Craig's Corner a member of The Tribulation Network.

September 11, 2007

THREE DAY WAR

ON IRAN?

Compiled by Craig Fain

Comments Included

Introduction by Doug Krieger

News coming out of both the Middle East and the US portends a most caustic scenario—one that casual observers into Middle East kaleidoscopes recognize . . . indeed, certain “configurations” connote imminent confrontation, and this time, on a massive scale.

The montage of articles coagulated by Craig Fain are not designed to scare the livin’ daylights out of you—their express purpose is for you to understand the times in which we live and that you, if you’re a believer, had better get seriously ready to testify in the midst of Babylon; furthermore, a little practice about now wouldn’t hurt either!

Prior to the Antichrist—and his “manifestation” will be most subtlety disclosed over the final days prior to his signature upon that dastardly document known as “Your Treaty-Covenant with Death, your Agreement with Hell-Sheol”—the “end of the war” (viz., the Syrophenician War No. 7 or the Arab-Israeli Conflict, now approaching its “seventieth stage”) will take place. It is known as the ORACLE OF DAMASCUS, the BURDEN OF DAMASCUS and is prophesied in Zechariah 9 and Isaiah 17. (See also: Isaiah 28:15, 18 and Daniel 9:26b)

This final phase of the Arab-Israeli Conflict will result in the exhaustion of secular Zionism, the complete destruction of Damascus, Syria (which the Bible forecasts will “become a ruinous heap”), and the miraculous spiritual revival of those nations immediately surrounding Israel following the disaster—they shall turn to the Lord! (Isaiah 17:4-8)

The “constellation of nations” involved in this calamity are clearly delineated in prophetic Scriptures, and their configurations are a prelude to those conglomerates which shall shortly evolve within the Seventieth Week of Daniel in preparation for the Gog-Magog War.

These latter-day “nations” or “peoples” opposed to Israel during the final Arab-Israeli Conflict which we have entitled, the Syrophenician War (#7 since 1948) include:

SYRIA – Zechariah 9:1-2a; Isaiah 17:1- (a.k.a. “Hamath” – the Syrian Baathists)

LEBANON – Zechariah 9:1b-4 (a.k.a. Tyre and Sidon – Hezbollah)

GAZA – Zechariah 9:5-7 (a.k.a. Ashkelon, Gaza itself, Ekron, Ashdod, and in sum, the Philistines - Hamas)

PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY – Isaiah 17:3a (a.k.a. Stronghold of Ephraim)

Again, this is NOT the Gog-Magog War (Ezekiel 38:1-39:16) but the “end of the war” (Daniel 9:26b) and prior to the signing of the comprehensive “peace accord” between the revelation of the Antichrist and “the many” (Daniel 9:27 - the majority of Israeli citizens).

Iran’s involvement in this final conflict prior to the Seventieth Week of Daniel’s prophecy (Daniel 9:24-27) is NOT ambiguous. She’s embodied and emboldened by the “Prince of Persia” (Daniel 10:13, 20).

It is shortly after, and into the Seventieth Week of Daniel, when Israel’s security is seemingly underwritten by the “Prince of the Covenant” (Daniel 11:22) and she dwells in “unwalled villages” (i.e., the infamous “WALL” is torn down via the “peace accord” wherein Israel’s security is underwritten by the Antichrist—Ezekiel 38:8-12)—though his full manifestation as such is not recognizable until the manifestation of the BEAST, half-way through the Seventieth Week of Daniel (cf. II Thessalonians 2:1-12; Revelation 11:7; 12:7-9, 12-13, 17; 13:1-7).

The question abides – will an immediate war on Iran—now suggested to be a takeout of thousands of Iranian targets, virtually the entire Iranian military obliterated, along with her nuclear program – all by the USA—commence this process? Undoubtedly, Syrian, based upon her alliances with Iran, would immediately trigger the conflict to the Eastern Mediterranean Theater.

Indeed, Persia/Iran is Biblically poised to descend, as the King of the North, upon Israel in the Latter Days – but how “Latter” is in question? Her involvement seems predictable in BOTH conflicts – but the lion’s share of the hostilities will be galvanized around Syria, her allies juxtaposed over and against Israel proper.

Hence, the Gog-Magog conflict, involving Turkey, Iran, Egypt, Libya and Sudan, against the West (the Ships of Tarsish) and her Arab allies (Iraq, by her omission from the radicalized Moslem states; Jordan (ancient Ammon and Moab); and, the nations of the Saudi Arabian Peninsula (ancient Sheba and Dedan) (please see Ezekiel 38:1-13; Daniel 11:40-43) takes place after the signing of the infamous Treaty.

Russian and Chinese engagement with Antichrist do not take place until after this “second conflict,” leading to the final Battle of Armageddon which appears in Daniel 11:44-45 and in Ezekiel 39:17-20 and, finally Revelation 19:17-21; 16:16) – it occurs immediately after the rapture of the Two Witnesses in Revelation 11:11-12 (i.e., AFTER the conclusion of Daniel’s Seventieth Week), whereupon the “Wrath of the Lamb” is poured out upon those “who destroy the earth,” leading to Armageddon wherein there is an horrific struggle between Antichrist of the West and the Kings of the East, all over Israel proper.

Hence, all of these most recent developments are NOT peripheral in the sum total of prophetic import—we, very possibly, could be awaiting the ORACLE OF DAMASCUS with Persian participation, triggered by the USA and the THREE-DAY WAR ON IRAN!

The Next War?

Arnaud de Borchgrave

(September 3, 2007)

BERN, Switzerland

After a brief interruption of his New Hampshire vacation to meet President Bush in the family compound at Kennebunkport, Maine, French President Nicolas Sarkozy came away convinced his U.S. counterpart is serious about bombing Iran’s secret nuclear facilities. That’s the reading as it filtered back to Europe’s foreign ministries:

Addressing the annual meeting of France’s ambassadors to 188 countries, Mr. Sarkozy said either Iran lives up to its international obligations and relinquishes its nuclear ambitions — or it will be bombed into compliance. Mr. Sarkozy also made it clear he did not agree with the Iranian-bomb-or-bombing-of-Iran position, which reflects the pledge of Mr. Bush to his loyalists, endorsed by Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut Independent. But Mr. Sarkozy recognized unless Iran’s theocrats stop enriching uranium to weapons-grade levels under inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), we will all be “faced with an alternative that I call catastrophic.”

A ranking Swiss official privately said, “Anyone with a modicum of experience in the Middle East knows that any bombing of Iran would touch off at the very least regional instability and what could be an unmitigated disaster for Western interests.”

Leaks about the administration’s plan to brand Iran’s 125,000-strong Revolutionary Guards a global terrorist organization is widely interpreted as a major step on the escalator to military action. Belatedly, Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil producer, has signed a contract with Lockheed Martin for the training of 35,000 elite guards to be assigned to protect the kingdom’s widely scattered oil installations. With 25 percent of the world’s oil reserves, Riyadh has earmarked $5 billion to train and field as soon as possible a high-tech force. Eighteen months ago, the desert kingdom was jolted by an al Qaeda terrorist squad that managed to penetrate the first two layers of defenses at Abqaiq, the nerve center of the entire oil infrastructure.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has now stated publicly his country holds the key to the conditions of a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq . Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of Iraq , much criticized by the United States for his lack of leadership, and who has been deserted by half his Cabinet, is much praised in Tehran, where he has gone twice in 11 months to confer with Iranian leaders. Mr. Ahmadinejad also says Iran is ready to fill the power vacuum in Iraq following a U.S. withdrawal. “The political power of the occupiers is collapsing rapidly,” he said, “and soon we will see a huge power vacuum in the region.”

The United States is not alone in trying to prove Mr. Ahmadinejad's geopolitical weather forecast wrong. Saudi Arabia and its five Gulf Cooperation Council allies in the Gulf, Egypt and Jordan, are terrified at the idea of Iraq falling under Iranian domination.

Hoping to head off a U.S.-Iran military confrontation, European countries are still pinning their hopes on major Iranian concessions at the International Atomic Energy Commission in Vienna. Iran is back to cooperating with IAEA — but only one comma or semicolon at a time. The three European Union countries acting as U.S. surrogates on nuclear matters with Iran, and IAEA chief Mohamed El Baradei, detect progress where the U.S. sees only stalling. Iran is still resisting short-notice inspections of sites that are not officially declared nuclear facilities, and where secret nuclear work is believed to be taking place.

Tehran’s only objective at the IAEA and the U.N. Security Council is to head off further economic sanctions from its major EU trading partners. Thus the mantra that its only interest in nuclear matters is as an alternative source of energy in a country already awash in oil taxes credulity.

