World War III Scenarios

According to David Bay, Cutting Edge Ministries:

President Richard Nixon issued Executive Order #11647 on February 14, 1972, which reorganized the United States into 10 federal regions... The unconstitutional goal of this reorganization into 10 super regions is to set the stage for the abolishment of governments from the federal, to the state, to the county, and even to the local, levels. The objective is to set in place the form of government that could be implemented during a planned crisis, that would effectively strip us of our elected representational form of government. Suddenly, we would find ourselves being governed by officials who are not elected, nor responsible to any voters.

This regional system is apparently unlimited in its scope and powers. Thus, Americans could very well discover that they are back under the control of the type of government that our Founding Fathers spent their lives and fortunes overthrowing! Worse still, we could find ourselves facing the type of dictator which we have seen ruling Russia and Nazi Germany.

This regional system is also apparently a military structure. We will see this more clearly when the federal program called "General and Complete Disarmament" (Public Law 87-297) is fully integrated according to this 10-region system of government. We also will probably not see this 10-region system implemented until we are under the simultaneous crises of which we have spoken many times.

When America is under the following planned crises, we will witness this changeover to this 10-region system, most likely with FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) exercising initial control. These are apparently the crises that are planned:

1. All-out nuclear warfare in the Middle East (or neutron warfare).
2. All-out nuclear war on the Korean Peninsula (or at least the threat of such a war).
3. Arab terrorists threatening to devastate American cities with atomic, chemical or biological weapons (or actually carrying out this threat).
4. Total oil embargo from the Arab nations in support of Arab forces fighting Israel in the Middle East.
5. Earthquakes deliberately caused to create panic.
6. Simultaneous riots in many American cities to further cause panic.
7. American Presidency weakened because of scandal and infighting with Congress and the Courts to further cause panic among American voters.
8. The Stock Market will crash, causing absolute panic amongst all Americans. Jobs will immediately begin to be lost, thus further adding to the panic.

Antichrist is supposed to appear at the end of the Middle East crisis. If this occurs, then "aliens" and visible "angels" are to appear to urge all peoples of the world to support him and his plan.

At this moment, the head of FEMA will suddenly appear, announcing that he is taking "temporary" control, and quoting all the various Executive Orders and laws passed by Congress giving him all the authority he needs to assume the powers of government, of all branches of our former Constitutional government.

Once this changeover to the new 10-region system of government occurs, amidst all these contrived and planned crises, you may rest assured the End of the Age is upon us.

Club of Rome's 10 Regions and the 10 Kings of Daniel and Revelation - The "10 horns" are explained in Daniel 7:23-25 and Revelation 17:12 to be 10 kings, and the whole vision is of the last form of Gentile world-power, a confederated 10-kingdom empire, most likely covering the whole earth. Now it's interesting to note that, in 1972, the Club of Rome proposed a plan to divide the whole world into 10 regions. Could these 10 regions be the 10 horns of the Bible? - his2ndcoming

The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast. These are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast. These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them (Revelation 17:12-14).

And the ten horns which you saw on the beast, these will hate the harlot, make her desolate and naked, eat her flesh and burn her with fire. For God has put it into their hearts to fulfill His purpose, to be of one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled (Revelation 17:16-17).

And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army (Revelation 19:19).

Once the 10 Nations Have Arisen, Antichrist Will Appear - In 1957, Alice Bailey, then the leader of the House of Theosophy, wrote in her collection of writings, "The Externalisation of the Hierarchy," that the world must first be reorganized into "spheres of influence" before it could be organized into a global government (page 209). She made it very clear that this reorganization would not follow traditional national boundaries, but would be a completely different organization. Bailey did not specify how many "spheres of influence" would be created, but her plan was fleshed out in 1974 by New World Order authors, Mihajlo Mesarovic and Eduard Pestel, in a book entitled, "Mankind At The Turning Point." They wrote that the world would be reorganized into 10 Super Nation States, listed below. - David Bay, Cutting Edge Ministries

(1) North America
(2) Western Europe
(3) Japan
(4) Australia, South Africa, and the rest of the market-economy of the developed world
(5) Eastern Europe, including Russia
(6) Latin America
(7) North Africa and the Middle East
(8) Tropical Africa
(9) South and Southeast Asia
(10) China

Cold War Era 10-Region Map (Mexico Not Included in the North American Union)

The 'Little Horn' (Antichrist) Rises Up AFTER the Ten Kings Come to Power - So let us remember the basics here: the man of sin, little horn or antichrist, rises out of a system of 10 kings. The system of 10 kings is controlled by the harlot, Babylon, and the entire system is given its power by the dragon, Satan. Many people get a little too hung up on if it is a 'Masonic conspiracy' or a 'Jesuit conspiracy' or a 'globalist conspiracy.' They are all the same conspiracy. It is part of a Satanic conspiracy to control the globe for the prince of darkness. God has given us a witness as to the final form the system will take: 10 kings ruled by a harlot controlled by the devil. That system is not fully here yet, but true, born-again Christians who are awake and are not sleeping can and are seeing this system coming into being. It is not far off. - Mark S. Watson, September 18, 2003

I will tell thee mystery of the woman,
And of the beast that carrieth her,
Which hath the seven heads and ten horns.

The beast that thou sawest was, and is not;
And shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition:
And they that dwell on the earth shall wonder,
Whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world,
When they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

And here is the mind which hath wisdom.
The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come;
And when he cometh, he must continue a short space.
And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth,
And is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings,
Which have received no kingdom as yet;
But receive power as kings one hour with the beast.
These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.

These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them:
For He is Lord of lords, and King of kings:
And they that are with Him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

And he saith unto me,
The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth,
Are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore,
And shall make her desolate and naked,
And shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.

For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil His will,
And to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast,
Until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

And the woman which thou sawest is that great city,
Which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

Revelation 17:7-18

The Middle East crisis will lead to World War III. Antichrist will appear at the end of WWIII to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. A one-world government with a one-world religion will be established, the anti-Christian kingdom prophesied in chapter 13 of the book of Revelation. This one-world power will offer apparent peace and prosperity to a world in chaos. The devil, Satan, will rule over his earthly kingdom for "a little season," so that he as God will stand in the holy place, showing himself that he is God, and he will deceive many with his signs and wonders.

For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them. - 1st Thessalonians 5:3

The goal of the New Jerusalem Covenant Project is to create the plan by which Antichrist can solve the Middle East crisis; Antichrist will use this crisis to stage his appearance in the world. Antichrist is supposed to appear at the end of the Middle East crisis (World War III). The prophetic reality of Daniel 9:24-27, Matthew 24:15 and Revelation 11:1-12 is that the new Temple will be built after World War III and will produce the Man of Sin. Thus, the Illuminati plans to destroy the Dome of the Rock during the World War III fighting so that their Antichrist can rebuild Solomon's Temple. This reality means that Arabs will retain control over the Temple Mount until the moment Antichrist comes to the world scene and seizes it for the Jews so his temple can be created. "Peace and safety" will be heralded, and the leaders of the major nations will be busily taking credit for their "brilliant" leadership that seemingly finally solved the deeply engrained religious strife in and around Jerusalem that has plagued mankind for the past 1,400 years.- David Bay, Cutting Edge Ministries

The Sixth Seal, the Seven Trumpets, and the Return of Christ

At the opening of the sixth seal, cosmic disturbances will come upon the earth (great earthquake, sun turns black, moon turns blood red, stars fall to earth, sky rolls up like a scroll, every mountain and island moves), which will be followed by silence in heaven for about 1/2 hour before the seventh seal is opened.

