Antichrist Must Come First and Sit in the Temple Claiming to be God, Causing a Great Falling Away from the Christian Faith

The Amazing Parallels of End Time Scriptures (Excerpt)
By John Aggson Sr., Liberty To The Captives

AntiChrist will come before Christ returns and he will sit in the rebuilt temple in Jerusalem claiming to be God. Why is it that people can never see the blindness and sin in their OWN GENERATION? Why can we look back to the past and see the sins of others in the Bible down through time, but do not even suspect that today, we are doing the same thing the Pharisees of old did? Why can we not see the “blindness” and “callousness” in our own hearts?

Many folks have gotten fed up over “arguing:” over this subject, and say that “they refuse to even discuss it anymore!” I have seen brethren almost come to blows and scream and yell at each other over this topic! The devil gets really angry when it is brought up, because it is exposing one of his GREATEST DECEITS THAT HE IS FOISTING UPON GOD’S UNSUSPECTING CHURCH IN THE END TIME! It is certainly wrong to get ANGRY over anything and get mad at each other, but it is not wrong to discuss such a serious and important matter as this!? Satan just loves that feint! That “cop out!” He knows that then every one will be afraid to bring the subject up after that for fear of starting a “hullabullo,” and will just not talk about it. Then folks go on teaching their perverted and distorted view to the flock of God’s Church! He is so clever! First of all, it is NOT a light thing, and will have very dramatic negative effects on God’s Church when things do not transpire as folks have been taught they will!

Most folks teaching this “pre-trib” view are doing it in ignorance; just “parroting” what they have been taught since they got saved, without having ever taken the time to study it all out carefully, and prayerfully. The Lord is very merciful, and understanding, and patient. He is trying to get folks to “see the light” on this, but it is very difficult. “As the branch bends, so grows the tree!?” And once a person is grounded deeply in this false belief system, it seems to be very hard to convince them otherwise, or to even get them to LOOK AT THE FACTS surrounding all this, and read Scriptures like the ones in this study.

Most will “stubbornly” cling to this false view, until it becomes apparent that it is wrong, and then they will say, “Oh WHY, didn’t we see this plain and simple truth laid out in the Scriptures?” “WHY couldn’t we see what Jesus warned SO CLEARLY of concerning all this?” Suddenly the “blinders” will be “ripped off” and they will clearly see; but too late to alter the effects of what it will cause on “the Body!” Those who are “strong” in the Lord will survive, but sadly, it will not go so good for those who “follow afar off; who will begin to question their FAITH, and the LORD, and to become very confused!” Many may just “give up!?”

This is something that should be brought out into the open and discussed above almost all else, after Salvation and other basics of the Faith! People say that it is just “causing division.” The TRUTH always causes division among those who resent hearing it! Jesus’s Words caused division. Paul’s words caused division, and Paul ARGUED with the Pharisees and “contended” and “disputed” with them for 3 years in the Book of Acts, before getting fed up with them and telling them he’d had it with them and was now going to the Gentiles! So it is not wrong to “contend” for the Truth!

Many Christians will support the antiChrist when he comes, thinking that he couldn’t possibly be the antiChrist or they would have been raptured out already!? He’s not coming with “horns and hoofs” and a “pitchfork!?” He will appear as “AN ANGEL OF LIGHT!” He will appear to be a very righteous and Godly man, a great man of peace, who will be championing the cause of Israel in the world courts, demanding that they be given the right to rebuild their temple, (which he plans to sit in and rule from) and that they should be given the right to re-start their animal sacrifices once again.

Folks will think he’s the greatest man of peace and friend of Israel to ever come along!? He’s going to fool nearly EVERYONE! DON’T YOU BE DECEIVED! Read these Scriptures again and pray over them, asking the Lord if these things are really the truth!? Satan is setting the entire church system up for the greatest “sucker punch” he’s ever given them; knocking their faith out by total surprise and shock, when things do not turn out the way folks have been taught! He’s lulled almost the entire church to sleep. Wake up and see what’s coming! He just LOVES this method of catching folks off guard by total surprise, and causing the greatest amount of fear possible in an instant! It causes such great confusion, and he is the “author of confusion.” He wants to totally KNOCK OUT THE CHURCH IN ONE PUNCH!!!

Like a great commanding general who studies out his war strategies long in advance, Satan sat back and looked over this “end time” scenario centuries ago. He knew he would have to put the Church to sleep to be able to catch them by surprise in this fashion. He began to enter the Church with false “sleepy” doctrines.

Pre-trib rapture teaching is part of Satan’s long term strategy to get the Church right where he wants us so he can wreak the most havoc and cause the greatest amount of confusion and damage possible when his man, the “beast” or “antiChrist” comes to power!? The Church will “rock and reel” under the fiery darts of the one who will “speak great words against the Most High,” and “wear out the Saints of the Most High;” who will “make war with the Saints and PREVAIL against them!?” And when the “guillotines begin to fall,” and people begin to lose their heads for refusing to deny their Faith in Jesus Christ, many may begin to “jump off the boat” like “scared men fleeing a sinking ship!?”