Both the Bush administration and Israel are painstakingly fashioning a casus belli with Iran. For Israel, the training and weapons support Iran furnishes Hezbollah in Lebanon (now with more rockets of all kinds than it had before the 2006 war when it fired 4,000 into Israel) and Hamas in Gaza (now equipped with Katyusha rockets and a range of 10.6 miles), coupled with Mr. Ahmadinejad’s existential threats against the Jewish state, are sufficient evidence to justify air attacks against Iran’s nuclear facilities. And for the White House, there is daily evidence of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards meddling in Iraq, from improved explosive devices made in Iran to behind-the-scenes dominance in the affairs of the oil-rich south.

Arnaud de Borchgrave is editor at large of The Washington Times and of United Press International.

10 Indications that the U.S. is

Planning Military Action Against Iran

Omid Memarian

(New American Media – Sept. 2, 2007)

Editor’s note:

The Bush administration appears to have rejected the Baker-Hamilton Commission’s recommendations for a diplomatic offensive towards Iran. Instead, key indicators suggest that Bush is preparing to expand the war on terror by attacking Iran . . . writes Omid Memarian. Memarian is an Iranian journalist and blogger and Peace Fellow at the UC Berkeley, Graduate School of Journalism.

The United States is headed toward a serious confrontation with the Iran’s hardliner government. The administration is positioning itself for battle by shifting the focus of its dispute from Iran’s nuclear program to winning the “War on Terror.” What may ignite the fire is the possible labeling of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a ‘terrorist group’ by U.S. officials.

Despite all its challenges in stabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. has its eye on Iran: It has tried to mobilize Iranian opposition, pressure the UN Security Council members to adopt economic sanctions against Iran, marginalize Iran in the region by inflaming/exacerbating the anti-Iranian sentiment, expand its military presence in the Persian Gulf, and encourage an arms race in the region. And, of course, the only way to seal a grand bargain with Iran for this administration is through military action versus diplomatic negotiation.

There are 10 indications that the U.S. is planning to pursue military action against Iran:

1. Ignoring Iran’s proposed ‘Grand Bargain’ of 2003: Prior to Ahmadinejad’s presidency – when the reformist, pro-West, moderate president, Mohammad Khatami was in power - the Iranian government sent a secret letter through the Swiss Embassy, proposing various compromises from stalling nuclear developments to stopping support for Hamas and Hezbollah. The Bush administration refused the offer, which undermined the moderate government in Iran and led to the emergence of fundamentalists in

Tehran. The U.S. seemed to have a different plan for Iran, which did not call for diplomatic negotiations.

2. Allocating 75 million dollars for ‘promoting Democracy in Iran’: Although this move seems to favor democracy, many Iranians in Iran and abroad believe that this policy is designed to create social and political unrest rather than to promote democratic movements. It has actually done more harm than good; it has become an excuse for the hardliners to target activists and suppress civil movements by accusing them of operating with western ‘dirty money.’ The money has never gone to any Iranian institutes, press, civil society organizations or NGOs inside the country. Rather it has been distributed to opposition groups who are not even connected with the current society in Iran.

3. Supporting terrorist groups like ‘Jondollah’ in Iran’s Eastern Provinces: The U.S. is supporting ‘Jondollah’, a group who is notorious among Iranians worldwide, for being a terrorist organization. They have been successful in destabilizing Iran’s Eastern provinces, hence weakening the government’s central authority. The U.S. support of Jondollah was uncovered by the media, and this information has further ruined the U.S.’s reputation - even among critics of Ahmadinejad’s government.

4. Supporting opposition groups in Northern Iraq: The administration is supporting armed opposition groups such as the PJAK in northern Iraq. These groups claim that they are fighting for federalism and disintegration of Iran’s Kurdish provinces. However, these groups have no legitimacy among the Kurdish population, let alone the Iranian people.

5. Gathering international community support against Iran: The U.S. has mobilized the EU countries, and even China and Russia, to isolate Iran by cutting their economic ties with governmental and private companies. Additionally, two recent sanctions by the United Nations Security Council against Iran have applied further economic pressure on the Islamic government.

6. Stationing three aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf: Three U.S. aircraft carriers have been stationed in the Persian Gulf in the last year: the Nimitz, a nuclear-powered carrier, John C. Stennis Strike Group, and Dwight D. Eisenhower, a relief carrier. Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 this is the strongest U.S. military presence in the region in terms of scale, number, or advanced technology.

7. Inviting Iran’s neighbor to an arms race: The U.S. proposed a $20 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia, followed by a promise to provide $30 billion worth of arms to Israel. Ehud Olmert, Israel’s prime minister, confirmed this arms deal by stating, “We understand the need of the United States to support the Arab moderate states, and there is a need for a united front between the U.S. and us regarding Iran.”

8. Shifting of the U.S. foreign policy doctrine: The administration is shifting its problem with Iran from a ‘nuclear issue’ to one of ‘War on Terror.’ Therefore, regardless of the results of Iran-EU negotiations, Iran will be accused of terror activities in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine or any country U.S. is facing opposition in. While the international community is very reluctant to let the U.S. confront Iran because of its nuclear program, the administration feels free to confront Iran using the country’s alleged support of terrorism in the Middle East.

9. Labeling the Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) a ‘Terrorist Organization’: U.S. officials have announced that the administration is going to declare that the IRGC, is a terrorist group. The IRGC is a part of Iran’s army and in labeling them a terrorist organization, the U.S. is labeling the entire government a terrorist state. Hence paving the way to declare any form of military action against them in the name of the “War on Terror.”

10. Political frustration and the 2008 election: For many neo-cons in Washington, a new war, even an air strike, would divert the attention from U.S. failure in Iraq. It would boost their support, as many Americans opt for maintaining status quo in the middle of war.

The Bush administration follows a rule that has succeeded in numerous occasions: Make a story you want people to believe, repeat the message over and over, feed the media so they can beat Americans over the head with the info, and eventually everyone will believe it. It worked with WMD in Iraq, and now it seems to be Iran’s turn - the Islamic government is the root of all evil, from nuclear proliferation to supporting insurgents who are killing the U.S. soldiers. The administration seems to have its story set, true or not, and is enforcing its own conclusion – despite the dire consequences.

SYRIA: AIR DEFENSES FIRED AT ISRAELI AIRCRAFT OVER OUR AIRSPACE

AP, JPOST.COM STAFF AND YAAKOV KATZ

Syrian air defenses opened fire on Israeli aircraft that violated Syrian airspace overnight Thursday, a Syrian military spokesman said.

The Israelis broke the sound barrier and “dropped ammunition” over deserted areas of northern Syria overnight, the spokesman was quoted by the official Syrian Arab News Agency.

“We warn the Israeli enemy government against this flagrant aggressive act, and retain the right to respond in an appropriate way,” the Syrian spokesman said.

It was not clear if Syria was accusing the Israelis of using warplanes or some type of other aircraft like drones.

“The Israeli enemy aircraft infiltrated into the Arab Syrian territory through the northern border, coming from the Mediterranean heading toward the eastern region, breaking the sound barrier,” the spokesman said. “Air defense units confronted them and forced them to leave after they dropped some ammunition in deserted areas without causing any human or material damage.”

The IDF (Israel Defense Forces) did not confirm the claims and said the incident was unknown to them.

Israel acknowledges flying over Lebanon routinely, but it is unclear how often its aircraft fly over Syria.

At the beginning of last summer’s war against Lebanon, Israeli warplanes buzzed the palace of Syrian President Basher Assad in what analysts called a warning to Damascus. In June of the same year, they also flew over Assad’s summer home in the coastal city of Latakia, after Syrian-backed Palestinian militants in Gaza kidnapped IDF soldier Cpl. Gilad Schalit.

SYRIA FIRES ON ISRAELI WARPLANES – By the BBC

Syria says its air defenses have opened fire on Israeli war planes which had entered Syrian airspace.

Israeli planes had “dropped ammunition” over desert areas of Syria, before being forced to leave, according to the official Syrian news agency, SANA.

Quoting a Syrian military spokesman, the official agency says the action took place “without causing human or material loss.”

The Israeli military says it is looking into the reports.

Syria and Israel have remained technically at war since the seizure of the Golan Heights in 1967.

Tensions between Israel and Syria have been rising in recent months. Both countries’ leaders have said they do not want a war, while accusing the other side of arming for a conflict.

