involves several uncertainties. According to this model, Iran would retaliate against Israel using ballistic missiles -- a possibility, it should be noted, that it has explicitly warned of on several occasions. While Israel has a missile defence system, its capabilities have never been tested in war (it was of no use against the short-range rockets that Hezbollah fired in 2006), and it is unlikely that it would successfully intercept all the missiles Iran would launch.

The first uncertainty involves the targets Iran strikes. Would it attack strategic targets like petroleum facilities or air bases?

n this case there would be significant physical damage but limited Israeli casualties. Or would it strike major population centres (such as Tel Aviv or Haifa) or the country's nuclear facility, in which case, casualties would be extensive?

In the former scenario, Israel's retaliatory strike can be expected to be somewhat similar, as the air force would mount a raid against comparable Iranian targets. In the event of the latter, though, Israel's retaliation can be expected to be heavy, perhaps raising the spectre of a counter-attack utilizing some form of WMD (the higher the number of Israeli casualties, the greater the likelihood of a non-conventional response). In this scenario, both countries would suffer significant casualties and damages, and their respective recoveries would be long and difficult.

A second uncertainty involves the type of warhead Iran would arm its missiles with. Would they be conventionally armed, in which case the number of Israeli casualties would depend on the targets hit (as discussed above)? Or would they be armed with a chemical or biological agent, in which case Israeli casualties could be massive? Once again, Israel's retaliation would likely follow the Iranian lead, with the latter scenario resulting in a major nuclear counter-strike.

Given these dire scenarios, it is clear that the initial use of force by Israel may trigger a catastrophic confrontation. Thus, the preferred solution remains a diplomatic one, although given Iran's intransigence and unwillingness to give up its nuclear program, it seems unlikely that the negotiations that have been under way for years (and which recently resumed with U.S. involvement) will suddenly succeed.

In sum, an Israeli strike against Iran now appears almost inevitable. The effects of this strike are impossible to predict, but it is not difficult to imagine a scenario where the results could be devastating. In the long term, the entire regime that has been created to contain nuclear proliferation, including both treaties (the NPT) and institutions (the IAEA), will need to be fundamentally transformed and strengthened to ensure that the present situation cannot occur again. Unfortunately, though, that prospect offers little comfort at present.

[nChrist]

Brothers and Sisters,

There is little doubt in my mind that the way is being prepared for the Tribulation Period. Many of us keep saying soon, and it will be soon, but how long is "soon"? Only GOD knows! However, we can read GOD'S WORD and try to understand some things HE communicated to us for a definite reason. As an example, many times are spoken of in relation to THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST. We should all know that the SECOND COMING OF CHRIST is at the end of the 7 year Tribulation Period. To limit confusion while studying, the last 3 1/2 years of the Tribulation Period is called "THE GREAT TRIBULATION" or "THE TIME OF JACOB'S TROUBLE". The last half of the Tribulation Period will be much worse than the first half.

Matthew 24:21-37  For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.  22  And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.  23  Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.  24  For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.  25  Behold, I have told you before.  26  Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.  27  For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.  28  For wheresoever the carcass is, there will the eagles be gathered together.  29  Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:  30  And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.  31  And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.  32  Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:  33  So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.  34  Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.  35  Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.  36  But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.  37  But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.


GOD tells us much in the above portion of Scripture, even about time and circumstances. Don't take one word for granted if you want to do a Bible Study on this portion of Scripture. Also know that the study will take you all over the Bible. There is a description of Israel given and a notice given about a particular generation of Israel in Verse 34. How much longer will it be before the SECOND COMING OF CHRIST? NOT LONG!

Love In Christ,
Tom

Favorite Bible Quotes 387 - Psalms 121:2 My help cometh from the LORD,
which made heaven and earth.

[Shammu]

Israel's decision not to let Iran go nuclear
Aug. 29, 2008
JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST

Israel will not allow Iran to attain nuclear capability and if time begins to run out, Jerusalem will not hesitate to take whatever means necessary to prevent Iran from achieving its nuclear goals, the government has recently decided in a special discussion.

According to the Israeli daily Ma'ariv, whether the United States and Western countries succeed in thwarting the Islamic Republic's nuclear ambitions diplomatically, through sanctions, or whether a US strike on Iran is eventually decided upon, Jerusalem has begun preparing for a separate, independent military strike.

So far, Israel has not received American authorization to use US-controlled Iraqi airspace, nor has the defense establishment been successful in securing the purchase of advanced US-made warplanes which could facilitate an Israeli strike.

The Americans have offered Israel permission to use a global early warning radar system, implying that the US is pushing Israel to settle for defensive measures only.

Because of Israel's lack of strategic depth, Jerusalem has consistently warned in recent years that it will not settle for a 'wait and see' approach, merely retaliating to an attack, but will rather use preemption to prevent any risk of being hit in the first place.

Ephraim Sneh a veteran Labor MK who has recently left the party, has reportedly sent a document to both US presidential candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama. The eight-point document states that "there is no government in Jerusalem that would ever reconcile itself to a nuclear Iran. When it is clear Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons, an Israeli military strike to prevent this will be seriously considered."