Instead of a “pre-tribulation rapture,” many are going to be “yanked” out of their beds in the middle of the night, by complete surprise; by “jackbooted” storm troopers, brandishing sub-machine guns, and dressed in black S.W.A.T. gear; and hauled off to PRISON CAMPS, that have already been set up all over America, under a program first designed by Lt. Colonel Oliver North, in the days of President Ronald Reagan, called “REX 84!” This was even exposed in Congress by Congressman Jack Brooks, who publicly challenged Oliver North about it and was told to “shut up” as it was a matter of national security! Although originally designed to “house” American gun-owners and patriots who refuse to go along with a “new world order” takeover — complete with a massive “gun confiscation program” — as well as other “dissidents;” this same program in the hands of a future administration may be used to lock up even other “Christian dissidents” who, although “peaceful” and non-violent, do not “believe” the way they are supposed to (ie: folks who dare to expose America and Israel’s sins!). Daniel the Prophet also spoke of this same event over and over; of a GREAT PERSECUTION of God’s Saints in the END TIME TRIBULATION PERIOD, under the TERRIFYING REIGN OF THE ANTICHRIST.

Many may support the antiChrist thinking he’s a good man, and not suspecting him at all because they have been taught they will be “raptured out” first before he comes!? Wake up America! YOU ARE the “MIGHTY AND THE HOLY PEOPLE!” spoken of by Daniel the prophet. The American churches are going to feel the main brunt of this persecution, along with the tiny nation of Israel!

The “indignation” spoken of by Daniel is “God’s indignation” against the nation of Israel for “trying to take their kingdom back in the flesh” without going through the proper “doorway” of JESUS CHRIST His Son, (as per John 10) and winning the world through His love, instead of considering themselves better than everyone else (God is no respecter of persons) and mowing them down with machine guns, bombs and bullets, to take back what they consider “rightfully theirs,” — but is NOT since the Lord drove them out 2,000 years ago. And also because they are willing to accept “one who comes in his own name” to get this great advantage and blessing, instead of having accepted Him who came “in the name of His Father,” Jesus Christ! This “indignation of God” is also against the duped American church system for “aiding and abbetting” them in this great end time “fiasco!”

Both the American church system and the modern nation of so-called “Israel” are going to be PURGED AND PURIFIED AND MADE WHITE HERE to get them straightened out on this issue! When they finally realize all this — under the antiChrist’s relentless attacks and his actual “winning” against them and subduing and destroying them — AND THEY REPENT (as per Zechariah 13), then the “Lord will come and fight against those nations that have come against them, and He will return in all His glory to fight for His people and deliver them from their STRONG OPPRESSOR!” (as per Zechariah 14).

This is another “great lie” that has entered the “corrupt and compromised American church system” that the Lord is going to expose before all, before the great day of His Coming! Jesus said in John chapters 8 & 10, to the Pharisees, that they were not going to be saved and blessed by God merely because they were “flesh sons of Abraham,” and that they had to go through “HIM, the ‘DOOR’, to get into the kingdom!?” Now, 2,000 years later the same bunch with the same mindset have returned to foist this same belief on the followers of Christ, and most have warmly received it with open arms, no questions asked, and would support them to the death, fighting to get their land back for them — thinking that they are “doing God service!?” But don’t worry! God is going to “straighten everyone out on this” before the Lord returns! It will be made very plain!

As both America and Israel “rock and reel” under the antiChrist’s future attacks, and coming terrorist attacks — and natural disasters like famines, earthquakes, weather related disasters, disease, and ill health — many will TURN HARD to the Lord and begin questioning, “why is all this coming upon us?”

Most Churches are turning their people into “MODERN PHARISEES” instead of loving followers of Christ, like the early disciples were. And then they are built on the false foundation of these other modern “comfortable” teachings that put them TOTALLY TO SLEEP, concerning the totally serious and sometimes “horrifying” end time events that are coming; and make them into “self-righteous judges” of today’s “wicked sinners” and “publicans and harlots,” who condemn folks to hell with their tongues, instead of loving them into the kingdom. The TRIBULATION is the time period in which the antiChrist tries to stamp out all other religions, and mainly Christianity; and to foist upon the world the worship of himself as God. During the tribulation, 1/3rd of everything is destroyed by the Lord’s “selective judgments,” while we are protected miraculously by the Lord right here on the earth.

Panetta Says the 'U.S. Must Remain a Global Power, But ... More and More Nations are Making and Must Make an Important Contribution to Global Security'

U.S. Sees South America as Possible China Counter

The Associated Press
April 28, 2012

In these days of shrinking U.S. defense budgets, the Obama administration is looking to South America to help monitor and protect the Asia-Pacific region in the years ahead.

During visits to Colombia, Brazil and Chile this past week, Pentagon chief Leon Panetta underscored their importance as military partners in the Pacific, where China is challenging U.S. influence in a number of countries. As those defense relationships grow, officials say it can only help U.S. economic and political ties across South America.