Syria says it last fired at Israeli warplanes in June 2006, when Israeli aircraft flew over the summer residence of the Syrian president, while he was inside.

PENTAGON THREE-DAY BLITZ PLAN FOR IRAN

(The Sunday Times of London – Sarah Baxter, Washington)

(September 2, 2007)

One Washington source said the “temperature was rising” inside the administration. Bush was “sending a message to a number of audiences” he said, to the Iranians and to members of the United Nations security council who are trying to weaken a tough third resolution on sanctions against Iran for flouting a UN ban on uranium enrichment.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week reported “significant” cooperation with Iran over its nuclear program and said that uranium enrichment had slowed. Tehran has promised to answer most questions from the agency by November, but Washington fears it is stalling to prevent further sanctions. Iran continues to maintain it is merely developing civilian nuclear power.

CRAIG’S COMMENT:

Sounds like something we have heard before from the Bush Administration. This same rhetoric is what Bush and his cronies said months prior to Shock and Awe in Iraq!

The Full Article continues . . .

THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive air strikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians “military capability in three days,” according to a national security expert.

Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for ‘pinprick strikes’ against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

“They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said. Debat was speaking at a meeting organized by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: “Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same.” It was, he added, a

‘very legitimate strategic calculus.’

President George Bush intensified the rhetoric against Iran last week, accusing Tehran of putting the Middle East ‘under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust.’ He warned that the US and its allies would confront Iran ‘before it is too late.’ One Washington source said the ‘temperature was rising’ inside the administration. Bush was ‘sending a message to a number of audiences,’ he said to the Iranians and to members of the United Nations security council who are trying to weaken a tough third resolution on sanctions against Iran for flouting a UN ban on uranium enrichment.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week reported ‘significant’ cooperation with Iran over its nuclear program and said that uranium enrichment had slowed. Tehran has promised

to answer most questions from the agency by November, but Washington fears it is stalling to prevent further sanctions. Iran continues to maintain it is merely developing civilian nuclear power.

Bush is committed for now to the diplomatic route but thinks Iran is moving towards acquiring a nuclear weapon. According to one well placed source, Washington believes it would be prudent to use rapid, overwhelming force, should military action become necessary.

Israel, which has warned it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, has made its own preparations for air strikes and is said to be ready to attack if the Americans back down.

Alireza Jafarzadeh, a spokesman for the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which uncovered the existence of Iran’s’ uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, said the IAEA was being strung along.

“A number of nuclear sites have not even been visited by the IAEA,” he said. “They’re giving a clean bill of health to a regime that is known to have practiced deception.” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, irritated the Bush administration last week by vowing to fill a ‘power vacuum’ in Iraq. But Washington believes Iran is already fighting a proxy war with the Americans in Iraq.

The Institute for the Study of War last week released a report by Kimberly Kagan that explicitly uses the term ‘proxy war’ and claims that with the Sunni insurgency and Al-Qaeda in Iraq ‘increasingly

under control,’ Iranian intervention is the “next major problem the coalition must tackle.”

Bush noted that the number of attacks on US bases and troops by Iranian-supplied munitions had increased in recent months—despite pledges by Iran to help stabilize the security situation in Iraq.

It explains, in part, his lack of faith in diplomacy with the Iranians. But Debat believes the Pentagon’s plans for military action involve the use of so much force that they are unlikely to be used and would seriously stretch resources in Afghanistan and Iraq .

CRAIG INSERTS A RELATED ARTICLE FROM JERUSALEM:

MILITARY PLAN AGAINST IRAN IS READY

By Yaakov Katz, The Jerusalem Post

June 10, 2007

Predicting that Iran will obtain a nuclear weapon within three years and claiming to have a strike plan in place, senior American military officers have told The Jerusalem Post they support President George W. Bush's stance to do everything necessary to stop the Islamic Republic's race for nuclear power.

Bush has repeatedly said the United States would not allow Iran to “go nuclear.”

A high-ranking American military officer told the Post that senior officers in the US armed forces had thrown their support behind Bush and believed that additional steps needed to be taken to stop Iran.

Predictions within the US military are that Bush will do what is needed to stop Teheran before he leaves office in 2009, including possibly launching a military strike against its nuclear facilities.

On Sunday, Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut said the US should consider a military strike against Iran over its support of Iraqi insurgents.

“I think we’ve got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq,” he said. “And to me, that would include a strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers.”

According to a high-ranking American military officer, the US Navy and Air Force would play the primary roles in any military action taken against Iran. One idea under consideration is a naval blockade designed to cut off Iran’s oil exports.

The officer said that if the US government or the UN Security Council decided on this course of action, the US Navy would most probably not block the Strait of Hormuz - a step that would definitely draw an Iranian military response - but would patrol farther out and turn away tankers on their way to load oil.

On Sunday, the Israel Air Force held joint exercises with visiting US pilots, but IDF sources dismissed speculation that the drills were connected to an attack on Iran.

The US officer said that perhaps even more dangerous to Israel and the Western world than Iranian nukes was the possibility that a terrorist’s cell associated with al-Qaeda or global jihad would acquire a highly radioactive “dirty bomb” or a vial of deadly chemical or biological agents. The officer said al-Qaeda was gaining a strong foothold in the Middle East and that Israel was being surrounded by global jihad elements in Lebanon, Jordan and Sinai.

“Iran is a state-sponsored type of terrorism that can be dealt with,” he said, adding that it was far more difficult to strike at the source of an isolated terrorist cell.

To combat this threat, the US Navy has come up with a plan for a “1,000-ship navy” - a transnational network composed of navies from around the world that would raise awareness of maritime threats and more effectively thwart sea-based terrorism and the illicit transfer of arms by sea.

“The idea is to allow free trade and to prevent criminal and terror activity at sea,” the officer said.

A smaller-scale example of the US Navy's vision is NATO’s Active Endeavor antiterrorism operation based in Naples. Israel plans to send an officer to be stationed there in the coming months. NATO launched Operation Active Endeavor in wake of 9/11 and has succeeded in bringing together a number of Mediterranean countries to work together in Naples to share information on naval terrorism and suspicious vessels in the region.

CRAIG’S COMMENT: “But news from the north and east will trouble him; therefore he shall out with great fury to destroy and annihilate many” (Daniel 11:44).

US/MIDDLE EAST: “PLAN AGAINST IRAN MAY

TRIGGER ARMS RACE

Meena Janardhan

(Dubai, Aug 8, 2007 – IPS)

The new United States plan to sell arms to Saudi Arabia and other allies in the Middle East to counter growing Iranian influence could trigger an arms race and worsen instability in an already volatile region, say experts.

The arms deal, which still requires the approval of the Democrat-controlled U.S. Congress, is one of the biggest ever. It offers a package of 20 billion US dollars to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, 13 billion dollars to Egypt and 30 billion dollars to Israel over 10 years. Items include advanced fighter jets, smart bombs, computer systems and missile boats.

“It is an ill-advised strategic approach for geo-strategically containing Iran,” said Steven Wright, associate professor at Qatar University. “It is a flawed logic for Washington to see the arms sales as a means of strengthening its position against Iran and enhancing regional security.” “Selling more arms to the Gulf countries, along with Israel, will only serve to make Iran’s security concerns more acute and increase regional insecurity,” the Doha-based specialist on Gulf-US relations told IPS over e-mail. “On the

other hand, it will likely prompt Iran to devote more of its state budget towards defense expenditure.”

Supporting the anxiety about an arms race in the region are reports indicating that Russia is planning to sell 250 Sukhoi jets, including 30 of the most advanced jets it has, to Iran. Further, on Aug. 5, Iran unveiled its new fighter jet – ‘Azarakhsh’ (Lightning) -- said to be modeled on the American F-5, but using indigenous technology.

The proposed aid announcement was followed by a visit to the region by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, last week.

During the visit, Rice dismissed suggestions about shifting the military balance or starting a new arms race or the military aid to the Gulf countries being a ‘quid pro quo’ to get their assistance in Iraq. “We are working with these states to fight back extremism,” she insisted. But Iran accused the U.S. of trying to create fear and mistrust in the Middle East and aiming to destabilize the region.

A Washington Post report went a step further suggesting that “the United States and Iran are now facing off in a full-fledged cold war.” The Bush administration is trying to drape a kind of Green Curtain dividing the Middle East between Iran’s friends and foes. The new showdown may well prove to be the most enduring legacy of the Iraq conflict.”

In its Aug. 2 editorial, the Dubai-based Gulf News said: “Their (U.S.) purpose is clear: to raise the stakes in the threats against Iran primarily, but also Syria, Hezbollah and al Qaeda, the bete noire of the current US administration.”