The seventh seal in the Book of Revelation reveals itself as the seven trumpets, described as "the wrath of the Lamb." The first four trumpets will bring destruction upon the earth (1/3 of trees burned up, all green grass burned, 1/3 of sea turns to blood, 1/3 of sea creatures die, 1/3 of ships destroyed, 1/3 of waters poisoned, 1/3 of sun and moon and stars darkened).

When the fifth trumpet is sounded, Satan will be released from the bottomless pit to rule over his earthly kingdom (his one-world government and religion). He will stand in the holy place claiming to be God, and he will promise peace and security to a world in desperate need of grand solutions to profound problems. Satan, deceiving many with his signs and wonders, will reign as king over this earth for five months, during which time (the sixth trumpet) 1/3 part of man will be killed (most likely Christians and others who refuse to worship "the beast" and to receive his "mark" in their right hand or forehead).

After this earthly reign by Satan for "a little season" and his persecution of the followers of Christ, Christ will return in the clouds of heaven with great power and glory (the seventh trumpet) to deliver up His people to the kingdom of heaven. He then will destroy by fire the kingdom of "the beast" and create a new heaven and a new earth over which He will reign with His people for eternity.

"And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, 'It is my people:' and they shall say, The Lord is my God." (Zechariah 13:9)

According to The Green Agenda:

You don’t need to look in the shadows for the coming world government: it is standing right before your eyes. When they bring “order out of chaos,” the United Nations will be transformed and the final global empire will be born. So what events could possibly bring about the conditions that would allow the emergence of a one world government? I will briefly describe what I consider to be the most likely scenario:

Ezekiel 38 and 39 describe an attack on Israel by a coalition of Islamic nations and Russia. It seems that this conflict also involves other parts of the globe. The invading forces are completely destroyed by God’s divine intervention. The military power of Russia is annihilated, and Islam, which promised its believers a final ultimate victory, is shattered.

The world economy lies in total ruin. Significant areas of the planet are devastated. People everywhere are distraught and in despair. Emergency meetings are held at the United Nations where the blueprints for a new global system are presented and quickly adopted.

“We need a new beginning” they will say; “We all must change and renounce our old destructive ways.” Amazingly everything is already in place. The Earth Charter would be endorsed as a Planetary Constitution and the Security Council replaced with some new 'United Earth Council.' The world would be divided into 10 administrative regions with each one represented by an Earth Councillor.

The blame for the recent conflict, and many of the world's other problems, would be placed firmly on traditional religions. They would be swiftly outlawed and replaced by reverence for the earth itself. “We nearly destroyed Gaia!” they would say, “We nearly destroyed our own Mother!”

Over the last decade, the United Nations has brazenly been reinventing itself into a global government, striving to obtain the legal framework, financial resources, and grassroots support to implement its policies. As outlined in my preceding articles, it has effectively seized legal and regulatory control in many countries, through Agenda 21, and developed a Constitution, the Earth Charter, for its vision on a transformed global interdependent society.

In 1992 the UN formed a Commission on Global Governance charged with devising a system of future global management. Second in charge of the Commission, and lead author of its report, was Maurice Strong, with whom readers will be quite familiar by now. After several years of “extension consultation” with “world leaders, philosophers and futurologists,” the Commission produced a report entitled Our Global Neighbourhood...

One of the primary thrusts of 'Our Global Neighbourhood' was the formation of “regional blocs or unions to enhance political, economic and environmental security.” The report proposed that “Regional Neighbourhoods” be established, modelled closely on the successful example of the European Union.

Recent years have seen a large number of such regional unions emerging, or being strengthened, including the African Union, the Mediterranean Neighbourhood Partnership, the Gulf States Coalition, and the proposed North American Union.

The report also recommended a gradual reduction in the sovereignty of independent states, arguing strongly in favour of international “courts of accountability,” binding global agreements, and significantly enhancing the legal authority of the UN. Dr Robert Muller, Assistant Secretary-General of the UN and co-founder of UNESCO, clearly describes this UN plan for a new 'World Union:'

In my view, after fifty years of service in the United Nations system, I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper Earth government... There is no shadow of a doubt that the present political and economic systems—if systems they are—are no longer appropriate and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet. We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways. The less we loose time, the less species' and nature will be destroyed.

Since the United Nations is the only worldwide, universal organization that is presently available, since it had fifty years of valuable experience and many successes, and since it paved the way to proper Earth government (instead of putting it on the defensive, unjustified attacks and criticism, reduction of resources and non-payment of obligatory contributions) governments should honestly ask themselves if a better way would not be to consider a second generation United Nations upgraded by a true quantum jump into a proper Earth-preserving and human-well-being and justice-ensuring organization of our planet.

The continental approach to a world union remains an important avenue. One could conceive five continental unions: the European Union, an American, an African, an Asian, and an Australian Union. A World Union could be constructed as a super-structure and common political, economic and environmental instrument to achieve these objectives. - The Earth Charter in Action

This strategy appears to be based on the Club of Rome's proposal to divide the earth into 10 administrative regions, which they outlined in their report Mankind at the Turning Point. You can find their original map in my previous article on that topic. Interestingly, the UN is currently in the process of reviewing and reforming the organization, with particular emphasis on the Security Council.

Several alternative models have been proposed which will make the Council more 'representative and democratic.' One of these, the Italian Model, proposes replacing the current 10 seats held by individual nations with 10 seats representing 'regional unions,' two seats for Europe, three for Asia, etc. You can compare the different proposals here.

'Our Global Neighbourhood' concluded with 12 key recommendations which I have listed below, and it was these that caused such a furore that the rest of the report barely received a comment. The UN claimed that the report was merely a “visioning exercise” intended to generate discussion and did not represent official UN policy goals. The report was effectively shelved and the Commission was disbanded:

1. Consolidation of all international agencies under the direct oversight of the United Nations.
2. Regulation by the United Nations of all transnational organizations and financial institutions.
3. Independent source of revenue for the United Nations, and taxes on aircraft and shipping fuels, and licensing the use of the global commons.
4. Eliminate the veto power and the permanent member status on the Security Council.
5. Authorize a United Nations ready reaction force.
6. Require United Nations registration of all arms and the reduction of national armies as a part of a multilateral global security system under the authority of the United Nations.
7. Require individual and national compliance with all United Nations Human Rights treaties.
8. Activate the International Criminal Court, make the International Court of Justice compulsory for all nations, and give individuals the right to petition the courts to remedy social injustice.
9. Create a new institution to establish economic and environmental security by ensuring sustainable development.
10. Create a new international environmental court.
11. Adopt a declaration that climate change is an essential global security interest that requires the creation of a high-level action team to allocate carbon emission based on equal per-capita rights.
12. Cancellation of all debt owed by the poorest nations, global poverty reductions, and equitable sharing of global resources as allocated by the United Nations.

One of Kofi Annan’s first actions when he became Secretary-General of the United Nations was to appoint Maurice Strong as his Senior Policy Advisor. He then tasked Strong with preparing a plan to “reform the institution of the United Nations.”

In 2002, Strong produced a 95-page document entitled Renewing the United Nations: A Programme for Reform, which was basically a step-by-step program to implement many of the recommendations of 'Our Global Neighbourhood.' Many of these reforms have been slowly working their way through UN system. However, after Maurice Strong was indicted for his involvement in the Iraq Oil-for-Food scandal, he was forced by pressure from the United States to resign from his UN roles.

The reforms Strong designed are being implemented by the UN, but they have not been the transformation that he desired. It is the opinion of this author that the current bureaucratic and unwieldy structure of the United Nations is unlikely to ever deliver the “global interdependent society” that the Earth Charter, and the Green Movement, is fervently calling for. Most members of the general population are not motivated to change by mere words in a charter, and the majority are likely to resent further intrusion into their lives.