Panetta's talks also focused on how the United States can support their military efforts, including those directed at the expanding threat of cyberattacks, according to several senior defense officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because the meetings were private.

U.S. officials left the region thinking that at some point there may be opportunities to talk with South American nations about helping to train Afghan forces after NATO combat troops leave at the end of 2014. Officials would provide no details on which countries might eventually be willing to take on some of the training mission, which will need advisers as other NATO nations withdraw their troops.

With the U.S. turning its focus from Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon's new military strategy puts more importance on the Asia-Pacific region. North Korea is a growing threat while China is building its military and working to expand its political and economic influence.

The Pentagon is poised to move more forces to the Pacific, including rotating units in and out of Australia. The U.S. has long provided training, equipment, assistance and a security umbrella for many of the region. With looming budget cuts that will reduce the size of the military, the U.S. is looking to South American countries to be more active global partners.

"The United States, just like other countries, are facing budget constrictions, which are going to affect the future," Panetta told reporters at a news conference in Brazil. "And what we believe is that the best way to approach the future is to develop partnerships, alliances, to develop relationships with other countries, share information, share assistance, share capabilities, and in that way we can provide greater security for the future."

Panetta would like to see South American countries use their greater military capability to train some Central American nations that are not as advanced.

Defense chiefs Juan Camillo Pinzon of Colombia, Celso Amorim of Brazil and Andres Allamand of Chile brought up cyberthreats as a major concern, including incidents of hacker attacks and data thefts, U.S. defense officials said.

The three countries, said one official said, want help from the U.S. in hardening their computer networks against breaches and increasing their technological skills. The official said there is a recognition of how vulnerable they are, and they want to learn more about the nature of the threat and how to combat it.

That threat is likely to involve China, which is steadily gaining as a top trading partner and economic developer in South America. It's surpassing the U.S. in trade with Brazil, Chile and Peru, and is a close second in Argentina and Colombia.

For the first time, U.S. intelligence officials publicly called out China late last year as a significant cyberthreat. While they did not directly tie attacks to the Beijing government, they said the Chinese are systematically stealing American high-tech data for their own economic gain. The unusually forceful public report seemed to signal a new, more vocal U.S. government campaign against the cyberattacks.

The Pentagon's clandestine National Security Agency is an acknowledged world leader in cybertechnologies. U.S. officials have struggled to work out ways for the government to help other nations as well as the private sector in the United States shore up critical networks.

To date, however, countries around the world have not come up with any detailed agreements on how best to work together. These issues present legal and political challenges, including conflicting laws and the lack of broadly accepted international guidelines for Internet oversight.

Panetta made it clear that cybersecurity was "a whole new arena" that all the nations are concerned about. He also encouraged South American nations to expand their security efforts to other regions, including Africa.

"The United States must remain a global power," Panetta said during a speech in Brazil. "But ... more and more nations are making and must make an important contribution to global security. We welcome and encourage this new reality because frankly it makes the world safer and all of our nations stronger."

'Friends of Syria' Group Created after Russia and China Veto U.N. Draft Resolution to Pressure Syria's Assad to Step Down

As Syria Burns, Neighboring Lebanon Feels the Heat

Associated Press
February 11, 2012

The tensions between the two neighborhoods were building for days in the northern Lebanese city of Tripoli. On one side live Sunni Muslims who hate the Syrian regime. On the hill above are members of the Alawite sect, Bashar Assad's strongest backers.

Overnight, the tempers exploded. For hours, gunmen in the two districts traded automatic weapons fire and volleys of rocket-propelled grenades across the avenue that divides them, ironically named Syria Street.

By the time a shaky truce was reached Saturday, two people were dead — one from each side — and 12 people wounded, half of them soldiers trying to stop the clashes.

The fighting underscored how the bloodshed in Syria, where Assad's regime is cracking down on an 11-month-old uprising against his rule, is enflaming emotions in its tiny neighbor Lebanon. The already deep divisions between Lebanese are being strained, and many fear Syria's chaos will bleed over across the border.

Lebanon is sharply split along sectarian lines, with 18 religious sects. But it also has a fragile political faultline precisely over the issue of Syria.

There is an array of diehard pro-Syrian Lebanese parties and politicians, as well as support for the regime on the street level. There is an equally deep hatred of Assad among other Lebanese who fear Damascus is still calling the shots here. The two sides are the legacy of, and backlash against, Syria's virtual rule over Lebanon from 1976 to 2005 and its continued influence since.

Tempers between the two sides are high enough. But Syria opponents worry the regime may intentionally cause trouble.

"The Syrian regime holds a lot of cards in Lebanon, and the biggest fear is that as the Assad regime gets more desperate, it would decide to use them to create regional chaos," anti-Syrian politician Mustafa Alloush said.

Among those cards is Hezbollah, the Syrian and Iranian-backed Shiite militant group with an arsenal of weapons more powerful than that of the Lebanese army.

Already, any talk about Syria is potential cause for a fight.