However, it questioned why the GCC countries have to “blindly follow the wishes of the US?” Without naming the UAE, it added, “Some GCC nations have had territorial disputes with Iran “and have deliberately avoided using the military option in the belief that the issues can be resolved through talks and mediation.”

The London-based Arabic language newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi on Aug. 1 interpreted the promised military package as confirming “Washington’s abandonment of democracy in favor of preparing for war.” Questioning if the “sale of U.S. weapons to the Gulf countries in the past (acted as) a deterrent to Iran or any other country,” the paper asked: “Can the deal be a reward for the Saudi policy that is deepening the US quandary in Iraq” or “is it a blatant and theatrical motive for making relations between Riyadh and Tehran tense as part of a regional umbrella for a U.S. political and media, and probably military, escalation against Iran?”

The aid proposal also came amid U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad accusing U.S. allies, particularly Saudi Arabia, of pursuing destabilizing policies in Iraq by funding Sunni militants against the mainly Shiite government in Baghdad. “Saudi Arabia and a number of other countries are not doing all they can to help us in Iraq,” he was quoted saying last week. “At times, some of them are not only not helping, but they are doing things that are undermining the effort to make progress.”

In fact, a growing cadre of U.S. congressmen is resisting the Bush administration’s Middle East arms plan. Within five days after the proposed sale was announced on July 27, 114 members of the House, including 18 Republicans, informed President George W. Bush that they intend to vote against the plan. U.S. policies in the region during the last few years, according to Prof. Gary Sick of Columbia University, is a “marvelous example of political jiu jitsu... The United States made possible an emergent Iran by eliminating its Taliban rivals to the east and its Baathist rivals to the west and then installing a Shiite government in Baghdad for the first time in history.”

Sick told a Web-based forum of Gulf experts that, “Having inadvertently increased Iranian strength and bargaining power that frightened U.S. erstwhile Sunni allies in the region and undermined U.S. strength and credibility, Washington now proposes a new and improved regional political relationship to deal with the problem, and, incidentally, to distract attention from the U.S.’s plight in Iraq while reviving America’s position as the ultimate power in the region.”

The new U.S. policy, according to Sick, includes providing “military cover for the Arab Gulf states as they take a more confrontational position vis-à-vis Iran, which of course produces some juicy profits for the U.S. aerospace industry, but also provides a framework for getting Israeli (and U.S. congressional) acquiescence for selling some significant

new military technology to the Arabs.”

CRAIG’S COMMENT:

And finally—could this be the beginning of said arms raced and the prophecy of Daniel 11:44?

SANCTIONED SUDAN TURNS TO

CHINA, RUSSIA, IRAN AND NORTH KOREA FOR WEAPONS

(From Cairo – World Tribune, Sept. 6, 2007)

“Sudan has reported the development of unmanned aerial vehicles as part of a military modernization effort that is going forward despite U.S. sanctions.

“There are countries that are prohibited from selling weapons to Sudan,” Sudanese Defense Minister Abdul Rahim Mohammed Hussein said on Sept. 1.

Hussein said Khartoum has turned away from U.S.-origin weapons amid an embargo by Washington. He said military suppliers to Sudan now include Belarus, China, Iran, Malaysia, North Korea and Russia.

Officials have reported contracts with China and Russia for the

modernization of the Sudanese Air Force. They said both countries would supply platforms, upgrades as well as train Sudanese personnel.

Hussein said Khartoum has developed and produced UAVs for the military. Hussein said the Defense Ministry has overseen a UAV production line as part of plans to expand its indigenous defense industry and bypass any international arms embargo.

Hussein did not provide details of the new Sudanese UAVs. He said Khartoum plans to produce missiles and heavy weapons to achieve self-sufficiency in basic armaments.

Sudan has succeeded in producing general purpose bombs for combat aircraft as well as artillery shells, Hussein said. He said Khartoum intends to also produce aircraft components and platforms.

The defense minister said Sudan has acquired sufficient technology and expertise to fulfill its conventional weapons requirements. He said Khartoum has the third largest defense industry in Africa.

“We are the number three country in Africa” after Egypt and South Africa “regarding the manufacturing of military equipment,” Hussei said.

August 30

US war posturing over the last 4 to 5 months, last weeks article giving a “best guess” time frame of an attack and now this article; you would think they are trying to “hint” at something . . .

http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Study_US_preparing_massive_military_attack_0828.html

Study: US preparing 'massive' military attack against Iran

08/28/2007 @ 11:04 am

Filed by Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane

The United States has the capacity for and may be prepared to launch without warning a massive assault on Iranian uranium enrichment facilities, as well as government buildings and infrastructure, using long-range bombers and missiles, according to a new analysis.

The paper, "Considering a war with Iran: A discussion paper on WMD in the Middle East" – written by well-respected British scholar and arms expert Dr. Dan Plesch, Director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy of the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) at the University of London, and Martin Butcher, a former Director of the British American Security Information Council (BASIC) and former adviser to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament – was exclusively provided to RAW STORY late Friday under embargo.

"We wrote the report partly as we were surprised that this sort of quite elementary analysis had not been produced by the many well resourced Institutes in the United States," wrote Plesch in an email to Raw Story on Tuesday.

Plesch and Butcher examine "what the military option might involve if it were picked up off the table and put into action" and conclude that based on open source analysis and their own assessments, the US has prepared its military for a "massive" attack against Iran, requiring little contingency planning and without a ground invasion.

The study concludes that the US has made military preparations to destroy Iran’s WMD, nuclear energy, regime, armed forces, state apparatus and economic infrastructure within days if not hours of President George W. Bush giving the order. The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely. The US retains the option of avoiding war, but using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.

Any attack is likely to be on a massive multi-front scale but avoiding a ground invasion. Attacks focused on WMD facilities would leave Iran too many retaliatory options, leave President Bush open to the charge of using too little force and leave the regime intact.

US bombers and long range missiles are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours.

US ground, air and marine forces already in the Gulf, Iraq, and Afghanistan can devastate Iranian forces, the regime and the state at short notice.

Some form of low level US and possibly UK military action as well as armed popular resistance appear underway inside the Iranian provinces or ethnic areas of the Azeri, Balujistan, Kurdistan and Khuzestan. Iran was unable to prevent sabotage of its offshore-to-shore crude oil pipelines in 2005.

Nuclear weapons are ready, but most unlikely, to be used by the US, the UK and Israel. The human, political and environmental effects would be devastating, while their military value is limited.

Israel is determined to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons yet has the conventional military capability only to wound Iran’s WMD programmes.

The attitude of the UK is uncertain, with the Brown government and public opinion opposed psychologically to more war, yet, were Brown to support an attack he would probably carry a vote in Parliament. The UK is adamant that Iran must not acquire the bomb.

The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely. The US retains the option of avoiding war, but using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.

When asked why the paper seems to indicate a certainty of Iranian WMD, Plesch made clear that "our paper is not, repeat not, about what Iran actually has or not." Yet, he added that "Iran certainly has missiles and probably some chemical capability."

Most significantly, Plesch and Butcher dispute conventional wisdom that any US attack on Iran would be confined to its nuclear sites. Instead, they foresee a "full-spectrum approach," designed to either instigate an overthrow of the government or reduce Iran to the status of "a weak or failed state." Although they acknowledge potential risks and impediments that might deter the Bush administration from carrying out such a massive attack, they also emphasize that the administration's National Security Strategy includes as a major goal the elimination of Iran as a regional power. They suggest, therefore, that:

This wider form of air attack would be the most likely to delay the Iranian nuclear program for a sufficiently long period of time to meet the administration’s current counterproliferation goals. It would also be consistent with the possible goal of employing military action is to overthrow the current Iranian government, since it would severely degrade the capability of the Iranian military (in particular revolutionary guards units and other ultra-loyalists) to keep armed opposition and separatist movements under control. It would also achieve the US objective of neutralizing Iran as a power in the region for many years to come.

However, it is the option that contains the greatest risk of increased global tension and hatred of the United States. The US would have few, if any allies for such a mission beyond Israel (and possibly the UK). Once undertaken, the imperatives for success would be enormous.

Butcher says he does not believe the US would use nuclear weapons, with some exceptions.

"My opinion is that [nuclear weapons] wouldn't be used unless there was definite evidence that Iran has them too or is about to acquire them in a matter of days/weeks," notes Butcher. "However, the Natanz facility has been so hardened that to destroy it MAY require nuclear weapons, and once an attack had started it may simply be a matter of following military logic and doctrine to full extent, which would call for the use of nukes if all other means failed."