According to Ma'ariv, Sneh offered the two candidates the "sane, cheap and the only option that does not necessitate bloodshed." To prevent Iran's nuclear aspirations, Sneh wrote, "real" sanctions applied by the US and Europe were necessary. A total embargo in spare parts for the oil industry and a total boycott of Iranian banks would promptly put an end to the regime, which is already pressured by a sloping economy and would be toppled by the Iranian people if they have outside assistance, he said.

The window of opportunity Sneh suggests is a year and a half to two years, until 2010.

Sneh also visited Switzerland and Austria last week in an attempt to lobby them against the Iranian threat. Both countries have announced massive long-term investments in Iranian gas and oil fields for the next decade.

"Talk of the Jewish Holocaust and Israel's security doesn't impress these guys," Sneh said wryly.

Hearing his hosts speak of their future investments, Sneh replied quietly "it's a shame, because Ido will light all this up." He was referring to Maj. Gen. Ido Nehushtan, the recently appointed IAF commander and the man most likely to be the one to orchestrate Israel's attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, should this become a necessity.

"Investing in Iran in 2008," Sneh told his Austrian hosts, "is like investing in the Krupp steelworks in 1938, it's a high risk investment." The Austrians, according to Sneh, turned pale.

In related news, a top official said Friday that
Iran had increased the number of operating centrifuges at its uranium enrichment plant to 4,000.

Deputy Foreign Minister Ali Reza Sheikh Attar, who visited the Natanz plant last week, said that Iran was preparing to install even more centrifuges, though he did not offer a timeframe.

"Right now, nearly 4,000 centrifuges are operating at Natanz," Attar told the state news agency IRNA. "Currently, 3,000 other centrifuges are being installed."

Meanwhile, the pan-Arabic Al Kuds al Arabi reported Friday that Iran had equipped Hizbullah with longer range missiles than those it possessed before the Second Lebanon War and had also improved the guerrilla group's targeting capabilities.

According to the report, which The Jerusalem Post could not verify independently, Hizbullah was planning a massive rocket onslaught on targets reaching deep into Israel's civilian underbelly in case Israel launches an attack on Iran.

Israel's decision not to let Iran go nuclear

[Shammu]

It will be Israel that has to take them down and they know it. I have a feeling George is not going to do anything about Iran. If anything, we will just support Israel because we know it has to be done and SOON.

Israel has also shown by their attacks on past facilities in Syria and Iraq.......... That they put their money where their mouth is. It's not a matter of if, but when.

[Shammu]

Russia plans to raise navy presence in Syria

'Our Navy presence in the Mediterranean will increase; Russian vessels will be visiting Syria and other friendly ports more frequently,' Russian charge d'affaires tells reporters in Damascus. Syrian diplomat: We do not want to jeopardize ongoing peace talks with Israel

Reuters
08.28.08
Israel News

The Russian navy will make more use of Syrian ports as part of increased military presence in the Mediterranean, a Russian charge d'affaires tells reporters in Damascus

The announcement comes as tensions rise between Moscow and the West over Russia's role in Georgia. Syrian President Bashar Assad backed Russia's recent offensive on Georgia in support of a separatist province during a visit to Russia last week.

"Our Navy presence in the Mediterranean will increase. Russian vessels will be visiting Syria and other friendly ports more frequently," Igor Belyaev, the Russian charge d'affaires, told reporters in the Syrian capital.

"The visits are continuing," he added.

Russia relies on Syria's Tartous port as a main stopping point in the Mediterranean, although ties between the two countries have cooled since the collapse of Communism, when Moscow supplied Syria with billions of dollars worth of arms.

Internet news sites have reported that a Russian naval unit, including the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, docked at Tartous earlier this month.

Belyaev would not be drawn on specifics, or whether new military agreements with Syria were reached during Assad's meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev at a Black Sea resort on Thursday.

"The two leaders gave their directions to advance ties in the economy, trade and energy fields, as well as military cooperation," he said.

Israeli military superiority

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said last week Russia was prepared to sell Syria more arms as long as they do not disturb the "regional balance of power."

Lavrov was referring to the position of Israel, which has a superior military and is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons.

Syria, which is technically at war with the Jewish state, has embarked on a drive to upgrade its military in recent years. The Interfax news agency quoted a Russian diplomat as saying that Syria and Russia were working on deals involving Damascus buying anti-aircraft and anti-tank systems.

The Syrian government has denied reports in Russian media that Assad had said he was ready to host advanced Russian Iskander missiles, which would be able to hit Israeli territory. Israel made it clear it opposes sale of such weapons to Syria.

Diplomats in the Syrian capital said Russia would not easily sell Syria any weapons that could seriously challenge Israel's military superiority.

"It remains to be seen how much the Russians would come through for Syria. Damascus also does not want to jeopardize its ongoing peace talks with Israel," one of the diplomats said.

Israeli warplanes raided a target in eastern Syria in September. The two countries have since embarked on indirect peace talks.

The United States, Israel's chief ally, said the target was a nuclear complex under construction with the help of North Korea. Syria denied the accusation and said it had no secret nuclear facilities.