On a political talk show on Al-Jazeera TV earlier this month, Lebanese writer and Syria supporter Joseph Abu Fadel flew into a rage over taunts from the other guest, a Syrian opposition member.

Abu Fadel leaped from his chair and charged around the table, fists clenched — and though the host got between them, he managed to land a slap on his rival's face.

An earlier show on Lebanese television turned into a brawl when Alloush called Syria's president a liar. His rival guest, Fayez Shukur, the head of the Lebanese branch of Syria's ruling party, hurled a glass of water in his face.

Northern Lebanon, in particular, is a potential powder keg.

It has a strong Sunni Muslim population, sympathetic to its sectarian brethren who have been the backbone of the Syrian uprising. But it also has pockets of Alawites, the Shiite offshoot that makes up the majority of the Syrian regime's leadership and to which Assad himself belongs.

The Friday-Saturday night clashes were between the mainly Sunni Bab Tabbaneh neighborhood and the adjacent, Alawite-majority Jabal Mohsen, on a hill overlooking its rival.

Short bouts of gunfire or grenade-throwing between them has been going on for years because of the sectarian tensions. But the violence has become more frequent as Syria worsens. Sunnis in Bab Tabbaneh resent their Alawite neighbors' backing of Assad, while Jabal Mohsen residents accuse their rivals of giving aid to the uprising.

In Beirut last week, hundreds of Lebanese demonstrators faced off outside the Russian Embassy after Russia and China vetoed a Western- and Arab-backed resolution at the U.N. Security Council aimed at pressing Assad to step down. An army cordon separated the anti-Assad crowd from the president's supporters to prevent clashes.

"Bashar, we are your men!" supporters shouted unanimously.

"Come on, Bashar, leave!" opponents chanted back.

Many of Lebanon's Christians, meanwhile, have been laying low on the subject of Syria.

Their community is divided between pro- and anti-Syrian camps. Even some Christian opponents of Damascus are hesitant about backing an uprising they fear will bring Sunni fundamentalists to power in Syria.

Patriarch Bechara al-Rai, head of the Maronite Church, which had long been critical of Damascus, raised an uproar in September when he warned that the Christian presence in the Mideast could be threatened if Assad falls. He said Assad should be given a chance to reform.

The tensions come at a time when anti-Syrian parties in Lebanon, which once ran the government, are weakened. They were replaced in 2010 by a government dominated by Hezbollah and pro-Syrian allies. Prime Minister Najib Mikati, a personal friend of Assad, says he isn't taking sides in the crisis, adopting a policy of "disassociation."

Still, opponents accuse the government of complicity with Damascus.

Lebanon voted against suspending Syria from the Arab League in November and was the only member state that did not endorse a League plan calling on Assad to transfer powers to his vice president.

"The Lebanese government is cooperating with the Syrian regime, they are only using this policy of disassociation as a cover," Alloush said.

A longtime Syrian military presence in Lebanon ended after massive 2005 protests sparked by the killing of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in a car bombing. Many Lebanese accuse Syria of involvement in the assassination, a charge Damascus denies.

A Western-backed, anti-Syrian government was elected, but its stint in power was plagued by constant feuds with Hezbollah, until the Shiite movement succeeded in bringing it down and elevating pro-Syrians to power.

Writing in the leading An-Nahar daily, political analyst Abdelwahab Badrakhan warned that Syria could stir up trouble in Lebanon to intimidate the West and "settle scores" with Arabs it accuses of conspiring against it.

Anti-Syrian politicians say they fear possible assassinations, recalling a string of unsolved killings of Lebanese critics of Syria in 2006. Last week, media reported that legislator Sami Gemayel had been warned by a security chief to take precautions because of a threat.

Alloush, the anti-Syrian politician, said he takes the warnings seriously.

"The Syrian regime is in trouble and as it goes down, the concern is that it will try to bring everyone down with it."

Arab League Wants UN Peacekeepers in Syria

Associated Press
February 13, 2012

The Arab League called Sunday for the U.N. Security Council to create a joint peacekeeping force for Syria and urged Arab states to sever all diplomatic contact with President Bashar Assad's regime, the League's latest effort to bring an end to the violence that has killed more than 5,000 people.

Syria immediately rejected the moves, spelled out in a resolution adopted by League foreign ministers meeting in Cairo.

Saudi Foreign Minister Saud Al-Faisal conveyed the 22-nation League's deep frustration with Syria, telling delegates that it was no longer appropriate to stand by and watch the bloodshed.

"Until when will we remain spectators?" he said. The bloodshed in Syria "is a disgrace for us as Muslims and Arabs to accept."

Syria's state news agency said the regime rejected the Arab League decisions, which were taken without a Syrian representative present. Syria's ambassador to the Arab League, Ahmed Youssef, was quoted as saying that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were "living in a state of hysteria after their last failure at the U.N. Security Council to call for outside interference in Syria's affairs and to impose sanctions on the Syrian people."