Military Strategy

The bulk of the paper is devoted to a detailed analysis of specific military strategies for such an attack, of ongoing attempts to destabilize Iran by inciting its ethnic minorities, and of the considerations surrounding the possible employment of nuclear weapons.

In particular, Plesch and Butcher examine what is known as Global Strike – the capability to project military power from the United States to anywhere in the world, which was announced by STRATCOM as having initial operational capability in December 2005. It is the that capacity that could provide strategic bombers and missiles to devastate Iran on just a few hours notice.

Iran has a weak air force and anti aircraft capability, almost all of it is 20-30 years old and it lacks modern integrated communications. Not only will these forces be rapidly destroyed by US air power, but Iranian ground and air forces will have to fight without protection from air attack.

British military sources stated on condition of anonymity, that "the US military switched its whole focus to Iran" from March 2003. It continued this focus even though it had infantry bogged down in fighting the insurgency in Iraq.

Global Strike could be combined with already-existing "regional operational plans for limited war with Iran, such as Oplan 1002-04, for an attack on the western province of Kuzhestan, or Oplan 1019 which deals with preventing Iran from closing the Straits of Hormuz, and therefore keeping open oil lanes vital to the US economy."

The Marines are not all tied down fighting in Iraq. Several Marine forces are assembling in the Gulf, each with its own aircraft carrier. These carrier forces can each conduct a version of the D-Day landings. They come with landing craft, tanks, jump-jets, thousands of troops and hundreds more cruise missiles. Their task is to destroy Iranian forces able to attack oil tankers and to secure oilfields and installations. They have trained for this mission since the Iranian revolution of 1979 as is indicated in this battle map of Hormuz illustrating an advert for combat training software.

Special Forces units – which are believed to already be operating within Iran – would be available to carry out search-and-destroy missions and incite internal uprisings, while US Army units in both Iraq and Afghanistan could mount air and missile attacks on Iranian forces, which are heavily concentrated along the Iran-Iraq border, as well as protecting their own supply lines within Iraq:

A key assessment in any war with Iran concerns Basra province and the Kuwait border. It is likely that Iran and its sympathizers could take control of population centres and interrupt oil supplies, if it was in their interest to do so. However it is unlikely that they could make any sustained effort against Kuwait or interrupt supply lines north from Kuwait to central Iraq. US firepower is simply too great for any Iranian conventional force.

Experts question the report's conclusions

Former CIA analyst and Deputy Director for Transportation Security, Antiterrorism Assistance Training, and Special Operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism, Larry Johnson, does not agree with the report’s findings.

"The report seems to accept without question that US air force and navy bombers could effectively destroy Iran and they seem to ignore the fact that US use of air power in Iraq has failed to destroy all major military, political, economic and transport capabilities," said Johnson late Monday after the embargo on the study had been lifted.

"But at least in their conclusions they still acknowledge that Iran, if attacked, would be able to retaliate. Yet they are vague in terms of detailing the extent of the damage that the Iran is capable of inflicting on the US and fairly assessing what those risks are."

There is also the situation of US soldiers in Iraq and the supply routes that would have to be protected to ensure that US forces had what they needed. Plesch explains that “"firepower is an effective means of securing supply routes during conventional war and in conventional war a higher loss rate is expected."

"However as we say do not assume that the Iraqi Shiia will rally to Tehran – the quietist Shiia tradition favoured by Sistani may regard itself as justified if imploding Iranian power can be argued to reduce US problems in Iraq, not increase them."

John Pike, Director of Global Security, a Washington-based military, intelligence, and security clearinghouse, says that the question of Iraq is the one issue at the center of any questions regarding Iran.

"The situation in Iraq is a wild card, though it may be presumed that Iran would mount attacks on the US at some remove, rather than upsetting the apple-cart in its own front yard," wrote Pike in an email.

Political Considerations

Plesch and Butcher write with concern about the political context within the United States:

This debate is bleeding over into the 2008 Presidential election, with evidence mounting that despite the public unpopularity of the war in Iraq, Iran is emerging as an issue over which Presidential candidates in both major American parties can show their strong national security bona fides. ...

The debate on how to deal with Iran is thus occurring in a political context in the US that is hard for those in Europe or the Middle East to understand. A context that may seem to some to be divorced from reality, but with the US ability to project military power across the globe, the reality of Washington DC is one that matters perhaps above all else. ...

We should not underestimate the Bush administration's ability to convince itself that an "Iran of the regions" will emerge from a post-rubble Iran. So, do not be in the least surprised if the United States attacks Iran. Timing is an open question, but it is hard to find convincing arguments that war will be avoided, or at least ones that are convincing in Washington.

Plesch and Butcher are also interested in the attitudes of the current UK government, which has carefully avoided revealing what its position might be in the case of an attack. They point out, however, "One key caution is that regardless of the realities of Iran’s programme, the British public and elite may simply refuse to participate – almost out of bloody minded revenge for the Iraq deceit."

And they conclude that even "if the attack is 'successful' and the US reasserts its global military dominance and reduces Iran to the status of an oil-rich failed state, then the risks to humanity in general and to the states of the Middle East are grave indeed."

Larisa Alexandrovna is managing editor of investigative news for Raw Story and regularly reports on intelligence and national security stories. Contact: larisa@rawstory.com

Muriel Kane is research director for Raw Story.

June 13, 2007

Wow! This is hot! Barnett nails it boys!

A few talking points before the article:

1)       Bush Admin. talking out of both sides of the mouth on Iran. Says no intentions of military action against; yet the build up of troops and naval forces are formidable in the Middle East and Persian Gulf.

2)       Bush has laid out his plans for the Middle East during his famous 2002 speech where he names Iran as one of the Axis of Evil.

3)       Bush has given Iran a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” ultimatum.

4)       Bush Admin has been laying the war cards out against Iran since 2005. It has since become item number one in recent months.

5)       Bush looking for a scapegoat for his failure in Iraq has found one in Iran.

Let’s face facts. As much as I don’t like setting dates for anything let alone the return of Christ, I can’t help but think that this Summer is going to be very explosive (no pun intended).

ARTICLE:

By Thomas P.M. Barnett/Syndicated columnist
GHS
Sun Jun 10, 2007, 12:27 AM EDT

The Bush administration says it does not seek war with Iran but engages in numerous policies and preparations that indicate otherwise. Like Tony Soprano's suicidal son, A.J., I sense Americans are being systematically prepared for a military campaign against Iran. I also fear these planned strikes constitute this administration's de facto exit strategy from Iraq.

There was never any doubt that Iran would benefit from America’s decisions to topple both the Taliban and Saddam. What truly amazes me still is that, having removed Tehran’s worst enemies to its east and west, the Bush team somehow managed to get absolutely nothing from Iran in return.

Telegraphing their punch in early 2002 by placing Iran on the "axis of evil" list, Bush-Cheney purposely precluded any attempt to enlist Tehran's cooperation in our now-tortuous occupations of its next-door neighbors. To no one's surprise, Iran has worked diligently from the start to complicate our attempts at nation-building in both Baghdad and Kabul, taking advantage of resurgent Shiite nationalism in the region at large.

Of course, Tehran elicits our special attention by its highly publicized pursuit of nuclear capabilities, the attraction of which can hardly be denied. After all, Washington has forgiven its friends in the region for acquiring such weapons, to include Israel, Pakistan and recently India. Plus, if you're still "listed" like North Korea, it's clear that acquiring your own bomb forces the Americans to the negotiating table - to wit, Bush's recent offer to normalize relations.

By refusing direct bilateral talks until Tehran yields - unconditionally - on its pursuit of the bomb, our government signals Iran that we'll continue targeting it for regime change until it acquires a nuclear deterrent. If that Catch-22 approach strikes you as designed to force a war between now and then, you're paying attention.

This administration's slow-but-steady drumbeat on Iran began almost immediately following Bush's second inaugural in January 2005, accelerating to front-burner status in early 2006, when the White House dramatically expanded its diplomatic push to punish Iran further with UN sanctions.

That push has been complicated by Russia’s desire to maintain its status as Iran’s main supplier of energy infrastructure, as well as India and China's growing thirst for Iranian oil and gas. All three naturally fear being denied such access to a post-regime change Iran.

As things currently stand, the Bush administration just began talks with Iran, albeit solely on the issue of Iraq. Expect those showcase meetings to go well, with vague promises of cooperation but little actual follow-through by the Iranians, who clearly are served by the growing perception in Washington that the surge is having little sustainable positive effect.