True fundamental change is most often born out of crisis. A common creed among the Green Agenda activists has long been “order out of chaos.” They believe that people from all nations will literally beg for their New World Order if it can promise safety and security at a time when people feel under personal imminent threat.

To once again quote the famous words of David Rockefeller:

“A New World Order is coming… all we need is the right major crisis.”

And remember, it was the Rockefeller family that donated the land on which the United Nations now stands.

Thus it seems far more likely that the UN itself will be transformed, most likely after some major international crisis which the UN is unable to prevent or respond to adequately. After all, the League of Nations was born after the first truly global crisis, World War 1, and then it was “reformed” into the United Nations following World War 2. However there are some serious impediments to the implementation of the final phase of the Global Green Agenda:

1. Evangelical Christianity – True Bible-believing Christians are very likely to resist the imposition of any system of global governance, especially if it based around an earth-centred religion. Christians realise that this earth is temporary and will soon pass away. The Bible specifically warns them that humans will eventually end up “worshipping the creature instead of the Creator.” However the leaders of certain denominations seem to have no problem with the Agenda. Pope Benedict proclaimed, during Live Earth that “environmental degradation is a sin, and global warming is a defilement of the Divine Will.”
2. Islam – Moslems are also likely to fiercely resist any New World Order that mandates a form of earth-worship. There are more than one billion followers of Islam, and they show remarkably little enthusiasm for accommodating New Age eco-theology into their doctrines. Hence it is likely that the power of Islam will have to be shattered before the Global Green Agenda can be fulfilled.

3. The United States of America – The USA has long been a bastion of individual liberty and freedom. Thank God George Bush defeated Al Gore in the 2000 Presidential election. If Gore had won, I have no doubt we would now be deep in the midst of the Green Reich. President Bush has bravely defended American sovereignty from the clutches of the global elitists. However this could soon change. If Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama is elected President it could well be the end of the American dream.

4. Communist China – The totalitarian Communist Party of China is very unlikely to relinquish much of its power to a new transformed United Nations. However, China is currently treading a precarious path. Its economic miracle is in fact a house of cards built on slave labour and artificially managed conditions. China is very vulnerable to an economic collapse, which could lead to a popular revolution or bankrupt the country.

5. Authoritarian Russia – Putin has established a tight authoritarian grip on Russia and is unlikely to bow willingly to a resurrected UN. However, Putin could soon be gone and a new Gorbachev could arise. Another possibility is that Russia could also once again lose its position as a global power broker through economic problems or war.

So, to quickly summarise, the activists behind the Global Green Agenda have established regulatory control in many societies through Agenda 21, they have written a Constitution for their transformed global society with the Earth Charter, and they have even described, in detail, how their new global system will operate in 'Our Global Neighbourhood.' However, several obstacles must be removed before the final phase of the Agenda, global governance based on a system of earth-worship, can be fulfilled:

• Firstly, a situation must arise where otherwise apathetic, or even hostile, members of society will beg for a new global system. They must feel so personally threatened that they will eagerly give up their personal liberty for the promise of safety and security. 'Our Global Neighbourhood' said the surrender of liberty is "a principle that will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the imperatives of global environmental cooperation." In my opinion, global warming is currently being used as a conditioning tool with its fervent call for global unity to save a wounded planet.

• Secondly, certain nations and religious groups are unlikely to accept a new global system that involves the loss of national sovereignty, the loss of individual liberty, and reverence for the earth as a divine being...

As David Rockefeller stated, “all we need is the right crisis.” Everything is now in place. They are just building momentum and waiting for the storm they know is coming. You don’t need to look in the shadows for the coming world government: it is standing right before your eyes. When they bring “order out of chaos,” the United Nations will be transformed and the final global empire will be born.

Iran Leaders Hint at Missile Attacks Against U.S. Bases

Iran Leaders Hint at Missile Attacks Against U.S. Bases, Call for End to Nuclear Negotiations

The Daily Caller
May 29, 2012

With the May 23 negotiations in Iraq failing to persuade Iran to give up its illicit nuclear program, Iranian leaders have returned to threats of war — including the provocative statement that their missiles can reach every U.S. military base in the Middle East, and a call to halt all nuclear negotiations with the West.

On Saturday, Iranian Brig. Gen. Hossein Salami threatened that all “enemy” bases in the region are vulnerable to Iranian attack.

“Wherever you imagine these bases are, they are within the reach of Iranian missiles,” he said, according to Fars News Agency, the media outlet run by the powerful Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The news report said half of Iran’s missile capability is still unknown to the West.

Also on Saturday, the editor-in-chief of Iran’s conservative Keyhan newspaper — which generally reflects the Iranian regime’s point of view – penned an editorial calling for a full halt to negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program.

“After two days of negotiations in Baghdad,” Hossein Shariatmadari wrote, ”it seems that the negotiations only serve the West and its political need with their current economic problems. The Baghdad negotiations showed that the West has not changed its attitude and still demands its illegal requests regarding Iran’s nuclear program.”

Shariatmadari has said in the past that Iran should acknowledge to Western nations that it has nuclear weapons capabilities. On Saturday he suggested the 5+1 nations only want to continue negotiations in order to keep oil prices steady and avoid a shock to an already-teetering global economy.

“It can be assumed that the upcoming negotiations to be held in Moscow will also not result in much and our presence will only secure the need of the enemy,” he said. “Therefore, it’s best that Iran does not participate in any future negotiation, be it in Moscow or elsewhere.”

As the Iranian delegation negotiated with the representatives of the 5+1 in Baghdad last week, Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told Revolutionary Guard officers graduating from Imam Hussein University that Western nations’ days as global superpowers are numbered.

“The oppressive powers, despite their show of force, are on the track of destruction. … Soon the future will smile on the Iranian nation,” he predicted, according to Keyhan.

This latest instance of saber-rattling during a university graduation was a sequel to equally provocative comments from Iranian Rear Admiral Ali Fadavi in April, during a speech at the University of Yazd.

“The power of our naval forces is such that we have a presence in all the waters of the world and, if needed, we can move to within three miles of New York,” Fadavi boasted.

The Revolutionary Guards have successfully launched ballistic missiles from naval ships, and have stated that they have vessels equipped with long-range ballistic missiles.

The Guards have already mapped out the U.S. bases in the region as part of a wartime contingency plan to disrupt the movement of air and ground forces.

Iran’s ballistic missiles can reach targets more than 1,250 miles away, potentially putting U.S. bases in Afghanistan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and parts of other countries within Tehran’s firing range.

An International Atomic Energy Agency report released Friday concluded that Iran has amassed 6.2 tons of uranium enriched to a low level of 3.5 percent purity. If enriched further, that amount would be enough for five nuclear bombs, the Institute for Science and International Security declared on Friday.

Iran, the IAEA wrote, also has doubled its highly enriched uranium stockpile — 20 percent pure fissile material — to a total of 145 kilograms.

The report indicated that inspectors had also recorded “the presence of particles” of 27 percent-enriched uranium at Iran’s Fordow facility.

The 5+1 nations negotiating with Iran at the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council — Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States — plus Germany. They have asked Iran to halt its enrichment process at the 20 percent level and allow inspectors full access to suspect sites, including the Parchin military site where the UN suspects Iran is carrying out nuclear arms-related tests.

Iran has refused, but Iranian hard-line cleric Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami stated in his Friday prayer sermon that Iran will not relinquish its right to 20 percent enrichment, which is a short step from weapons-grade uranium.

Keyhan reported Monday that the 5+1 talks produced an awkward moment on May 23 when Dr. Saeed Jalili, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council of Iran, asked his negotiating adversaries if they were aware of the significance to Iranians of the date and the location where they were negotiating.

They weren’t.