Russia plans to raise navy presence in Syria

[Shammu]

Jordan reaches out to militant Hamas

By JAMAL HALABY, Associated Press Writer Wed Aug 27, 3:41 PM ET

AMMAN, Jordan - In an about-face, Jordan is reaching out to the Hamas militant group amid fears that a collapse of Mideast peacemaking would bring an influx of refugees. But the U.S. ally must walk a delicate line to avoid angering its American and Israeli friends.

Hamas is outlawed in Jordan, which has accused the group in the past of trying to destabilize the country. But Jordanian intelligence chief Mohammed al-Dahabi held two covert meetings with top Hamas leaders this month, ending a nearly decade-long banishment of the group.

The talks don't mean Jordan, which signed a 1994 peace deal with Israel, is embracing the militant group or is turning its back on Arab-Israeli negotiations. But the kingdom has clearly decided it's better to rebuild a relationship with Hamas than keep shunning it as an enemy amid doubts over the peace process' future.

"We're at a crossroads and Jordan must protect itself and its national interests," former Jordanian parliament speaker Abdul-Latif Arabiyat said.

Jordan fears that the possible failure of Palestinian-Israeli peace talks backed by the Bush administration, which leaves office early next year, could embolden Hamas in the neighboring West Bank, as well as Muslim extremists in Jordan and across the Mideast. Quiet contacts with Hamas could mollify any fallout for Jordan if that happens.

Also, Jordan is worried a failure of talks will revive Israeli hardliner calls for ejecting West Bank Palestinians to Jordan, or for parts of the West Bank to form a confederation with the kingdom as an alternative to an independent state.

Jordan, which ruled the West Bank from 1950 to 1967, strongly opposes such a move, as do Hamas and other Palestinians. Jordan's worries are demographic: Roughly half of its 5.8 million population are of Palestinian descent, from families that were displaced to the kingdom in two wars with Israel since 1948. Jordan is ruled by an elite drawn from its native, Bedouin-rooted clans.

Another flood of Palestinians could overwhelm Jordan and even spark civil unrest. In 1970, the Palestine Liberation Organization tried to overthrow Jordan's Hashemite monarchy by setting up a Palestinian government. But Jordan fought a bloody war, known as "Black September," as it evicted the PLO from its territory.

Jordan's contacts with Hamas have already irked Israel and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, whose U.S.-backed Palestinian Authority controls the West Bank and has been battling to end Hamas' takeover of the Gaza Strip last year.

Abbas sent his interior minister, Abdel Razak Yehiye, to Jordan last week to "find out what the Jordanians are up to and if their contacts with Hamas meant dropping support for the Palestinian Authority," said an Amman-based Palestinian official, insisting on anonymity citing diplomatic sensitivities.

Israeli Embassy spokesman Itai Bardov in Amman called Jordan's contacts with Hamas "unhelpful to the peace process."

"We're against any negotiations with Hamas because we regard it as a terrorist movement," he said. "We should find ways to strengthen the Palestinian Authority instead of legitimizing Hamas, which made an illegal military coup in Gaza."

The U.S. also considers Hamas a terror organization and has refused contact with it. On Tuesday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said after meeting with Palestinian and Israeli leaders that there was hope for a Mideast peace deal, but she offered no reason for optimism beyond the fact that both sides are speaking.

Mindful of its allies' worries, Jordan only reluctantly confirmed its meetings with Hamas, days after they occurred.

State Minister for Information Nasser Judeh said Jordan wanted the meetings to continue, and that the discussions so far had focused only on "pending security issues."

Deputy Hamas leader Moussa Abu Marzouk said the talks, headed by Hamas official Mohammed Nazzal, tackled a wide range of issues, including the plight of Palestinians under Israeli occupation, Jewish settlements in the West Bank and ways to "confront a substitute homeland for the Palestinians in Jordan."

With the meetings, Jordan may be hoping to help mend the Hamas-Abbas rift and boost the peace process, averting any talk of a Jordanian solution to the Palestinian question. It may also be trying to help in mediating a release of Israeli Sgt. Gilad Schalit, captured by Gaza militants more than two years ago. Abu Marzouk said the Jordanian intelligence chief inquired in the meetings about Schalit.

The split between Jordan and Hamas dates back to 1999, when Jordan came under tremendous pressure from the U.S. and Israel because Hamas leaders on its soil were making statements disparaging peace and ties with Israel and America. Jordan ejected Hamas political chief Khaled Mashaal and other top leaders for unspecified "illegal activities," shut down Hamas offices and clamped down on lower-ranking members.

Jordan reaches out to militant Hamas

[Shammu]

Will Turkey Abandon NATO?
By ZEYNO BARAN
August 29, 2008

Will Turkey side with the United States, its NATO ally, and let more U.S. military ships into the Black Sea to assist Georgia? Or will it choose Russia?

A Turkish refusal would seriously impair American efforts to support the beleaguered Caucasus republic. Ever since Turkey joined NATO in 1952, it has hoped to never have to make a choice between the alliance and its Russian neighbor to the North. Yet that is precisely the decision before Ankara. If Turkey does not allow the ships through, it will essentially be taking Russia's side.

Whether in government or in the military, Turkish officials have for several years been expressing concern about U.S. intentions to "enter" the Black Sea. Even at the height of the Cold War, the Black Sea remained peaceful due to the fact that Turkey and Russia had clearly defined spheres of influence. But littoral countries Romania and Bulgaria have since joined NATO, and Ukraine and Georgia have drawn closer to the Euro-Atlantic alliance. Ankara has expressed nervousness about a potential Russian reaction.