As for the Bush administration, going through the motions of parley with Iran checks off the box that was the Iraq Study Group. By demonstrating the White House has made a good faith effort to "regionalize" a solution to Iraq, Bush and Cheney can thereupon accuse Iran of sabotaging the surge, opening the door to a simultaneous drawdown of our effort there and a build-up of military assets for strikes on Iran - the ultimate scapegoat for our failures in Iraq.

Toward that end, the White House recently initiated a covert CIA program - reported widely, of course - to destabilize the Iranian regime, and now President Bush warns ominously of a "bloody" summer in Iraq, reflecting the ramped-up activity of Tehran’s super-secret "Department 9000," which funnels material support to Shiite militias operating there. Toss in our recent naval show of force off Iran’s coast and the State Department's renewed efforts at stronger UN sanctions, and the stage appears prepped for the rapid redirection to Iran long predicted by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh.

Besides giving the Bush administration a defensible exit from Iraq, such a redirection meets the demands of both Israel and Saudi Arabia that America confronts and ultimately dismantles Iran's rising power - in effect, making this Tel Aviv and Riyadh's war of choice.

By adding Iran’s 70 million people to the already war-torn populations of Afghanistan and Iraq , Bush's looming decision to strike militarily against Tehran's stubborn mullahs would represent a double-or-nothing bet to reignite the administration's strategy of reengineering the Mideast through regime change.

With a Democrat-controlled Congress unable to yank Bush's leash on Iraq, and op-ed columnists galore pounding the Iran war drumbeat, such an end-of-term gamble seems less fantastic with each passing week.

Thomas P.M. Barnett is a visiting scholar at the University of Tennessee’s Howard Baker Center. He can be reached by e-mail at tom@thomaspmbarnett.com.

Nine of ten candidates for the Republican presidential nomination explicitly or tacitly support a US attack on Iran using nuclear weapons, in response to a question at Tuesday night’s nationally televised debate in New Hampshire.

See Article Here: http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=144&a=2276

Meanwhile - Israel prepares for pre-emptive attack on Iran . .

'Military plan against Iran is ready'

By: Yaakov Katz, THE JERUSALEM POST – June 10, 2007

Predicting that Iran will obtain a nuclear weapon within three years and claiming to have a strike plan in place, senior American military officers have told The Jerusalem Post they support President George W. Bush's stance to do everything necessary to stop the Islamic Republic's race for nuclear power.

Bush has repeatedly said the United States would not allow Iran to "go nuclear."

Israel successfully launches Ofek 7 spy satellite
JPost special: US candidates talk tough on Iran

A high-ranking American military officer told the Post that senior officers in the US armed forces had thrown their support behind Bush and believed that additional steps needed to be taken to stop Iran.

Predictions within the US military are that Bush will do what is needed to stop Teheran before he leaves office in 2009, including possibly launching a military strike against its nuclear facilities.

On Sunday, Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut said the US should consider a military strike against Iran over its support of Iraqi insurgents.

"I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," he said. "And to me, that would include a strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers."

According to a high-ranking American military officer, the US Navy and Air Force would play the primary roles in any military action taken against Iran. One idea under consideration is a naval blockade designed to cut off Iran's oil exports.

The officer said that if the US government or the UN Security Council decided on this course of action, the US Navy would most probably not block the Strait of Hormuz - a step that would definitely draw an Iranian military response - but would patrol farther out and turn away tankers on their way to load oil.

On Sunday, the Israel Air Force held joint exercises with visiting US pilots, but IDF sources dismissed speculation that the drills were connected to an attack on Iran.

The US officer said that perhaps even more dangerous to Israel and the Western world than Iranian nukes was the possibility that a terrorists cell associated with al-Qaeda or global jihad would acquire a highly radioactive "dirty bomb" or a vial of deadly chemical or biological agents. The officer said al-Qaida was gaining a strong foothold in the Middle East and that Israel was being surrounded by global jihad elements in Lebanon, Jordan and Sinai.

"Iran is a state-sponsored type of terrorism that can be dealt with," he said, adding that it was far more difficult to strike at the source of an isolated terrorist cell.

To combat this threat, the US Navy has come up with a plan for a "1,000-ship navy" - a transnational network composed of navies from around the world that would raise awareness of maritime threats and more effectively thwart sea-based terrorism and the illicit transfer of arms by sea.

"The idea is to allow free trade and to prevent criminal and terror activity at sea," the officer said.

A smaller-scale example of the US Navy's vision is NATO's Active Endeavor antiterrorism operation based in Naples. Israel plans to send an officer to be stationed there in the coming months. NATO launched Operation Active Endeavor in wake of 9/11 and has succeeded in bringing together a number of Mediterranean countries to work together in Naples to share information on naval terrorism and suspicious vessels in the region.

AND - LIBYA REFUSES TO HONOR THE DESTRUCTION OF IT'S WMDs!!

Libya goes back on pledge to destroy its WMD

WASHINGTON — Libya has withdrawn from its commitment to destroy the nation's weapons of mass destruction program.

Officials said Libya has dropped plans to destroy its mustard gas stocks. They said the project, stipulated in a 2003 agreement, would not be conducted after Libyan complaints that the effort was too expensive.

Libya was believed to possess at least 23 metric tons of mustard gas. Tripoli was also said to have 1,300 tons of precursor chemicals.

Officials said the Libyan decision has been relayed to the United States , which pressed Tripoli to destroy its WMD stocks and medium-range missiles. They said the regime of Col. Moammar Khaddafy has been demonstrating greater hostility since Washington restored full diplomatic relations in 2006.

"There is a danger that Libya was consistently withdrawing from its commitments," an official said.

So far, Libya has authorized the removal of more than 1,000 tons of nuclear and missile equipment and destroyed 3,500 chemical-weapons capable munitions. Officials said the remaining chemical agents were scheduled to be destroyed in 2007.

In December 2006, Libya and the United States signed a contract to cooperate in the destruction of Libya’s CW stockpile. Under the accord, the United States would pay $45 million, or about 75 percent of the destruction costs, and Tripoli would provide the rest.

But in May Libya relayed a letter to the State Department that refused to contribute anything to the CW destruction effort. The letter also raised liability issues associated with the project.

The chemical agents were said to have been stored in a remote desert location more than 500 kilometers from Tripoli. Officials said the mustard gas stocks have not comprised a proliferation hazard.

"The Libyans are looking for a bunch of things from the United States, including the lifting of a ban on weapons sales," the official said. "I imagine this is a pressure tactic."

December 21, 2006

The Babylon Two Step

Interesting things are afoot in light of prophecy. This week we have learned that Iran is now off the dollar standard and now only dealing in Euros in foreign economic matters; in fact, just today (Dec 20^th) other OPEC countries are following suit. Also, we learn that the U.S. is planning a U.S. naval buildup in the Gulf “U.S. Central Command is aggressively planning a naval buildup in the Persian Gulf, including the addition of a second air craft carrier, in response to a series of aggressive actions by Iran, U.S. military officials told NBC News on Tuesday.”

Further, this morning (Dec. 20^th) the President of the United States informed the nation at a press conference that “the U.S. needs to increase the size of Army and Marines,” and says strategy and tactics in Iraq will change to meet the situation on the ground. Bush also said Wednesday that insurgents in Iraq thwarted U.S. efforts at "establishing security and stability throughout the country" in 2006.

At a year-end news conference, Bush said the United States will “ask more of our Iraqi partners” in 2007, and he pledged to work with the new Democratic Congress, as well.” http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/12/20/D8M4LMI00.html

Aggressive actions and the utter anger and frustration the U.S. now feels because of a defiant Iran and other OPEC countries, has picked the Euro as the currency of choice. This will probably be the last straw Iran has placed on an already wobbly camel. Babylon the Great can not and will not stand for throwing the dollar by the wayside. Commercial Babylon can not have such economic rebellion and understands if one country does this others will follow suit, and she can not have that and maintain her global economic hegemony.

These two issues together with the cry of more troops to be deployed in Iraq has the makings of al all out military offensive in the Middle East. One other interesting happening is the chaos in the Gaza Strip. Hamas and Fatah factions are fighting for control of the region. Israel is feeling very alone and vulnerable and its not looking any brighter for them at this juncture. Things are beginning to unravel over there…I guess it’s a good thing we have all those army guys positioned.

Craig Fain

Iran to replace dollar with euro in foreign deals

(Breitbart.com)

(Note: All articles appeared this week – Dec. 17-23)

The Iranian government said it has ordered the central bank to transform the state's dollar-denominated assets held abroad into euros and use the European currency for foreign transactions.