“Thirty years ago today we took back the city of Khorramshahr from Saddam [Hussein],” Jalili said. During that 8-year-war, he explained, the same 5+1 countries provided support to the Iraqi dictator.

“We were alone. … Where is Saddam now and where do we stand in the region? Today on the anniversary of the freedom of Khorramshahr … we are here in Saddam’s palace.”

“When the world stood on one side and the Islamic republic [of Iran] on the other,” Jalili concluded, “we did not surrender to the West and East’s illogical demands. And so do not expect us to surrender now to the current illogical demands.”

All this comes as The Washington Post reported Sunday that U.S. diplomats were the targets of Iran-based assassination plots. U.S. officials and their counterparts in the Middle East, according to the Post, see the attempts as part of a 13-month plan, hatched by operatives linked to Iran, to kill foreign diplomats in at least seven nations.

And barely a week ago, Iran’s top military commander said his country was fully committed to destroying Israel.

“The Iranian nation is standing for its cause, and that is the full annihilation of Israel,” Maj. Gen. Hassan Firouzabadi, the Iranian military’s chief of staff, said in a speech to a May 20 defense gathering.

Reza Kahlili is a pseudonym for a former CIA operative in Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and the author of the award winning book ”A Time to Betray.” He is a senior Fellow with EMPact America, a member of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security and teaches at the U.S. Department of Defense’s Joint Counterintelligence Training Academy (JCITA).

U.S. Military Denies Parachuting into North Korea

U.S. Commandos Parachuted into N. Korea: Report

AFP
May 29, 2012

US and South Korean special forces have been parachuting into North Korea to gather intelligence about underground military installations, a US officer has said in comments carried in US media.

Army Brigadier General Neil Tolley, commander of US special forces in South Korea, told a conference held in Florida last week that Pyongyang had built thousands of tunnels since the Korean war, The Diplomat reported.

"The entire tunnel infrastructure is hidden from our satellites," Tolley said, according to The Diplomat, a current affairs magazine. "So we send (South Korean) soldiers and US soldiers to the North to do special reconnaissance."

"After 50 years, we still don't know much about the capability and full extent" of the underground facilities," he said, in comments reported by the National Defense Industrial Association's magazine on its website.

Tolley said the commandos were sent in with minimal equipment to facilitate their movements and minimize the risk of detection by North Korean forces.

At least four of the tunnels built by Pyongyang go under the Demilitarized Zone separating North and South Korea, Tolley said.

"We don't know how many we don't know about," he admitted.

Among the facilities identified are 20 air fields that are partially underground, and thousands of artillery positions.

In February, South Korea's Yonhap news agency reported that had built at least two new tunnels at a nuclear testing site, likely in preparation for a new test.

U.S. Military Denies Parachuting into N.Korea

Agence France-Presse
May 29, 2012

The US military Tuesday vehemently denied a media report that special forces had been parachuted into North Korea on intelligence-gathering missions, saying a source had been misquoted.

Current affairs magazine The Diplomat quoted Brigadier General Neil Tolley, commander of special forces in South Korea, as saying soldiers from the US and South Korea had been dropped across the border for "special reconnaissance" missions.

But Colonel Jonathan Withington, public affairs officer for US Forces Korea, said some reporting of the conference had taken Tolley "completely out of context".

"Quotes have been made up and attributed to him," he said, denying that any US or South Korean forces had parachuted into the North.

"Though special reconnaissance is a core special operations force (SOF) mission, at no time have SOF forces been sent to the north to conduct special reconnaissance," he said in a statement.

The Diplomat quoted Tolley as saying that the North had built thousands of tunnels since the 1950-53 Korean War.

"The entire tunnel infrastructure is hidden from our satellites," the magazine reported him as saying at a press conference in Florida last week. "So we send (South Korean) soldiers and US soldiers to the North to do special reconnaissance."

According to the magazine, he said commandos parachute in with minimal supplies to watch the tunnels undetected.

At least four of the tunnels built by Pyongyang go under the Demilitarized Zone separating North and South Korea, Tolley was reported as saying.

"We don't know how many we don't know about."

Western Sanctions Against Iran Escalate Before Nuclear Talks; Israel and the U.S. Threaten Last-ditch Military Action

U.S. Senate Approves Tougher Iran Sanctions

Reuters
May 22, 2012

The U.S. Senate unanimously approved on Monday a package of new economic say sanctions on Iran's oil sector just days ahead of a meeting in Baghdad between major world powers and Tehran.

The sanctions add to a raft of punitive measures by the United States and the European Union aimed at shrinking Iran's oil revenues to force it to halt a nuclear program the West suspects is being used to build an atomic bomb.

Iran has said its nuclear program is for civilian purposes.

The new package would extend sanctions to cover dealings with the National Iranian Oil Co and National Iranian Tanker Co, if they are deemed to be an agent or affiliate of the Revolutionary Guards. It aims to close a potential loophole that could have allowed Tehran to continue selling some of its oil using its own fleet.

The House of Representatives passed its version of the bill in December and now the Senate and House must work out their differences in the legislation before it is signed into law by President Barack Obama.

"This bill is another tool that will demonstrate to Iran that the United States is not backing down," Robert Menendez, the Democratic senator who helped craft the legislation, said on the Senate floor.

"Today, the U.S. Senate put Iranian leaders on notice that they must halt all uranium enrichment activities or face another round of economic sanctions from the United States," said Republican Senator Mark Kirk, a co-author of the bill, in a statement.

The Senate bill was brought up on Thursday but was blocked by Republicans who wanted some parts toughened up.

BUILD ON BANKING SANCTIONS

Iran, OPEC's second-largest producer, exports most of its 2.2 million barrels of oil per day to Asia, home to its four main customers: China, Japan, India and South Korea.

All four nations have cut back on their purchases, dissuaded by the previous package of U.S. financial sanctions that due to take effect at the end of June as well as an EU oil embargo and a ban on shipping insurance, which take effect on July 1.

The U.S. sanctions threaten to shut out importers of Iranian oil from the U.S. financial system unless they make substantial, sustained cuts to their purchases. Washington has already granted 10 EU nations and Japan a waiver from these measures and is pressuring Iran's main buyers China and India to comply.

In addition to totally banning Iranian oil imports, the EU measures prohibit European insurers from covering Iranian oil exports anywhere in the world, which would leave importers exposed to personal injury and pollution claims. Typically, a supertanker insures against these liabilities to the tune of $1 billion per shipment.

Almost 90 percent of the world's tanker insurance is based in Europe. South Korea will effectively become the first of Iran's major Asian customers to halt purchases from July due to the ban.

The cumulative impact of the U.S. sanctions will be severe, said Suzanne Maloney, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy.

"Right now, both sides are playing a game of chicken - the Iranians want to see how much they can get and how little they can give, whereas Washington and its allies are counting on the looming threat of impending sanctions to elicit more concessions on the part of Tehran," Maloney said.

The escalating Western sanctions, and threats by Israel and the United States of last-ditch military action, have helped to push up world oil prices, compounding the economic misery wrought by debt crises in many industrialized countries.

The U.N. nuclear watchdog chief held talks in Tehran on Monday ahead of a meeting between major powers and Iranian officials this week, but there was no immediate sign of a breakthrough.

During the meeting in Baghdad, the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany will try and make Iran stop the higher-grade uranium enrichment it started two years ago and has since expanded.

Paul Pillar, a former CIA analyst for the Near East and Persian Gulf region, said any new sanctions could be counterproductive ahead of the talks as Iran may think the West is less interested in a deal than in undermining the regime.

"The biggest requirement now for getting an agreement is not to pile on still more sanctions, but instead to persuade the Iranians that if they make concessions the sanctions will be eased," said Pillar, now a security studies professor at Georgetown University.