The Turkish mantra goes something like this: "the U.S. wants to expand NATO into the Black Sea -- and as in Iraq, this will create a mess in our neighborhood, leaving us to deal with the consequences once America eventually pulls out. After all, if Russia is agitated, it won't be the Americans that will have to deal with them."

Nonetheless, Ankara sided with fellow NATO members in telling Georgia and Ukraine that they would be invited to join the alliance -- albeit without any time frame. But now that Russia has waged war in part over this decision, the Turks will have to pick sides. Deputy chief of the Russian general staff Anatoly Nogoivtsyn already warned Turkey that Russia will hold Turkey responsible if the U.S. ships do not leave the Black Sea. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov will travel to Ankara on Monday to make clear that Russia means it.

Russia is Turkey's largest trading partner, mostly because of Turkey's dependence on Russian gas. More important, the two countries share what some call the post-imperial stress syndrome: that is, an inability to see former provinces as fellow independent states, and ultimately a wish to recreate old agreements on spheres of influence. When Mr. Putin gave a speech in Munich last year challenging the U.S.-led world order, Turks cheered. The Turkish military even posted it on its Web site. President Abdullah Gül recently suggested that "a new world order should emerge."

Turkey joined Russia at the height of its war on Georgia in suggesting a five-party "Caucasus Stability and Cooperation Platform." In other words, they want to keep the U.S. and the EU at arm's length. Both Russia and Turkey consider Georgia's American-educated president, Mikheil Saakashvili, to be crazy enough to unleash the next world war. In that view Turkey is not so far from the positions of France or Germany -- but even these two countries did not suggest that the Georgians sign up to a new regional arrangement co-chaired by Russia while the Kremlin's air force was bombing Georgian cities.

Two other neighbors -- Azerbaijan and Armenia -- are watching the Turkish-Russian partnership with concern. Azeris remember how the Turks -- their ethnic and religious brethren -- left them to be annexed by the Soviets in the 1920s. Armenians already fear their giant neighbor, who they consider to have committed genocide against them. Neither wants to have to rely on Iran (once again) as a counterbalance to Russia. Oh, and of course, Iran had its own sphere-of-influence arrangements with the Soviets as well.

Though Turkey and Iran are historic competitors, Turkey has broken with NATO countries recently by hosting President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad on a working visit. As the rest of NATO was preoccupied with the Russian aggression in Georgia, Turkey legitimized the Iranian leader amidst chants in Istanbul of "death to Israel, death to America."

A few days later, Turkey played host to Sudan's Omar al-Bashir, who is accused of genocide by the rest of NATO -- but not by Russia or Iran, or by the Muslim-majority countries who usually claim to care so much about Muslim lives.

Where is Turkey headed? Turkish officials say they are using their trust-based relations with various sides to act as a mediator between various parties in the region: the U.S. and Iran; Israel and Syria; Pakistan and Afghanistan, etc. It may be so. But as more American ships steam toward the Black Sea, a time for choosing has arrived.

Will Turkey Abandon NATO?

[Shammu]

Russia and the New Axis of Evil
By ARTHUR HERMAN
August 29, 2008

With Russian tanks now presiding over the dismemberment of the Republic of Georgia, can a lame-duck Bush administration -- weary from its long drubbing by critics over Iraq and eyeing the exit door -- rise to the challenge Russia has chosen to pose to the Free World?

To understand the nature of this challenge, consider that the distance between Baghdad and Tbilisi is barely 578 miles, less than the distance between New York City and Chicago. Iraq and Georgia, both of which have democratic governments, are sandwiched between Iran and Russia, two of the most authoritarian governments in the world. Russia has been collaborating with Iran to strengthen the latter's nuclear program and its military. It is also steadily arming Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chávez.

Russia's invasion of Georgia came exactly one month after Iran test-fired its Shahab III intermediate ballistic missile in order to intimidate neighbors like Israel and Iraq, and two weeks after Mr. Chávez traveled to Moscow to formalize a "Strategic Alliance" with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and President Dmitry Medvedev. Meanwhile, Iran's proxies remain the principal threat to peace in Iraq -- while on the other side of the world, evidence mounts of Mr. Chávez's links to the terrorist group FARC, which threatens neighboring Colombia.

Coincidence? Iraq, Georgia and Colombia are battlegrounds in a new kind of international conflict that will define our geopolitical future. This conflict pits the U.S. and the West against an emerging axis of oil-rich dictatorships who are working together to push back against the liberalizing trends of globalization. One of their prime objectives is toppling or undermining neighboring, pro-Western democracies.

The term "axis" has been overused in recent years, and in misleading contexts. But Russia, Iran and Venezuela are acting very much as Japan, Italy and Germany did in the 1930s, when each took advantage of each other's aggressive moves to extend their own regional power at the expense of liberal democracy -- and, as a result, propelling the world to the brink of war.