"The government has ordered the central bank to replace the dollar with the euro to limit the problems of the executive organs in commercial transactions," government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham told reporters Monday.

"We will also employ this change for Iranian assets (in dollars) held abroad."

The move comes amid mounting pressure from the United States for the UN Security Council to agree sanctions against Iran over its controversial nuclear programme.

Elham added that Iran's budget would in future be calculated according to euros.

"Until now the budget has been calculated according to revenues in dollars but this calculation will now change.”

U.S. plans naval buildup in Gulf to counter Iran

CENTCOM plans to use 'gunboat diplomacy,' officials tell NBC News

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Central Command is aggressively planning a naval buildup in the Persian Gulf, including the addition of a second aircraft carrier, in response to a series of aggressive actions by Iran, U.S. military officials told NBC News on Tuesday.

The officials pointed to Iran's interference in Iraq — including its support for Shiite militants and shipments of improvised explosive devices into the country — recent military naval exercises in the Gulf, and its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

The attempt at "gunboat diplomacy" is in its final planning stages. Although it has not been approved yet, it appears likely the increase in U.S. warships into the Gulf could come as early as January, the officials said.

U.S.: Iran making headway on weapons

On Monday, the Bush administration said Iran was making headway in building nuclear weapons as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice tried to iron out differences with Russia over a U.N. resolution designed to stop the program with economic sanctions.

While not predicting when Iran would join the nuclear club, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the Iranians were trying to perfect technology to enrich uranium. Iran has denied an effort to build nuclear weapons and says its work is for energy development.

“It’s a very tricky matter of perfecting centrifuge technology so you can actually enrich all the uranium,” McCormack said. “So, yes, they are going along their way in trying to go down the various pathways.”

The spokesman provided no details of Rice’s telephone conversation with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. “They went over some of the outstanding issues,” McCormack said.

'Time for a vote'

Russia, which has close economic ties with Iran, has favored diplomacy over punitive sanctions, but the Bush administration is hoping Moscow may be prepared to approve a watered-down resolution at the U.N. Security Council.

“We are hopeful that we can get a vote in the very near future. It is time for a vote,” McCormack said. “I think we need to see a vote on this in a matter of days.”

The United States and its European allies have proposed offering Iran economic concessions in exchange for halting its enrichment of uranium, a key part of the process of building nuclear weapons.

NBC News' Jim Miklaszewski and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

Petro Powers Drop the Dollar

(FOREIGN POLICY)

If you thought record oil prices this year were a pain in your wallet, there’s more bad news on the horizon. The latest Bank for International Settlements quarterly report, which tracks the investment trends of oil-producing countries, indicates that Russia and OPEC countries are moving their holdings out of dollars and into euros and yen. OPEC cut its holdings in the dollar by more than $5 billion during the first and second quarter of 2006. And Russia now keeps most of its new deposits in euros instead of dollars.

That decrease is swift and significant—and helps to explain why the dollar recently fell to a 20-month low against the euro and a 14-year low against the British pound. Holding dollars while other currencies gain strength means less profit for oil producers. But if they rapidly divest themselves of dollars, it may weaken the currency and push up inflation in the United States. “This new trend may be bigger trouble for the United States than high oil prices and surging Chinese exports,” says Nouriel Roubini, a professor at New York University’s Stern School of Business. If this year’s move away from the dollar is a sign of future thinking by oil producers, the pain felt at the pump may soon be the least of our worries.

Al Qaida in control of Somalia; U.S. won't intervene

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM

Monday, December 18, 2006

WASHINGTON — The United States has ruled out an attack on Somalia to oust Al Qaida forces which have seized effective control of the country.

Officials said the Bush administration has no plans to send U.S. troops to oust the new Al Qaida-aligned regime in Somalia. The regime, known as the Council of Islamic Courts, has defeated the U.S.-backed militia and taken over much of the country.

"The Council of Islamic Courts is now controlled by Al Qaida cell individuals, East Africa Al Qaida cell individuals," U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Jendayi Frazer said. "The top layer of the court are extremists. They are terrorists."

But Ms. Frazer ruled out a U.S. military option in Somalia. Instead, the State Department official, responsible for African affairs, called on Somalia's rival factions to negotiate the formation of a stable government.

"That's not a plan that we have on the table, for the U.S. government and our U.S. military to deploy to Mogadishu [Somalia]," Ms. Frazer told a briefing on Dec. 14. "That's not really something that we're saying to our Congress and our public that we want as part of our strategy."

In June 2006, Al Qaida conquered the Somali capital Mogadishu. Since then, thousands of Al Qaida fighters, many of them who had served in Afghanistan, were advancing to take over the rest of Somalia.

"They are killing nuns," Ms. Frazer said. "They have killed children and they are calling for a jihad. Frankly, public executions, killing people for watching soccer matches, is not consistent with the Somali culture and traditions."

The head of the Council of the Islamic Courts, Hassan Dahir Aweys, has been on the terrorist list of the United Nations and United States. Officials said Eritrea, Qatar and Saudi Arabia were helping the new Al Qaida regime.

The Council of Islamic Courts has given Ethiopia a Dec. 19 deadline to withdraw its troops from Somalia. Ethiopia, with more than 30,000 soldiers in Somalia, has sought to protect Somalia's interim government, based in Baidoa and recognized by the UN.

"Otherwise their fate will be defeat and we will fight them until we evict them from Somalia," Sharif Ahmed, the military commander of the Al Qaida-aligned force, told the state-owned Yemeni satellite channel from Aden.

The U.S. intelligence community has determined that Somalia has become the new haven for Al Qaida. Officials said at least three of the plotters behind the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya were living in Somalia.

In her briefing, Ms. Frazer said the United States does not seek the overthrow of the Al Qaida-aligned regime. She said the Bush administration wants the Islamic Courts to become moderate, end military expansion and negotiate with the transitional government.

"The problem is that the CIC is led by extreme radicals right now, not the moderates that we all hoped would emerge," Ms. Frazer said. "The analysis is that there are many more in the courts that are moderate and are just going along. And we would hope that, eventually, the conditions will be such that they can break off and join with governing Somalia in the traditions of Somalia."

BAKER ISOLATES ISRAEL . . .

Fend for yourself . . . you bet they will . . . thanks Jimmy . . . job well done!

Introduction

With the entire shake up(s) going on in Babylon the Great, Israel finds herself on the outside looking in. I found these two articles at a very interesting time. I just had emailed Doug my usually bi-monthly question about where exactly we are in the End of Days time line. These articles give credence to his answer. By way of introduction, I would like to share the email correspondence with Doug.

Hi Doug,

Well it’s time for my bi-monthly question for you and Dene. I am somewhat perplexed (or maybe a combination of the following: confused, ignorant, hazy) about current events that are presently unfolding. Where do I start? The WAR PARTY is out; Bush is worse than a lame-duck; the news is giving the appearance that our hegemony is on the decline; talk of pulling out of Iraq by 2008. It’s like as fast as prophesy is unfolding it has suddenly taken a turn that to me has been quite unexpected.

I started to ponder these observations within my own feeble mind in light of Scripture and I came up with three possible answers.

1) What we see happening in our country, politically, and what is happening as a result of the Democrats in power, is a deceptive tool used by Satan to throw us off focus. To lull us back to sleep as it were. He can’t afford to have too many true Christians spreading the truth, otherwise his deception may not have the results he wants. Deception to try to get us to say uncle, maybe we don’t know what we are talking about? Maybe there is still time. Maybe we need to rethink. Deception can take us (me in particular at this point) off course.

2) Perhaps we are seeing history repeat itself. Maybe, we are seeing Germany 1930’s all over again. Maybe, the Democrats will “screw up” the works in this country so bad, like the liberal party did in Germany in the 1920s with debauchery, and liberal politics, that there will be a outcry for ultra-conservative leadership? This happened to Germany and resulted in Hitler being paraded to power. I could very easily see the same thing happen to the U.S. Liberalism, worse than that of the Clinton years, giving rise to a gigantic conservative movement that ushers in the Antichrist—future history being played out like Germany in 1930-1933 all over again.

3) God’s mercy and grace holding back the wrath and judgment to come for a season.

I just don’t know. I know that Bush is getting weaker by the day and his leadership is becoming more and more suspect. There could be a major attack on us as we are being lulled to sleep--then the wake up call hit that will turn human history upside down.