Jerusalem is the Most Difficult Symbolic Issue for the Peace Process

Insight: Jerusalem Expansion Reaches Point of No Return

Reuters
May 22, 2012

Named for the crash site of an airforce plane shot down during the Six Day War in 1967, Givat HaMatos may yet prove the place where Palestinian hopes of a creating a capital in Jerusalem also plunge to earth.

'Airplane Hill' lies on the southern fringes of Jerusalem's city limits - rock-strewn land dotted with shabby, prefabricated bungalows and the occasional pine tree.

Once a tranquil backwater, the area has become the focus of hectic activity in the last six months, with Israeli authorities releasing plans for 2,610 housing units and 1,110 hotel rooms.

With the approval process going more quickly than expected, building could start later this year, creating the first new Israeli settlement in 15 years among the sprawl of a modern Jerusalem that is spread out over many hills.

If that happens, it would effectively cut off the city's mainly Arab neighbourhoods from Bethlehem in the occupied West Bank, imperiling the Palestinians' prospects for establishing a coherent capital and with it their goal of an independent state.

"There is only so much territorial abuse this tortured land can take before we kill the political options of saving the two- state solution," said Daniel Seidemann, an Israeli attorney who monitors urban developments he thinks affect chances for peace.

"What is happening at Givat HaMatos is a game changer," he said, his finger tapping a map of the area for added emphasis. "Events are careering out of control."

Of all the obstacles blocking the way to peace between the Palestinians and Israelis, the status of Jerusalem is arguably the most intractable.

"It's the most difficult symbolic issue for the peace process. It's an emotional issue," Israeli Prime Benjamin Netanyahu told Reuters earlier this month.

For Israelis, all of the city, including East Jerusalem and its West Bank suburbs captured in 1967, is their "eternal and indivisible" capital, the home the Jews dreamed of through 2,000 years of exile, and the site of their revered Western Wall.

For Palestinians, there can be no peace until Israel cedes them control over East Jerusalem, a symbol of their national struggle and home to Islam's third holiest site, al-Aqsa mosque and the glittering Dome of the Rock.

In the absence of a deal, or even meaningful negotiations, Israel has been busy developing the holy city, building impressive, stone-clad neighbourhoods across the annexed land in defiance of constant international criticism.

PRECIOUS LAND

A series of recent interviews with Israelis and Palestinians suggests that the development is at a tipping point.

Plans for Givat HaMatos are not taking place in a vacuum.

Israeli officials are also pushing to expand the nearby settlements of Gilo and Har Homa, thereby building a broad, concrete crescent just north of the hilltop town of Bethlehem.

Some 35 percent of Palestinian economic activity is centered on a line that stretches from Bethlehem through East Jerusalem and on to Ramallah, the West Bank's administrative centre, north of Jerusalem. Critics say the southern settlements will snap this link.

"It is like putting a ribbon around a finger and pulling tighter and tighter until all the blood is cut off," said Ashraf Khatib, a Palestinian activist from East Jerusalem.

"But it is not just in the south. The Israelis are creating facts on the ground across the eastern city," he added.

A proud exponent of that policy is Aryeh King, the founder of the Israeli Land Fund whose stated mission is to "reclaim the land of Israel for the people of Israel".

In April, he secured the eviction of an Arab family from a home in the Arab neighborhood of Beit Hanina after a court ruled that the place had been legally bought by a Jew. He immediately moved half a dozen young supporters into the house and promised further evictions in the months ahead.

"We are locating property in all of East Jerusalem. In Jerusalem, every piece of land is important. All the plots put together can change the reality," said King, standing in the backyard of the low-rise building he had just taken over.

"The reality we don't want to see happen is one that we think would lead to catastrophe - the division of the city."

Jews, from Biblical kings such as David and Solomon to present day Israelis, see Jerusalem as the home of their religion and as a national capital fit for their people.

Most Israelis dismiss accusations their presence in East Jerusalem is illegal and bridle at the term "settlement" to describe what they refer to as Jewish neighbourhoods.

POPULATION GROWTH

As British imperial forces left Palestine in 1948, 60 percent of Jerusalem's population was Jewish. The United Nations had planned to put the city under international control, but war intervened and when a truce ended it, Jordan held the eastern sector, including the walled Old City with its sacred sites.

Israel controlled the West Jerusalem.

Following the 1967 war, Israel swept away the armistice boundary, or Green Line, and more than doubled the city limits. In 1980, parliament passed a law declaring united Jerusalem as the national capital, a move never recognized internationally.

Palestinians say the new masters have strived to alter the demographics, limiting land available to develop in Arab neighbourhoods, imposing residency rules that push Arabs out and demolishing more than 2,000 of their homes in East Jerusalem.

This has had little impact on population ratios, even as the number of inhabitants has soared from 263,000 in 1967 to around 800,000 today. Indeed the Arab ratio is climbing, with secular Israelis reluctant to settle in a city known for tensions and as home to growing numbers of religiously observant Jews.

According to the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, 36 percent of inhabitants were Arab in 2009 against 28 percent in 1980. City officials say the figure will hit 40 percent by 2020. By contrast, 20 percent of Israel's total population are Arabs.

"Jerusalem is not a Jewish city, not an Israeli city, but a bi-national city. It is not a united city. It is divided in more ways than you could care to imagine," said Seidemann, who is the go-to person for diplomats seeking information on town planning.

The divisions are often invisible to the naked eye. Outsiders rarely notice when they cross from west to east, and are surprised if Jewish taxi drivers refuse to take them to hotels in Arab areas because they fear being pelted with stones.

Likewise, both visitors and residents often express surprise when told that leafy districts of solid, modern homes are the very settlements which are so regularly denounced abroad.

"This place isn't a settlement," said Ofer Dror, a 36-year-old technician and resident of Har Homa, a terraced suburb of neat, white-stone apartments housing 13,000 Israelis that overlooks the Biblical town of Bethlehem.

"If we were behind some fence or a separation line then I might think that," he added, clearly surprised by the concept.

WINNERS AND LOSERS

Ironically, just a hundred meters from Har Homa's outer ring of houses, lives a Palestinian shepherd stranded by a fence.

Saed al-Zawahri lost a third of his land as the settlement spread this past decade. He grazes his small flock of sheep over his remaining three acres, cut off from Bethlehem, which lies tantalizingly close behind coils of barbed wire.

Israel has sealed much of the West Bank behind walls and fences following a wave of Palestinian suicide attacks at the start of the last decade that killed many hundred Israelis.

This has ensnared Zawahri in a bureaucratic mess.

Denied Jerusalem residency, he says he is only allowed to travel to Bethlehem but is not entitled to register a car with Israeli license plates to drive on the Israelis-only roads he would need to get him there. Likewise, he says he does not have the right to shop in the adjacent Har Homa and must call in special deliveries from Palestinian stores.

"They plan a thousand years ahead," said the 74-year-old shepherd. "They plan to get rid of us."

Asked if anything could stop the Israeli expansion, he smiled wryly.

"Only God. All the Arab armies already tried and failed," he said, referring to the wars of 1948, 1967 and 1973, when combined Arab forces tried but failed to defeat Israel.

However, recent events in Jerusalem suggest that the United States could influence policy-making if it wanted to.

A review of city planning activity shows that between March 9 and November 1 in 2010 there was a de facto halt on settlement work in the city and again from January 3, 2012 to early April.

The first period coincided with intense U.S. lobbying for a freeze to entice the Palestinian leadership into peace talks - negotiations that swiftly broke down when Netanyahu rejected Palestinian demands for a further extension to the halt.