The chessboard of traditional competitive geopolitics is back with a vengeance. Russia is the principal source for Iran's nuclear weapons program as well as the principal obstacle to international sanctions. Between them, Mr. Putin and Tehran's mullahs clearly aim to control access to every major source of fossil energy from the western end of the Persian Gulf to the Caspian Sea. The third player in this new axis, Venezuela's President Chávez, hopes for an oil and natural gas monopoly over the natural resources of neighbors like pro-Chávez satellites Bolivia and Ecuador.

All three dictatorships are flush with cash thanks to rising oil prices; all three are bent on regional domination. All three openly celebrate a model of government that is authoritarian and monolithic in opposition to Western pluralism, market-oriented economies and representative democracy. All three run economies built on mafia-style crony capitalism. All three denounce U.S. "imperialism," and evidently hope that the 2008 election will help to bolster their geopolitical plans.

And all three see themselves as natural allies. Since 2004, Mr. Chávez has steadily strengthened his strategic and economic ties to Tehran. Last year he joined with Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to push OPEC to cut production and boost oil prices. In addition to his Allianz Estrategica with Mr. Putin, Mr. Chávez was the one international leader who publicly praised Russia's invasion of Georgia.

Finally, all three members of this axis see the emergence of pro-American, Western-oriented governments on their borders as mortal threats and are determined to hit back. In Russia's case, this means direct military force against Georgia. Iran has used its terrorist proxies to sow chaos in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. Mr. Chávez wages a proxy war against Colombia through the terrorists of FARC.

What can the U.S. and a new president do? Despite Russia's nuclear arsenal, none of these states poses a military threat comparable to the Cold War Soviet Union, or even the Axis powers in the 1930s. For all their bluff and bluster, Russia, Iran and Venezuela have a relatively tenuous position in the world; for all their oil wealth their economies remain weak and unstable.

A broad strategy of targeted economic sanctions and multilateral diplomacy, backed by U.S. military power -- together with a determined effort to push down oil prices by expanding supply and strengthening the dollar -- can introduce a note of sober realism to the strategy of this new axis, and force them to realize how limited and vulnerable their source of money and power really is.

However, the most important strategy right now is to secure democracy's vital new flanks -- Iraq, Georgia and Colombia. By shoring up and strengthening, rather than abandoning all three governments, the U.S. will send a clear signal that liberty, not tyranny, is the wave of the globalizing future.

Russia and the New Axis of Evil

[Shammu]

Americans Approve Military Strike on Iran if Diplomacy Fails

Published: August 28, 2008

The drums of war are beating louder, amplified by Iran's pursuit of its nuclear agenda and the West and Israel's determination not to let it do so. Continuing rhetoric by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about "wiping Israel off the map" does little to help. Meanwhile, the U.S. administration wants to see Tehran's uranium enrichment issue resolved before January 2009, when the next administration is sworn in. The clock is ticking.

As late as Wednesday U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney repeated what President George W. Bush has said numerous times: "All option remain on the table." Meaning, military intervention remains a possibility.

As the U.S. presidential elections heads into the final stretch, rarely has foreign policy occupied such a prominent role in American politics.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel and Iran were consistent topics of debate for the candidates and of worry for the voters; as is terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East.

Despite the number of growing problems at home -- unemployment, the rising cost of health care, gasoline prices that have more than tripled, a housing crisis brought about by the sub-prime mortgage fiasco -- an unusually high segment of the American electorate remain just as concerned by developments overseas.

A new poll release Thursday finds that 63 percent of U.S. voters are in favor of military action against Iran if diplomacy fails. And 87 percent believe that if Iran were to develop nuclear weapons, it would pose a direct threat to the security of the United States; 85 percent of Democrats and 97 percent of Republicans believe Iran represents a serious threat to them.

However, 62 percent think there is still hope for diplomacy, although 90 percent fear that the Islamic Republic would share its nuclear technology with terrorist organizations.

According to the same poll, 81 percent of respondents are in favor of the international community sharing the burden of trying to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. And if military intervention became a reality, 55 percent would approve of the United States and its allies carrying out "targeted strikes" against Iran's nuclear facilities.

Another 63 percent think that Israel should target Iran if it fails to listen to abide by the international community's request.

As for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, 69 percent say the United States should support Israel, while only a meager 6 percent say the U.S. should support the Palestinians.

The bi-partisan poll, conducted by telephone between July 23-27 by Neil Newhouse of Public Opinion Strategies and Stan Greenberg of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research surveyed 800 U.S. voters.

A total of 91 percent of American voters agree Iran poses a threat to Israel; the numbers jump even higher -- to 96 percent -- when respondents were asked whether a nuclear-armed Iran poses a threat to Israel.

"The nuclear clock is ticking faster than the diplomatic clock and time is running out," said Jennifer Lazlo Mizrahi, president of The Israel Project, who commissioned the poll.