The Arab League has been at the forefront of regional efforts to end 11 months of bloodshed in Syria. The group put forward a plan that Assad agreed to in December, then sent in monitors to check whether he was complying. When it became clear that Assad's regime was flouting the terms of the agreement and the killings were continuing, the League pulled out the observers last month.

"The time has come for a decisive action to stop the bloodshed suffered by the Syrian people since the start of last year," Arab League chief Nabil Elaraby told the Arab foreign ministers. "We must move quickly in all directions ... to end or break the ongoing cycle of violence in Syria."

The League called for the U.N. Security Council to adopt a resolution that provides for an immediate cease-fire in Syria, the protection of civilians and overseeing a humanitarian effort for victims of the violence. It demanded that regime forces lift the siege on neighborhoods and villages and pull troops and their heavy weapons back to their barracks.

It urged Syrian opposition groups to unite ahead of a Feb. 24 meeting in Tunisia of the "Friends of Syria" group, which includes the United States, its European allies and Arab nations working to end the uprising against Assad's authoritarian rule.

The group was created after last weekend's veto at the U.N. by Russia and China of a Western and Arab draft resolution that would have pressured Assad to step down. That resolution also would have demanded that Assad halt the crackdown on dissent and implement the Arab League peace plan that calls for him to hand over power to his vice president and allow creation of a unity government to clear the way for elections.

Elaraby told the Cairo meeting that Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov wrote him a letter Saturday saying Russia would agree to a joint U.N.-Arab League peacekeeping force.

The League also said it wanted to provide Syrian opposition groups with political and material support. It called for a halt to all diplomatic contacts with Syria and for referring officials responsible for crimes against the Syrian people to international criminal tribunals. It urged a tightening of trade sanctions previously adopted by the League that have not been fully implemented.

The foreign ministers were also expected to consider a proposal by Gulf states to expel Syrian ambassadors from Arab capitals, but the resolution made no mention of that.

Meanwhile, Washington piled more pressure on Syria.

President Barack Obama's chief of staff, Jacob Lew, said it was only a matter of time before Assad's regime collapsed.

"The brutality of the Assad regime is unacceptable and has to end," Lew told "Fox News Sunday." The U.S. is pursuing "all avenues that we can" and "there is no question that this regime will come to an end. The only question is when," he said.

Late Saturday, al-Qaida chief Ayman al-Zawahri threw the terror network's support behind Syrian rebels trying to topple President Bashar Assad, raising fears that Islamic extremists are exploiting the uprising that began peacefully but is quickly transforming into an armed insurgency.

The regime has long blamed terrorists for the revolt, and al-Qaida's endorsement creates new difficulties for Western and Arab states trying to figure out a way to help force Assad out of power.

At the Cairo meeting, foreign ministers from the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council proposed that all Arab League nations withdraw their ambassadors from Damascus and expel Syria's ambassadors from their capitals, according to officials.

The proposal was not mentioned in the resolution, but the clause calling for a halt to all diplomatic contacts with Syria appeared to reflect a compromise.

The six gulf nations, particularly Saudi Arabia and Qatar, have been campaigning for a tougher stand against Assad's regime and may offer formal recognition of the National Syrian Council, the largest of Syria's opposition groups.

Assad's regime has pursued a harsh crackdown against the uprising since it began last March. More than 5,400 people have been killed, according to a U.N. estimate in January. That figure has not been updated because the chaos in Syria has made it all but impossible to do so, and hundreds have been reported killed since.

Iran Won't Give Up Its Right to Enrich Uranium and Produce Nuclear Fuel, But It Will Allow Inspectors to Visit Its Nuclear Sites to Ensure That Its Nuclear Program Won't Be Weaponized

Ahmadinejad Says Iran Ready for Nuclear Talks

The Associated Press
January 26, 2012

Iran is ready to revive talks with the world powers, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday, as toughening sanctions aim at forcing Tehran to sharply scale back its nuclear program.

Even so, he insisted that the pressures will not force Iran to give up its demands, including to continue enriching uranium, that led to the collapse of dialogue last year.

The United States and its allies want Iran to halt making nuclear fuel, which they worry could eventually lead to weapons-grade material and the production of nuclear weapons.

Iran says its program is for peaceful purposes — generating electricity and producing medical radioisotopes to treat cancer patients.

The 27-member European Union imposed an oil embargo against Iran on Monday, part of sanctions to pressure Tehran into resuming talks on the country's nuclear program. It follows U.S. action also aimed at limiting Iran's ability to sell oil, which accounts for 80 percent of its foreign revenue.

No date is set for the possible resumption of talks between Iran and the five permanent U.N. Security Council members plus Germany. Negotiations ended in stalemate in January 2011, and Iran later rejected a plan to send its stockpile of low-enriched uranium abroad in exchange for reactor-ready fuel rods.

Iran had previously indicated that it is ready for a new round of talks. Ahmadinejad is the highest-ranking official to make the offer.

He accused the West of trying to scuttle negotiations as a way to further squeeze Iran.