There is no clear explanation for the second period of inactivity, although some diplomats have suggested Netanyahu applied the brake to avoid rows with Washington as he sought to gain U.S. support for a tough stance on Iran's nuclear strategy.

"Israel failed to get the green light from America to attack Iran. Shortly afterwards the building plans for Jerusalem accelerated. Who knows if these two facts are connected?" said a senior Western diplomat in Israel who declined to be named.

Israeli officials said the apparent freeze was coincidental.

Municipal leaders complain openly about the outside pressure that is brought to bear as they seek to run one of the world's iconic cities, administering garbage collection, school buses and restaurant permits, while welcoming in the tourist hordes.

"Everything stood still for quite a few months but from the point of view of the city's various populations it was tragic," says Deputy Mayor Naomi Tsur, adding that the order in 2010 to stop work had come directly from Netanyahu.

"This is a living city. People have to live somewhere, send their children to schools," she said. "When we are left to ourselves we know how to do it, but we are not left to ourselves."

With peace talks blocked and world attention fixed on myriad other crises, the floodgates have lifted and the city authorities seem to have a free hand to do what they want.

Out in Givat HaMatos, the bulldozers could swing into action by the autumn, when the summer heat starts to fade.

"The geography and demographics will then be so Balkanised that the two-state solution will be gone," said Seidemann.

"All the analysts we have met in the intelligence community in Europe and the United States, including the White House, see it and know it is coming."

North Korea to Boost Nuclear Deterrent after U.S. Pressure

North Korea to Boost Nuclear Deterrent after U.S. Pressure

Reuters
May 22, 2012

Isolated North Korea stepped up its war of words against the United States on Tuesday, vowing to boost its nuclear deterrent after Washington warned Pyongyang of further sanctions if it did not abandon its atomic program.

The North's foreign ministry spokesman said via the official KCNA news agency that it would "bolster its nuclear deterrent as long as the United States was continuing with its hostile policies" and that it planned "countermeasures" following pressure from Washington.

Last week, world leaders meeting in the United States said the isolated North needed to adhere to international norms on nuclear issues and said it would face more isolation if it "continues down the path of provocation".

Under new leader Kim Jong-un, North Korea launched a long range rocket in April, breaking an agreement with the United States that would have traded food aid for access to its nuclear facilities, among other things.

Many experts now believe the reclusive North is preparing for a third nuclear test, and could even use highly enriched uranium for the first time. Experts say the North already has enough fissile material from plutonium for at least six nuclear bombs.

U.S. Special Representative for North Korea Policy Glyn Davies told reporters in Seoul on Monday that North Korea could expect "a swift and sure" reaction by the international community if it undertook further hostile actions.

Davies was holding talks with his Chinese counterpart in Beijing on Tuesday.

China is North Korea's sole major economic and diplomatic backer and even it has put pressure on Pyongyang to back down on plans for a nuclear test.

Yang Moo-jin, a professor at the University of North Korean Studies in Seoul, was skeptical that the latest rhetoric from Pyongyang signaled a nuclear test was imminent.

"North Korea is simply saying: Don't agitate or provoke us," he said.

Recent satellite imagery published by IHS Jane's Defense Weekly, a specialist defense publication, showed there had been more work at the site of previous nuclear tests that could indicate the North was preparing for its third nuclear test.

The Janes analysis showed mining carts and excavation equipment as well more debris from inside a tunnel that could be used for a third nuclear test.

"A third nuclear test by North Korea would be the latest move in restarting its nuclear weapons program, which it agreed to mothball in a 29 February deal with the U.S.," said Janes analyst James Hardy.

Since the death of Kim Jong-il in December, Kim Jong-un, believed to be in his late 20s, has shown he will continue with his father's hardline "military first" policy.

Israel is Believed to Have the Middle East's Only Nuclear Arsenal; the Portrayal of Iran as Irrational Could Bolster a Case for Pre-emptive Bombing to Take Out Its Atomic Facilities

U.S. Ambassador to Israel: Plan to Attack Iran “Ready”

Infowars.com
May 16, 2012

The U.S. ambassador to Israel, Daniel Shaprio, told a closed conference in Tel Aviv that the United States has completed preparations for a military strike on Iran. His comments were recorded by a reporter and aired on Israel’s Channel 2 TV on Wednesday night.

“It would be preferable to resolve this diplomatically, and through the use of pressure, than to use military force,” Shapiro said. “But that does not mean that option isn’t available. Not just available, it’s ready. The necessary planning has been done to ensure that it’s ready.”

Shaprio’s comments were not intended for public consumption, the Times of Israel reports.

The finalized attack plan arrives as Israel and the United States prepare for joint military exercises in the United States.

“The exercises, to be held in the coming months, will strengthen the relationship between the IAF and the US Air Force as they practice carrying out joint operations,” the Jerusalem-based online newspaper reported. “Israeli and US air defense forces are also to take part in a major joint drill later this summer in Israel to simulate a massive attack. Thousands of US soldiers are expected to arrive in Israel for the drills.”

In January, the Stars and Stripes reported that the exercise in Israel – billed as the largest ever conducted by the two countries – is not related to tensions with Iran, according to the U.S. European Command.

The long-planned exercise is “part of a routine training cycle designed to improve the interoperability of our air defense systems, and not in response to any real-world event,” said EUCOM spokesman Air Force Capt. John Ross.

“It’s a classified exercise, and we can’t release even small details about it,” Ross explained in an email to the Department of Defense newspaper.

“Austere Challenge ’12″ was originally scheduled for April, but postponed by Obama.

“U.S. participation in such an exercise, obviously geared to a scenario involving an Iranian retaliation against an Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities, would have made the United States out to be a partner of Israel in any war that would follow an Israeli attack on Iran,” Gareth Porter and Jim Lobe reported in January.

“Obama and U.S. military leaders apparently decided that the United States could not participate in such an exercise so long as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refused to give the administration any assurance that he will not attack Iran without prior approval from Washington.”

On March 8, the Israel Insider reported that Netanyahu had struck a deal with the United States.

“The US will supply Israel with bunker-busting bombs and refueling planes in return for delaying a strike against Iran until at least the end of the year,” the website reported, citing Maariv, a Hebrew language daily newspaper published in Israel.

In short, the long planned strike on Iran will occur after the November election in the United States.

Iranian Naval Admiral: ‘If Needed, We Can Move to Within Three Miles of New York’

By Reza Kahlili, The Daily Caller
April 27, 2012

The Islamic Republic of Iran said Tuesday that it has the ability to position a naval vessel within three miles of the East Coast of the United States.

“The power of our naval forces is such that we have a presence in all the waters of the world and, if needed, we can move to within three miles of New York,” Rear Admiral Ali Fadavi said Tuesday during a speech to the students of the University of Yazd in Iran.

His remarks were quoted by an Iranian student news agency.

This naval saber rattling represents a stark escalation in Iran’s war rhetoric, as the West weighs the question of whether to impose new economic sanctions or directly attack the Islamic regime’s illicit nuclear facilities.

“The Americans’ only tool to rule the world is their naval dominance of the Persian Gulf,” Fadavi added, “and they will face any other power that threatens their status.”

The admiral was speaking on the anniversary of a failed April 24, 1980 U.S. military operation — dubbed “Operation Eagle Claw” — that sought to rescue American hostages held captive at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.

A Pentagon official responded to Fadavi’s claim on Friday. “You should ask the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps what their plans are,” the official told The Daily Caller. “We support freedom of the seas and encourage all countries to follow international laws.”

But on Friday, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, Iran’s top air force commander, told the Fars New Agency that the Islamic republic’s military is also capable of crippling or disabling U.S. aircraft carriers.

“First, sinking an aircraft carrier is not a complicated task,” Hajizadeh said. ”Second, an aircraft carrier is equipped with so many advanced, delicate, and sensitive devices … that it could be incapacitated by even the smallest explosion.”