Americans Approve Military Strike on Iran if Diplomacy Fails
~~~~~~~~~

I do believe this is pretty much, a green light to Israel.

[Shammu]

EU sanctions would be 'grave mistake,' Russia says

RENATA GOLDIROVA

29.08.2008 @ 09:25 CET

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - As the European Union considers imposing sanctions against Russia over its recognition of independence for Georgia's rebel regions, Moscow has said that any punitive measures would be a "grave mistake," harming the 27-nation bloc as much as Russia itself.

"First of all, I highly doubt that [sanctions] might ever happen, but hypothetically speaking, this would be to the detriment of the European Union as much, if not more, than to Russia," Russia's ambassador to the EU Vladimir Chizhov said on Thursday (28 August).

The comment comes shortly ahead of an emergency EU summit scheduled for 1 September in order to reassess the union's ties with Moscow in the face of its actions in the South Caucasus.

France, the current EU president, has warned that "sanctions are being considered and many other means as well" - words that were quickly denounced by Russia's foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, who said the idea showed the workings of a "sick imagination."

In practice, just a few countries - mainly the UK, Sweden, Poland and three Baltic EU states - are pushing for a tough line against Russia.

Even if achieved, punitive measures could be limited to no more than suspension of visa-free travel talks or postponement of negotiations on a new EU-Russia treaty, currently scheduled for 16 September, EU diplomats said.

"I can only express the wish that European leaders will be able to rise above the emotions of the day and consider seriously and without prejudice the perspectives of strategic partnership with their important partner, the Russian Federation," ambassador Chizhov told journalists in Brussels.

"We need the new agreement as much as the EU does - not less, not more," he concluded.

The French EU presidency itself will not table punitive measures, while Germany - which is heavily reliant on Russian oil and gas - also has little appetite for punishing Moscow.

"We are strongly committed to keeping open channels to Russia. We have to look at who will be hurt by sanctions, what will be the costs and benefits," one senior German official was cited as saying by the Financial Times.

German Socialist MEP Martin Schulz told Financial Times Deutschland: "[Sanctions] would play into the hands of radical elements in Moscow, who want an escalation of the conflict."

An isolated Russia?

Meanwhile, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin - widely seen as the man driving Kremlin policy - has accused Washington of playing a role in the current conflict in Georgia to benefit one of the US presidential candidates.

"The suspicion arises that someone in the United States especially created this conflict with the aim of making the situation more tense and creating a competitive advantage for one of the candidates fighting for the post of US president," Mr Putin said in a CNN interview on Thursday (28 August).

He explained that US citizens had been present in the area during hostilities, following direct orders from Washington, which also trained and supplied the Georgian army.

The White House dismissed the allegations by describing them as "not rational" and "patently false."

Another round of verbal attacks took place at the United Nations last night (28 August), with Russian ambassador Vitaly Churkin accusing the US of hypocrisy. He cited the US-led invasion of Iraq and Kosovo's unilateral secession from Serbia, backed by major Western powers, as examples.

"I would like to ask the distinguished representative of the United States [about] weapons of mass destruction. Have you found them yet in Iraq or are you still looking for them?" Mr Churkin said, according to Reuters.

So far, no country has followed Russia in recognising South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states, although Moscow's Ambassador to the EU, Vladimir Chizhov, said he expected a "number of countries" to do so, with Belarus suggesting it may take the step before the weekend.

Virtual integrity

Mr Chizhov referred to Georgia's territorial integrity as a "virtual concept" rather than reality, even arguing that Russia's moves are justified under the peace plan brokered two weeks ago by French leader Nicolas Sarkozy - a deal seen as too vague and too Russia-friendly.

"Let me refer to the six-point plan of Presidents Medvedev and Sarkozy, which does not include a reference of territorial integrity and it's not a mistake ... it was deliberate I would say," the Russian diplomat said.

But Russia has failed to win backing from its allies within the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, comprising China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, whose leaders limited themselves to supporting Russia's "active role in promoting peace" in the post-conflict phase.

EU sanctions would be 'grave mistake,' Russia says

[Shammu]

Germany and Russia threaten EU-Ukraine relations

ANDREW RETTMAN

28.08.2008 @ 17:44 CET

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - Germany's close relations with Russia are the main obstacle to signing a major EU-Ukraine treaty at the upcoming EU-Ukraine summit in France, Ukraine diplomats say, warning that failure to seal the deal will signal to Moscow that it can veto EU policy on post-Soviet states.

"There are maybe two or three countries who are strong opposers, strong sceptics," Ukrainian deputy foreign minister Konstantin Yeliseyev said in Brussels on Thursday (28 August), commenting on EU reluctance to state clearly that "the future of Ukraine lies in the European Union" in the preamble to the new treaty.

"In this regard, we count very much on the leadership of Germany, which is the engine of EU integration and a very powerful country, we count very much on their courage," he added, saying EU explanations - such as lack of formal consensus among the 27 states or public enlargement fatigue - are "not sincere."

"Some other countries like Belgium are also opposed. But Berlin is the key," another Ukraine official said, with just 12 days left to go before the summit in Evian, France. "They are telling us the chancellory is talking to the foreign ministry and so forth, but no matter what they say, the real problem is Russia."

Germany and Russia have historically close relations, with former German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder currently working to help build a new Germany-Russia gas pipeline and with the current chancellor, Angela Merkel, opposing EU diplomatic sanctions against Russia despite Russia's actions in Georgia.