"It is you who come up with excuses each time and issue resolutions on the verge of talks so that negotiations collapse," Ahmadinejad said in a speech in Kerman in southeastern Iran. "Why should we shun talks? Why and how should a party that has logic and is right shun talks? It is evident that those who resort to coercion are opposed to talks and always bring pretexts and blame us instead."

A senior U.N. nuclear agency team is expected to visit Tehran on Saturday, the first such mission since a report in November that alleged Iran conducted secret weapons-related tests and that Tehran was on the brink of developing a nuclear weapon.

The delegation from the International Atomic Energy Agency will be led by Deputy Director General Herman Nackaerts, who is in charge of the Iran nuclear file, and might include Peri Lynne Johnson, the agency's senior legal official.

Iran begun uranium enrichment at a new underground site built to withstand possible airstrikes earlier this month, in another show of defiance against Western pressure to rein in Tehran's nuclear program.

Centrifuges at the bunker-like Fordo facility near Iran's holy city of Qom are churning out uranium enriched to 20 percent. That level is higher than the 3.5 percent being made at Iran's main enrichment plant at Natanz, central Iran, and can be turned into warhead material faster and with less work.

Iran says it won't give up its right to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel, but it has offered to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors to visit its nuclear sites to ensure that its nuclear program won't be weaponized.

Ahmadinejad also said sanctions and oil embargo will backfire because it has minimum trade with EU.

"Americans have not purchased Iranian oil for 30 years. Our central bank has had no dealings with them ... our (total) foreign trade is about $200 billion. Between $23 billion to $24 billion of our trade is with Europeans, making up about 10 percent of our total trade ... Iran won't suffer," Ahmadinejad said.

His comments were posted on state TV's website.

Ahmadinejad said sanctions won't harm the government, but only the people.

He said officials will be paid.

"They won't be under pressure ... it's clear that you (U.S. and allies) want to pressure the people," Ahmadinejad said. "History has shown that the Iranian nation has overcome obstacles. The bigger the obstacles, the more determined the Iranian nation is."

The EU had been importing about 450,000 barrels of oil a day from Iran, making up 18 percent of Iran's oil exports.

In Beijing, the official Xinhua News Agency quoted the Foreign Ministry as opposing the latest EU measures on Iran.

"To blindly pressure and impose sanctions on Iran are not constructive approaches," the statement said.

China, which is a major buyer of Iranian oil, has urged that the nuclear standoff be resolved through dialogue and consultation.

Russia Says It Would Never Support a U.N. Resolution Imposing Economic Sanctions on Iran

Bible prophecy describes a coalition of nations that will almost certainly include China and Russia and several other Muslim nations of the Middle East. The Euphrates originates in Turkey, and flows through Syria and Iraq; then it converges with the Tigris River, which then borders Iran. Anyone who hears the daily news should know that these four nations are extremely volatile trouble spots for military conflicts nowadays. The prophecies even imply that the nation of Iraq, once controlled by the regime of Saddam Hussein, will be a notable part of this final showdown. The population of these countries today is: Turkey -- 77 million; Syria -- 19.4 million; Iraq -- 29 million; Iran -- 70 million. The total population of that region is 195.4 million. Obviously, a 200-million-man army cannot come from these nations alone. In the light of China's cooperation with Iran and Syria (both openly and covertly), it appears to be fairly certain that China will league with Iran and Syria, somehow engaging Iraq and Turkey as well, to attempt to defeat Israel and the West. Their rabid anti-Zionism, anti-American hatred will not die, but will escalate into the worst conflagration in the history of human conflicts. Every day, the evidence mounts that China will be tightly leagued with Russia and many of the Islamic nations in a powerful new anti-Israel political and military alliance from which this 200-million-man army will ultimately come. - The Church Will Be 'Raptured' at Armageddon

Russia Asserting Itself Against West, This Time Over Syria Regime Change

The Washington Post
January 28, 2012

With the United States and its allies pressing President Bashar al-Assad to step down, the Arab League last week issued a detailed plan for a political transition in Syria. The plan was welcomed by the Obama administration, and Arab leaders quickly said they would refer it to the United Nations.

And a day later, Russia had its say: Not a chance.

“This is an effort from the Arab League, if I understand correctly, to sort of already put a precooked solution on the table,” said Vitaly I. Churkin, Moscow’s envoy to the United Nations. “I understand that the attitude of Damascus to that has been negative.”

The response doomed any hope of a quick resolution at the United Nations to bring greater pressure to bear on the Syrian government, but it also fell into a familiar pattern by which Moscow has shown a growing willingness to challenge the United States and its European partners on a range of issues.

In recent weeks, Moscow has sought U.N. scrutiny of possible crimes by NATO during its air campaign in Libya, and even called for investigations into organ sales in Kosovo, a close ally of the West. Most notably, Moscow has obstructed any effort to increase pressure on Iran. Asked in an interview whether Russia would ever support a U.N. resolution imposing economic sanctions on the Islamic republic, Churkin said:

“No chance, no chance, no chance. . . . Ever.”