Although the U.S. military would likely intercept Iranian naval vessels before they could enter U.S. territorial waters, Iranian commercial vessels sailing under another country’s flag — if en route to Venezuela, for instance — could come close enough to the American shoreline to strike the U.S. Iran already possesses the capability to launch ballistic missiles from a ship.

Concerns about Iran’s nuclear-weapons ambitions make the threat of a naval incursion into U.S. waters a more pressing issue. Texas Republican Rep. Michael Conaway is promoting the Credible Military Option to Counter Iran Act, H.R. 4485, as one measure to prevent Iran from building a nuclear bomb.

The bill formalizes an understood U.S. policy “to take all necessary measures, including military action if required, to prevent Iran from threatening the United States, its allies, or Iran’s neighbors with a nuclear weapon.” It also allocates more than $594 million to enhance American firepower in the Persian Gulf region in fiscal 2012 and 2013.

“Preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon is among the most urgent national security challenges facing the United States,” Conaway wrote Wednesday in a “dear colleague” letter to other members of Congress. His legislation is needed, he said, “to prevent the increasingly dangerous situation in Iran from spiraling out of control.”

“My bill demonstrates to a defiant Iranian regime that the United States is prepared to take military action should they not halt their nuclear program,” Conaway told TheDC on Friday. “We must have a credible military option on the table to advance any real negotiations.”

Iranian Revolutionary Guards naval commanders said in July 2011 that they would expand their mission into the Atlantic Ocean, and that the country had equipped a number of its vessels with long-range ballistic missiles.

In September, Iranian Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi said Iran planned to deploy naval vessels in the Atlantic Ocean. “The Navy has a strong presence in the Caspian Sea, Persian Gulf, Sea of Oman, Indian Ocean and international waters and soon it will be present in the Atlantic Ocean,” Vahidi said.

On that same day, Rear Adm. Fadavi dismissed the idea of setting up a military hotline between U.S. and Iran. Media reports had quoted an unidentified U.S. defense official floating the idea after a series of close encounters between the countries’ forces in the Persian Gulf.

“When we go to the Gulf of Mexico,” Fadavi said, “we will establish direct communication with them.”

Reza Kahlili is a pseudonym for a former CIA operative in Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and the author of the award winning book ”A Time to Betray.” He teaches at the U.S. Department of Defense’s Joint Counterintelligence Training Academy (JCITA) and is a member of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security.

Israeli Ex-intel Chief Slams PM's Iran Stance

The Associated Press
April 28, 2012

The former head of Israel's Shin Bet security agency has accused the country's political leaders of exaggerating the effectiveness of a possible military strike against Iran, in a striking indication of Israel's turmoil over how to deal with the Iranian nuclear program.

Yuval Diskin said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak — who have been saber-rattling for months — have their judgment clouded by "messianic feelings" and should not be trusted to lead policy on Iran. Diskin, who headed Shin Bet until last year, said a strike might actually accelerate the Iranian program.

Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. Israel, like the West, believes that Tehran is developing weapons technology, but there is intense debate over whether international economic sanctions accompanying the current round of negotiations might prevent Iran from developing a bomb, or whether at some point a military strike should be launched.

Diskin's comments deepened the sense that a rift is growing between the hawkish Netanyahu government and the security establishment over the question of a strike.

In Israel, security figures carry clout well into retirement. Although they frequently pursue political careers, Diskin had been seen as relatively apolitical, perhaps lending his words even greater weight.

"I don't have faith in the current leadership of Israel to lead us to an event of this magnitude, of war with Iran," Diskin said at a public meeting Friday, video of which was posted on the Internet the next day and quickly became the lead news item in Israel.

"I do not believe in a leadership that makes decisions based on Messianic feelings," he continued. "I have seen them up close. They are not messiahs, these two, and they are not the people that I personally trust to lead Israel into an event."

Diskin said it was possible that "one of the results of an Israel attack on Iran could be a dramatic acceleration of the Iran program ... They will have legitimacy to do it more quickly and in a shorter timeframe."

Spokesmen for Netanyahu and Barak both refused comment on the issue.

Further complicating the picture is the widely held belief that Israel's threats are actually a bluff of historic proportion and that indeed they have been effective in compelling the world to boycott Iranian oil and isolate its central bank.

From that perspective, criticism such as Diskin's, based on a literal approach, could be presented as simplistic and damaging.

Israeli security officials have taken issue with the political leadership on several issues: whether sanctions will make a strike unnecessary, whether a strike will be militarily effective, and whether Israel should strike unilaterally if it cannot gain American approval.

Diskin's speech came days after the country's current top military commander, Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, also seemed to disagree with the country's leadership on the likelihood that Iran will pursue a nuclear weapon.

Gantz told The Associated Press this week that Iran is seeking to develop its "military nuclear capability," but that the Islamic Republic would ultimately bow to international pressure and decide against building a weapon. The key to that pressure, he said, were sanctions and the threat of a military strike.

One of the first criticisms voiced by a security figure came last summer from Israel's recently retired spy chief Meir Dagan. He called a military strike against Iran's nuclear program "stupid." Dagan, who headed the Mossad spy agency, said an effective attack on Iran would be difficult because Iranian nuclear facilities are scattered and mobile, and warned it could trigger war.

Other senior figures with security backgrounds have questioned whether Israel should act alone, as Netanyahu insists the country has a right to do.

Last month Shaul Mofaz — a former military chief and defense minister who has since been elected head of the opposition Kadima Party — said the threats of an imminent military strike are actually weakening Israel. Mofaz, who was born in Iran and moved to Israel as a child, said Israel "is not a ghetto" and that despite its military might must fully coordinate with the U.S. on any plan to strike Iran.

Dan Halutz, who led the military from 2005 to 2007, also criticized Netanyahu last month for invoking Holocaust imagery in describing the threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iran.

"We are not kings of the world," Halutz said. "We should remember who we are."

A recent poll suggested the public agrees. The survey, conducted by the Israeli Dahaf agency for the University of Maryland, said 81 percent of Israelis oppose a solo attack on Iran. At the same time, it said two-thirds of Israelis would support military action if coordinated with Washington. The poll, released last week, questioned 500 Israelis and had a margin of error of 4.3 percentage points.

In a recent report the U.N. nuclear agency found Iran continues to enrich uranium — a key step toward developing a bomb. Although few in Israel would dispute that a nuclear-armed Iran is an existential threat, debate has revolved around the cost-benefit analysis of an attack.

On the cost side is the possible retaliation, in the form of Iranian missiles as well as rocket attacks by Iranian proxies Hezbollah and Hamas on its northern and southern borders. Especially daunting is the prospect of sustained missile strikes on Tel Aviv, a bustling business and entertainment capital whose populous is psychologically ill-prepared for a homefront war.

It also would likely cause oil prices to skyrocket at a time when the global economy is already struggling — risking a new recession for which Israel would absorb much if not most of the blame. Some also fear that Iran might attack American targets in response to any Israeli strike — a scenario that could directly influence the outcome of this fall's U.S. presidential election.

Israel's Top General Says Iran Unlikely to Make Bomb

Reuters
April 26, 2012

Israel's military chief said he does not believe Iran will decide to build an atomic bomb and called its leaders "very rational" - comments that clashed with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's assessment.

Lieutenant-General Benny Gantz's remarks, in an interview published on Wednesday in the left-wing Haaretz newspaper, drew little attention in Israel on its annual remembrance day for fallen soldiers, when political discourse is suspended.

But they will add fuel to an internal debate on the prospects of Iran weaponizing its uranium enrichment program and the wisdom and risks of any Israeli military strike to try to prevent Tehran from becoming a nuclear power.