The statement on EU enlargement is a deal-breaker for Ukraine, which says that if Germany's preferred wording - that the new treaty "does not prejudge future relations" - is used, it will effectively rule out any Ukraine moves toward EU accession for the next 10 to 15 years, when the pact is due to expire.

Ukraine is also pressing for NATO countries to offer it a Membership Action Plan in December, with Germany also leading opposition at NATO-level to such a move. Mr Yeliseyev warned that lack of a clear political commitment by the West to Ukraine will be seen by Moscow as a green light to expand influence in the east.

"If the [EU-Ukraine] summit is not successful ... it will send encouragement to Russia that it can influence EU policy and EU strategy," he said. "If NATO members don't take this decision, it will show Russia that by using force, they can influence the process of enlargement and obtain a kind of domination of the post-Soviet states."

The deputy minister underlined that Ukraine sees the EU as a guardian of economic and political stability, in contrast to NATO's hard security role. "We consider NATO as a father and the EU as a mother. With a father it's mostly physical protection, security protection. With a mother it is mostly economic protection," he said.

Mr Yeliseyev explained that the Russia-Georgia war has raised security concerns in Ukraine due to the situation in Crimea, where 60 percent of inhabitants are ethnically Russian and where Russia keeps its Black Sea fleet, which was used against Georgia, making Ukraine a "third party to this conflict."

"If Ukrainian security detorirated, it would not be a Georgia scenario, it would be a more dangerous scenario," he said, with the 50 million-strong, former nuclear power currently controlling most of Russia's natural gas exports to the EU.

Germany and Russia threaten EU-Ukraine relations

[nChrist]

It will be Israel that has to take them down and they know it. I have a feeling George is not going to do anything about Iran. If anything, we will just support Israel because we know it has to be done and SOON.

Israel has also shown by their attacks on past facilities in Syria and Iraq.......... That they put their money where their mouth is. It's not a matter of if, but when.

Things like this should not have been allowed to progress this far. The entire world sat back and did almost nothing while ImAnutJob made regular threats to wipe Israel off the map. I think there is much more working in the background than any of us imagine. The UN didn't even try, so what's left to do? It boils down to being forced into a showdown. We all know it's coming because the Bible says it will. The world is evil and insane, so all we can really do is pray and trust that our leaders will do something appropriate. I won't be holding my breath for that, so I think it's more realistic that Israel removes the threat. What other choice do they have? It's always time to pray for Israel.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Favorite Bible Quotes 74 - 1 Peter 4:13 But rejoice, inasmuch as ye
are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be
revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.

[Soldier4Christ]

Things like this should not have been allowed to progress this far.

I have a feeling George is not going to do anything about Iran.

I agree that something should have been done a long time ago. President Bush is not going to take the chance of being considered to be the one that took the first military action on this. He is waiting for ImAnutJob or Israel to do so before he jumps in. However he is setting things up to be able to take defensive action so that when ImAnutJob does do something and if it happens before he gets out of office to be able to stop such action before any real damage is done to anyone. This is the reason for all of the missile defense systems that he is getting placed into the area.

[Soldier4Christ]

Muslim factions combine against U.S.
Strategic implications could affect entire Middle East

A new agreement has been signed uniting competing Muslim factions in Lebanon against the United States and its influence, according to a report from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

The agreement involves the Shiite Hezbollah and some Sunni Salafist groups and is the latest indicator of of Shiites and Sunnis coming together when it is in their respective interests to do so. It is known that Hezbollah and the Sunni terrorist group al-Qaida have had past operational activities in Lebanon, although concern in recent months suggest the two are at odds over influence in the country with Muslims.

The six-point memorandum of understanding was met with initial resistance by some Salafi elements. Indeed, it neither reflects Salafists everywhere, especially in Saudi Arabia, nor does it represent the more fundamentalist Wahhabi Muslim Brotherhood.

However, its signing reflects a strategic effort to unite Shiites and Sunnis that could have regional implications. In addition, it demonstrates an effort by Iran, which backs Hezbollah, to tie more closely with such Sunni groups as Hamas and Islamic Jihad that for years have been funded by Iran.

The agreement:

    * Condemns any Islamic group that assaults another.
    * Abandons incitement, which creates trouble and will allow the enemies to take advantage of the situation.
    * Confronts the American agenda, which creates division.
    * Firmly supports Hezbollah and the Salafist movement if any internal or external parties act unfairly.
    * Forms a religious committee to discuss any disagreements between the Shiites and the Sunnis.
    * Calls for respect for each others' opinions.

The agreement also indicates a possible connection of Hezbollah with the Fatah al-Islam, which has the backing of Syria, a close ally of Iran and Hezbollah supporter. Fatah al-Islam not only is loosely associated with al-Qaida but al-Qaida is derived from Salafism.

Hezbollah reportedly has recruited some 15 Salafist groups in Lebanon to form a Salafist camp allied with Iran and Syria.

However, not all Salafists are pleased with the agreement, reflecting a possible split among them.

One such group is the al-Mustaqbal, or Future Movement, led by Saad al-Hariri, whose most ideological allies are the Salafist forces in Tripoli north of Beirut. Saad al-Hariri is the son of the late former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri who was killed in a February 2005 car bomb attack in Beirut.

In May 2008, Hezbollah took over the al-Mustaqbal offices in Beirut, resulting in a fundamental change in the Lebanese government that increased Hezbollah's cabinet positions and led to a much sought-after veto over government decisions.