So,¦ how far off base am I this time? LOL

Your Brother

Craig

Doug’s Response:

Craig - all excellent observations and scenarios - once again, we must stay on the mark - SYRIA and the Syrophoenicia War - the SEVENTH - that will be "the end of the War" (Daniel 9:26b—i.e., the Arab/Moslem/Israeli Conflict) is hotter than the blazes. Now, what is happening here is a "course correction" wherein ISRAEL will perceive herself (at least the press will conjecture as such, and certainly little Jimmy Baker has so concluded before the infamous Iraq Committee and the world) to be ISOLATED. Now, surrounded by thug nations hell-bent on her annihilation doesn't set well with the Israelis and the Axis of Evil they face.

The talk of talk with Iran and Syria is pure claptrap—remember, there was "talk with Hitler" and look what happened.

So . . . I'd say we're hard pressed to conclude that Israel's desperate plight will turn into a full-blown romp through the tulip patch soon and bombs away on BOTH Syria and Iran or at least Iran's nuclear aspirations and then a full-out war as aforementioned with Antichrist coming in for a "lasting peace proposal" after everyone is exhausted themselves - and "he" could do it by then because he'd have "sort of" been perceived to have "regrouped" on his methodologies for peace by meeting with Syria and Iran - feigning to advance the cause of peace—only to unleash Israel (under the table) . . . hey, two things since the Hamilton-J.B. Report - we will forever have a MONSTER MILITARY PRESENCE in the "region" which now includes Iraq et al and, of course because of NATIONAL SECURITY and now we have the Dems. mollified to build yet another BETTER MOUSE TRAP to KEEP THE PEACE!

This whole thing stinks!

So . . . no, a knock down is NOT a knockout - and in point of fact, it's probably just the ticket!

Bless – Bro. Doug

So here we are, these two articles pretty much support what Doug is driving at. The first article talks about more concessions that Israel is going to be asked to make thanks to the “Iraq Study Group” findings. Couple this with a “stand down” attitude the U.S. is currently leaning toward in Iraq; Israel might be thinking “We’re always left holding the bag.”

The second article warns of a possible outbreak of war in the region in the coming months of summer.

Israel's military is bracing for a possible two-front war in the summer of 2007. Officials said the General Staff has received intelligence assessments that Israel could be attacked from both Lebanon and Syria in the north as well as the Palestinian Authority in the south during the summer of 2007. (Sure sounds like Doug’s Isaiah 17 and Zechariah 9’s Syrophoenicia War.)

Don’t be deceived brothers and sisters, prophecy is marching on and it appears to be gathering speed. Though the deceiver is busy working we must keep our eyes on Jesus and the Truth of His Word!

Let us not loose focus of what is in front of us.

Watch and Pray!

Craig

Olmert Rejects Study Groups’ Conclusion on Israel’s Conflicts

Thursday, December 07, 2006

TEL AVIV, Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Thursday rejected a U.S. advisory group's conclusion that a concerted effort to resolve Israel's conflict with its neighbors will help stabilize the situation in Iraq, saying there is no connection between the two issues.

Olmert also rebuffed the group's recommendation that Israel open negotiations with Syria, but said Israelis want "with all our might" to restart peace talks with the Palestinians.

The Iraq Study Group report, released Wednesday in Washington, calls for direct talks between Israel and its neighbors, Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians and says resolving the Israeli-Arab conflict would improve conditions in Iraq.

Olmert rejected that finding. "The attempt to create a linkage between the Iraqi issue and the Mideast issue -- we have a different view," Olmert said during the prime minister's annual meeting with Israeli journalists. "To the best of my knowledge, President Bush, throughout the recent years, also had a different view on this."

Answering reporters' questions for more than an hour, Olmert said conditions were not ripe to reopen long-dormant talks with Syria and added that he received no indications from Bush during his recent visit to Washington that the U.S. would push Israel to start such talks.

White House officials were noncommittal about the report of the Iraq Study Group, headed by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., saying only that Bush would review it.

Palestinian officials were more receptive to the panel's recommendations.

"We welcome the Hamilton-Baker report and hope the U.S. administration will translate it into deeds," Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said. "The region needs peace, the region needs dialogue and we have always stuck to dialogue toward a comprehensive peace."

Syrian President Bashar Assad has called in recent months for a new round of talks with Israel. Syria is a key backer of the Palestinian militant group Hamas and Hezbollah, the Lebanese guerrilla group that battled Israel during an inconclusive month long war last summer.

While some top Israeli officials have urged Olmert to accept Assad's offer, the prime minister said he didn't think talks would change Syria's close ties to radical anti-Israel groups.

"I don't think there is a Syrian desire for war with us. We certainly don't have a desire to fight with them. That doesn't mean conditions are ripe for us to negotiate with them," he said.

Olmert, however, said that Israel was deeply interested in restarting talks with the Palestinians and said Israel would work "with all our might" to make them happen.

He also welcomed a peace initiative put forward by Saudi Arabia, saying it contains "interesting innovations that should not be ignored." However, he did not fully endorse the plan, first floated in 2002, which called for Israel to withdraw from all of the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem, a stipulation Israel rejects.

Olmert also rejected suggestions that Israel's recent cease-fire with Palestinian militants in Gaza would allow the militants to rearm and regroup for another round of fighting, saying that Israel would not allow that to happen.

He said that despite occasional rocket attacks by Gaza militants at Israel, "we will continue to show restraint."

Olmert also addressed the controversy over Iran's nuclear ambitions, reiterating Israel's position that it will not tolerate a nuclear Iran, but will not take unilateral action, preferring that the dispute should be settled by the international community as a whole.

He also reiterated his support for the U.S. war in Iraq, a position that caused some controversy during his U.S. trip last month.

"We always felt, like other nations in our region, that the removal of Saddam Hussein was a major, major contribution to stability in our part of the world," he said.

Israeli military intel warns of
2-front war in 2007

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM

Monday, December 11, 2006

TEL AVIV -- Israel's military is bracing for a possible two-front war in the summer of 2007.

Officials said the General Staff has received intelligence assessments that Israel could be attacked from both Lebanon and Syria in the north as well as the Palestinian Authority in the south during the summer of 2007. They said the military concluded that Hezbollah and the PA would coordinate missile strikes against Israel.

"The last war [against Hezbollah in July 2006] caught both Hezbollah and the Palestinians by surprise," an official said. "Now both sides are in full coordination and when war erupts the missiles will fly from both fronts."

On Sunday, the head of the research division of Military Intelligence, Brig. Gen. Yossi Baidatz, said Syria was preparing for war with Israel. Baidatz said Syrian President Bashar Assad ordered accelerated production of medium-range Scud C and D missiles, which could strike virtually anywhere in the Jewish state.

Baidatz also told the Cabinet that Assad ordered the Syrian Army to deploy anti-tank missile units along the Golan Heights near the border with Israel. At the same time, Assad ordered the withdrawal of Syrian forces from other fronts.

"He is preparing the Syrian Army for the possibility of a military conflict with Israel," Baidatz said. "On the other hand, he is not ruling out the possibility of reaching a political settlement with Israel."

Officials said Iran has helped Hezbollah and Syria prepare for another war against Israel. They said Iran has replenished Hezbollah’s rocket and missile arsenal as well as increased financing to Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the PA areas.

"The deeper the connection among Hezbollah, Syria, Iran and Hamas, the more we need to worry," Chief of Staff Maj. Gen. Moshe Kaplinsky said on Dec. 8.

Kaplinsky said Iran was also preparing to achieve nuclear weapons capability in early 2007. He said Teheran would master the nuclear cycle, or produce enriched uranium without significant foreign help.

A senior military source said Northern Command has led efforts to prepare for a war against Hezbollah and Syria by mid-2007. The source said reserve units have conducted live-fire exercises since October 2006, with plans for a division-level exercise in early 2007.

"There is no information that somebody is going to attack us in the summer," Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh said on Monday. "But we are building our force in accordance with capabilities and not intentions. Things could change overnight

1)	Sep 11	Three Day War on Iran
2)	Aug 30	Study: US preparing 'massive' military attack against Iran
3)	Aug 24	Former CIA officer: US to attack Iran within 6 months
4)	Aug 15	Iranian Unit to Be Labeled 'Terrorist'
5)	Jul 21	Another Troop Build Up Possible (In Iraq) before Sept. 2007!
6)	June 13	Israel prepares for pre-emptive attack on Iran
7)	May 27	Who is able to make war with him (The Beast)?
8)	Feb 28	Wild Card: Israel Looking to Play Her Hand?
9)	Feb 17	10 Marks of the Early Church
10)	Dec 21	U.S. plans naval buildup in Gulf to counter Iran