"Iran is moving step-by-step towards a point where it will be able to decide if it wants to make a nuclear bomb. It has not decided yet whether to go the extra mile," Gantz said.

But, he said, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei could opt to produce nuclear weapons should he believe that Iran would not face reprisal.

"In my opinion, he will be making a huge mistake if he does that and I don't think he will want to go the extra mile," Gantz said.

"I think the Iranian leadership is comprised of very rational people. But I agree that such a capability in the hands of Islamic fundamentalists, who at some moments may make different calculations, is a dangerous thing."

Israel, believed to have the Middle East's only nuclear arsenal, has not ruled out military action against Iran should economic sanctions fail to curb its nuclear program, saying all options were on the table.

Last week, in a speech during Israel's Holocaust remembrance day, Netanyahu said:

"Today, the regime in Iran openly calls and determinedly works for our destruction. And it is feverishly working to develop atomic weapons to achieve that goal."

Tehran denies seeking the bomb, saying it is enriching uranium only for peaceful energy purposes and that its nuclear program is a threat to no one.

Speaking on CNN on Tuesday, Netanyahu said he would not want to bet "the security of the world on Iran's rational behavior."

A "militant Islamic regime", he said, "can put their ideology before their survival."

The portrayal of Iran as irrational - willing to attack Israel with a nuclear weapon even if it means the destruction of the Islamic Republic in retaliatory strikes - could bolster a case for pre-emptive bombing to take out its atomic facilities.

Netanyahu had already been stung at home by his former spymaster, Meir Dagan, who said that such an Israeli strike on Iran would be a "ridiculous" idea.

Shannon Kile, a nuclear proliferation expert at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, said Gantz's description of Iranian leaders as rational was "quite an interesting turnabout."

"Hopefully, it is going to reduce the incentives for any sort of pre-emptive or preventive military action, at least for the time being," Kile said.

The United States has also not ruled out military action as a last resort. But many allies of Washington, and even some senior U.S. officials, fear such an attack could ignite a broader war and only temporarily halt Iran's nuclear advances.

Gantz's assessment appeared to be in step with the view of the top U.S. military officer, General Martin Dempsey. He said in a CNN interview in February he believed Iran was a "rational actor" and it would be premature to take military action against it.

Israeli political sources said at the time that the remarks by Dempsey - who also suggested Israel's armed forces could not deliver lasting damage to Iranian nuclear sites - had angered Netanyahu.

A diplomat who tracks Iran carefully said Gantz's comments might aim to tilt Israeli opinion away from a strike.

"I would see it as push-back or maybe something preventive," he said, saying the assessment "flies in the face" of Netanyahu's views.

"What he said ... (is) consistent with the views of the U.S. military leadership, the U.S. intelligence community," said Carnegie Endowment for International Peace analyst George Perkovich. "What's interesting is why he said it out loud."

INTERNATIONAL CONCERN

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak raised international concern about a possible Israeli strike several months ago when he spoke about time running out for effective Israeli military action against Iranian nuclear sites buried deep underground.

Netanyahu, while noting that Iran has made no apparent decision to begin constructing a bomb, has voiced impatience with the pace of nuclear talks that began this month between Tehran and six world powers, the first such negotiations in more than a year.

"Either Iran takes its nuclear program to a civilian footing only, or the world, perhaps us too, will have to do something. We're closer to the end of the discussions than the middle," Gantz said.

However, he also said international pressure on Iran "is beginning to bear fruit, both on the diplomatic level and on the economic sanctions level."

Netanyahu said on CNN the sanctions were "certainly taking a bite out of the Iranian economy but so far they haven't rolled back the Iranian program or even stopped it by one iota.

"Unfortunately, that's not achieved by talks in which Iran has one goal, to stall, delay, run out the clock; that's basically what they're doing."

Gantz, a former paratrooper who has served as Israel's military attaché in Washington, was asked in the Haaretz interview what impact his view would have on government decision-making on Iran.

"Whatever weight the government decides to ascribe it," he said.

"I say my opinion according to my own professional truth and my strategic analysis. I will say it sharply: I do not forget my professional ethics. The government will decide after it hears the professional echelon and the army will carry out, in a faithful and determined manner, any decision that is made."

Kile said he was surprised Gantz had spoken out, "because normally the Israeli military leadership on the nuclear issue has been quite subdued," with former intelligence officials "coming out and trying to cool ... the possible Israeli impetus towards military action."

Gantz took over as chief of staff a year ago but has been less outspoken on strategic issues than his predecessor, Gabi Ashkenazi. He was not the first choice for the job. The preferred candidate, Yoav Gallant, had to bow out because of a property scandal.

In at least one turning point in Israeli history, the government chose to ignore a strong warning from the military's top general about the intentions of a longtime adversary.

In 1977, then-chief of staff Mordechai Gur famously cautioned the Cabinet that Egyptian President Anwar Sadat's offer to visit Jerusalem could be a smokescreen for war preparations. Sadat's trip led to a peace treaty in 1979.

Israel Army Chief: Other Nations Could Strike Iran

The Associated Press
April 26, 2012

Israel's military chief said Thursday that other countries have readied their armed forces for a potential strike against Iran's nuclear sites to keep Tehran from acquiring atomic weapons.

Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz did not specify which nations might be willing to support or take direct action against Iran. Still, his comments were one of the strongest hints yet that Israel may have the backing of other countries to strike the Islamic Republic to prevent it from developing nuclear arms.

"The military force is ready," Gantz said. "Not only our forces, but other forces as well."

"We all hope that there will be no necessity to use this force, but we are absolutely sure of its existence," he told The Associated Press, adding that he was not speaking on behalf of any other nation.

Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, and that it does not aim to develop atomic weapons.

Israel, which views a nuclear Iran as an existential threat, has said it will not allow Tehran to acquire a nuclear bomb. It cites Iranian calls for Israel's destruction, Tehran's support for militant groups and its development of missiles capable of striking the Jewish state.

Israel's key ally, the United States, favors diplomacy and economic sanctions and has said military action on Iran's nuclear facilities should only be a last resort if all else fails. U.S. logistical and diplomatic support would likely be crucial to any potential Israeli strike.

Washington and other major powers have imposed a series of crippling economic sanctions while opening a dialogue with Iran.

Gantz said that in his assessment Iran is seeking to develop its "military nuclear capability," but that the Islamic Republic would ultimately bow to international pressure and decide against building a weapon.

The key to that pressure, he said, were sanctions and the threat of a military strike.

Gantz's stance on Iran's intentions appeared to put him at odds with Israel's political leaders, who have staked out a more hardline position. Gantz denied that was the case Thursday, saying there was no internal disagreement over Iran's aims.

But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told CNN on Tuesday that international sanctions have not changed Iran's behavior, and that the country continues to enrich uranium — a key step toward developing a weapon.

The sanctions "haven't rolled back the Iranian program or even stopped it by one iota," Netanyahu said.

Russia, China Seek Info on U.S. Drone Held by Iran

The Associated Press
April 19, 2012

Iran's semiofficial Fars news agency says Russia and China have asked Tehran to provide them with information on a U.S. drone captured by the Islamic Republic in December.

The Thursday report quotes Ahmad Karimpour, an adviser to Iran's defense minister, as saying Tehran has received requests for many countries for information on the RQ-170 Sentinel, but Moscow and Beijing have been most aggressive in their pursuit of details on the drone. He did not elaborate.

Iran said in December that it had downed the unmanned stealth aircraft in eastern Iran.

U.S. officials have acknowledged losing the drone. They have said Iran will find it hard to exploit any data and technology aboard it because of measures taken to limit the intelligence value of drones operating over hostile territory.