However, that settlement, known as the Doha agreement, left unresolved the continued arming of Hezbollah while other elements in Lebanon, particularly the al-Mustaqbal, allegedly had no weapons.

[Shammu]

Ambitious Turkey makes first major move for Africa’s heart

By JOHN MAKENI  (email the author)
Posted Saturday, August 30 2008 at 17:37

With Africa attracting growing interest among leading and emerging economic powers, Turkey has become the latest country to seek a strategic relationship with the continent.

Mid this month, Turkey hosted the first Turkey-Africa Cooperation Summit, attended by 50 heads of state and governments in Istanbul. Vice-president Kalonzo Musyoka represented Kenya at the three-day summit.

Other economic powers that have similarly sought to engage African countries as a bloc are Europe through the annual EU-Africa Summit, Japan through the Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD), and China.

In his opening remarks at the Ciragan Palace, Kempinski in Istanbul on August 18, Turkey’s President Abdullah Gul cited its long history of contact with Africa from the days of the Ottoman empire.

“Turkey has traditionally maintained good relations with the African continent. The Ottoman empire had contacts with the continent over a vast geography stretching from East and Central Africa to Zanzibar of today’s Tanzania,” said President Gul.

At the Turkish-African Civil Society Organisations Forum two days earlier, Ambassador Murat Bilhan, vice-chairman of the Turkish Asian Centre for Strategic Studies (TASAM), said Turkey contributed to Africa’s struggle for independence.

TASAM hosted the forum which drew 90 civil society organisations from 45 African countries, 85 others from Turkey and representatives from the African Union.

In 1960, Turkey established diplomatic ties with all the newly independent countries in Africa and now it has 12 embassies and over 20 honorary consulates. During the summit President Gul said his country plans to open 15 new embassies.

The change of attitude which has seen Africans increasingly taking their destiny on their own hands has not escaped the attention of Turkey either.

“The founding of the African Union and the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) are encouraging signs of new thinking, which the developed countries should recognise and respond to.

"If we acknowledge Africa’s true nature and rich diversity, we will be in a position to effectively support developments on the continent in collaboration with Africans themselves,” said President Gul.

“Africa and Turkey note with great concern that while some countries have reaped the benefits of globalisation, most African countries remain marginalised within the globalising world economy.”

But if President Gul tried his best to couch his country’s renewed interest in the continent in diplomatic language, it wasn’t lost on delegates attending the civil society forum what Turkey’s real intentions are.

Tom Wheeler, research associate at the South African Institute of International Affairs, noted that Turkey was rapidly developing its industrial economy and its exports and therefore needed the resources Africa can provide. Africa, he said, can be a useful export market for Turkey’s manufacturers.

“The Turks have seen Japan, China, India, the European Union, not to mention the US, becoming more involved in Africa, and as a neighbour of the African continent, they decided that they needed to be there too,” said Wheeler.

Edwin Barasa, the director of programmes at Africa Peace Forum, said Turkey appeared genuine in its quest to do business with Africa.

“Turkey is an emerging economic force having developed the mining, energy and production industry and as such will most likely want to bend the balance of trade to its favour so as to reap maximum benefit,” said Mr Barasa.

Experts also believe Turkey is trying to woo Africa to achieve its ambitions at the UN.

“Undoubtedly, their ambition to win a non-permanent Security Council seat must come into equation. A bloc of 53 votes, if it can get that support, is a quarter of all votes. I am sure competing candidates will also be scurrying around Africa, soliciting support,” said Wheeler.

However, Turkey’s apparent preference for the so-called non-interference policy in its dealings with Africa did not go down well with the civil society people from the continent.

Ambassador Bilhan said while establishing ties with Africa, Turkey wants to steer clear of internal affairs of African countries.

China has been widely criticised by Western governments and human rights groups for adopting a similar policy, although such hostility does not seem to have significantly affected the Asian power’s bilateral relations with many African countries.

Notably, China continues to enjoy oil imports from Sudan despite calls by the international community that that it put pressure the Sudanese government to stop the crisis in Darfur.

Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir was recently indicted by the Internal Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Some delegates at the civil society forum also felt that the Turkey might not have understood Africa well enough to be able to offer solutions to its problems.

Rinos Simbulo, a civil society activist from Zambia, warned the panel not to indulge in rhetoric, saying that the African problem can be solved right from the grassroots and not in a conference room.

Real problems

Most delegates were of the view that other development partners had failed because they sought to safeguard their own interests instead of understanding the real problems afflicting Africa.

Many Western countries, they said, still believe that aid is a major panacea to the continent’s woes.

Every year, for instance, Britain and the US commit billions of dollars in aid to social programmes in Africa such as HIV/Aids campaigns, rural development and education, with little to show for it.

The structural adjustment programmes (SAPs) of the 1990s implemented by development agencies such as the World Bankwere cited as another example of failed donor policies.

Many African countries have yet to even benefit from the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) signed into law in 2000 to offer incentives to African countries to build free markets.

Still, international relations experts believe Turkey’s strategic location and being closer to the African continent makes it a suitable partner for Africa.

“But as we saw at the forum, they still have a lot to learn about Africa, not least that they should not preach to Africans,” said Mr Wheeler.

Ambitious Turkey makes first major move for Africa’s heart