Critics say Moscow’s tough line at the United Nations reflects what one senior council diplomat described as “the Putinization of Russian foreign policy,” on the eve of what many expect will be the return of Vladimir Putin to the presidency. Other analysts say Russia is trying to reassert its authority in the council following a period in which the United States and Europe prevailed in the handling of several major crises, engineering the downfall of former Ivory Coast leader Laurent Gbagbo and, more recently, of Moammar Gaddafi in Libya.

“The Russians looked diminished in the first half of 2011, and the strategy is to show, one, they are prepared to act as a spoiler, but, two, they can also lay out a more proactive agenda,” said Richard Gowan, an expert on the United Nations at the New York University Center for International Cooperation.

The United States and its European partners have responded to Russian aims by mounting a campaign to isolate it at the United Nations, and portraying Moscow as an obstacle to the democratic changes sweeping through the Middle East.

This past week, for example, the United States, Britain, Germany and France publicly rebuked Syria’s arms suppliers, a veiled reference to Russia, for continuing to sell weapons to Damascus.

“It is glaringly obvious that transferring weapons into a volatile and violent situation is irresponsible and will only fuel the bloodshed,” Britain’s U.N. envoy, Mark Lyall Grant, told the Security Council.

Russia is coming under mounting pressure to break with Assad from the Arab League, which is sending a delegation to the Security Council on Tuesday to press its case for a political transition that would require that the Syrian leader step aside. Meanwhile, Morocco, acting on behalf of a group of Western and Arab governments, has introduced a draft resolution endorsing the Arab League initiative calling on states to follow the Arab organization’s example by imposing sanctions on Syria. The Russians have responded coolly.

The high-level diplomatic gamesmanship is playing out as violence continues to spiral in Syria, forcing the United States to prepare for the possible closure of its embassy and the evacuation of its diplomatic personnel. U.N. officials estimate that more than 5,400 civilians have been killed, mostly at the hands of government security forces, since protesters took to the streets earlier last year.

Russia’s stance underscores the strength and depth of its relationship with Assad’s regime, which is not only a recipient of Russian arms but also host of a Russian naval base. The crisis in Syria also has provided Moscow with an opportunity to show it is a more reliable ally than Western powers, particularly the United States, which is seen by many in the region as having abandoned one of its closest allies, former Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak.

“If you have good relations with a country, a government for years, for decades, then it’s not so easy to ditch those politicians and those governments because of political expediency,” Churkin said. “We are stronger on our allegiances than others.”

Tensions between the West and Russia have spilled over into a series of highly personal attacks at the United Nations. Last month, U.S. Ambassador Susan E. Rice derided Churkin’s appeal for a new probe into possible NATO killings as a “cheap stunt” aimed at distracting attention from the killing in Syria.

Churkin fired back at the Stanford-educated envoy, saying,

“Really this Stanford dictionary of expletives must be replaced by something more Victorian.”

Rice’s media spokesman posted a tweet with a photoshopped picture of Churkin on the head of “the Grinch Who Stole Christmas.”

Asked if he was trying to change the subject from Syria, Churkin acknowledged that the Security Council has been the scene of “games of distraction,” but he said Russia’s concerns about the Libya mission were legitimate, asserting that the killing of civilians during the NATO campaign was “a real issue.”

Russia, along with Brazil, China, India and South Africa, believe “it would be extremely dangerous if” the West continues to be “carried away by this regime-change idea,” he said.

In Syria, Russia has pursued a complicated diplomatic strategy to shore up the regime, joining China in vetoing the Western-backed resolution threatening sanctions against Damascus, and introducing its own resolution. That resolution, now stalled, sought to focus the Security Council’s energy on backing a political settlement between the Syrian government and the opposition, and cutting off military supplies to the opposition.

Under the resolution, Assad’s army could still be armed.

Asked if Russia’s ongoing arms sales to Assad’s government were perhaps undercutting his government’s effort to pursue a political settlement, Churkin said:

“We are not doing anything which is contrary to international law. Other than that, we don’t have to give any explanation to anybody.”

Tehran Warns Gulf Neighbors That It Would Be 'Dangerous' for Them to Join a Western-led Effort to Isolate Iran

Iran Warns Neighbours Not to Join Isolation Attempts

Iranian foreign minister says Gulf states co-operating with western efforts to isolate Tehran would be in 'dangerous position'

guardian.co.uk
January 19, 2012

Tehran has warned its Gulf neighbours that it would be "dangerous" for them to join a western-led effort to isolate Iran, with the warning coming as a meeting of European ambassadors in Brussels failed to agree on the details of an EU oil embargo.

The EU permanent representatives council had been due to agree a far-reaching sanctions package including a phased embargo on oil imports from Iran and a freezing of the assets of the country's central bank.

But Greece refused to agree to a Danish proposal to begin the oil embargo on 1 July, calling for more time to enable it to complete existing contracts with Iranian suppliers and find new ones.

The ambassadors will work through the weekend in an effort to complete a deal before foreign ministers meet on Monday.

The sanctions package includes a freeze on European assets belonging to the Central Bank of Iran, with loopholes to allow non-oil trade to continue. Britain is also pushing for a partial asset freeze on an Iranian private bank.

Iran – which already faces US sanctions on the global financing on its oil trade, effective in June – focused its attentions yesterday on trying to persuade Gulf Arab states not to co-operate with the western isolation campaign.

Speaking in Turkey, the Iranian foreign minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, said the US was looking for allies in the region and added:

"I am calling to all countries in the region – please don't let yourselves be dragged into a dangerous position."

Salehi left it unclear whether he was referring to military operations or actions on the oil market.

Earlier this week, Saudi Arabia angered Tehran by suggesting that, in the event of an embargo, it could supply Iran's Far East customers. Iranian officials have said in the past that they would view any such step as a hostile act.

Japan, which buys 22% of Iran's oil exports, said it would cut its purchases but would seek a waiver from the US sanctions in order to continue to buy some Iranian crude.

Salehi claimed Tehran had received a letter from Washington trying to persuade Iran to enter into negotiations on its nuclear programme, which western governments believe is aimed at building nuclear weapons or at least the capacity to make them.

"Mr Obama sent a letter to Iranian officials, but America has to make clear that it has good intentions and should express that it's ready for talks without conditions," he said.

"Out in the open they show their muscles, but behind the curtains they plead to us to sit down and talk. America has to pursue a safe and honest strategy so we can get the notion that America, this time, is serious and ready."

The White House has denied sending a letter, but there have been US reports that Washington sent a message to Tehran through unspecified channels, warning it not to go through with threats to close the Strait of Hormuz, the 20-mile wide opening to the Gulf, in retaliation for oil sanctions.

Salehi said Iran was ready to resume talks in Istanbul with a six-nation group of negotiators which broke down a year ago. However, the office of Catherine Ashton, the EU foreign policy chief who represents the negotiating group, said she had not received an answer to her invitation to Tehran last year to restart the discussions.

European diplomats argued that Salehi was trying to give the impression that Iran was open to talks without committing it to negotiating over its nuclear programme.

Iran has also invited inspectors from the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency to Tehran on 29 January.

The IAEA has yet to officially confirm the two-day visit because it is seeking some assurances over what will be on the agenda.

Drones are Key Weapons in Obama's Counter-terrorism Strategy

The United States government has made a series of attacks on targets in northwest Pakistan since 2004 using drones (unmanned aerial vehicles) controlled by the Central Intelligence Agency's Special Activities Division. These attacks are part of the United States' War on Terrorism campaign, seeking to defeat Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants in Pakistan. Most of these attacks are on targets in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas along the Afghan border in Northwest Pakistan. These strikes have increased substantially under the Presidency of Barack Obama. Some media refer to the series of attacks as a "drone war." Drone strikes were halted in November 2011 after NATO forces killed 24 Pakistani soldiers in the Salala incident. Shamsi Airfield was evacuated of Americans and taken over by the Pakistanis the next month. The incident prompted an approximately two-month stop to the drone strikes, which resumed on January 10, 2012.

According to unnamed counterterrorism officials, in 2009 or 2010 CIA drones began employing smaller missiles in airstrikes in Pakistan in order to reduce civilian casualties. The new missiles, called the Small Smart Weapon or Scorpion, are reportedly about the size of a violin case (21 inches long) and weigh 16 kg. The missiles are used in combination with new technology intended to increase accuracy and expand surveillance, including the use of small, unarmed surveillance drones to exactly pinpoint the location of targets. These "micro-UAVs" (unmanned aerial vehicles) can be roughly the size of a pizza platter and meant to monitor potential targets at close range, for hours or days at a time. One former U.S. official who worked with micro-UAVs said that they can be almost impossible to detect at night. "It can be outside your window and you won't hear a whisper," the official said. The drone operators also have changed to trying to target insurgents in vehicles rather than residences to reduce the chances of civilian casualties.

The U.S. Government believed that 1,300 militants and only 30 civilians had been killed in drone strikes since mid-2008, with no civilians killed since August 2010. According to the Long War Journal, as of mid-2011, the drone strikes in Pakistan since 2006 had killed 2,018 militants and 138 civilians. The New America Foundation stated in mid-2011 that since 2004 2,551 people have been killed in the strikes, with 80% of those militants. The Foundation stated that 95% of those killed in 2010 were militants. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism based on extensive research found in mid-2011 that at least 385 civilians were among the dead, including more than 160 children.

[Source: Wikipedia]

Exclusive: Senior al Qaeda Figure Killed in Drone Strike

Reuters
January 20, 2012

A militant who acted as a senior operations organizer for al Qaeda was targeted and killed in one of two U.S. drone strikes launched against targets inside Pakistan last week, a U.S. official said.

U.S. and Pakistani sources told Reuters that the target of the attack was Aslam Awan, a Pakistani national from Abbottabad, the same town where Osama bin Laden was killed last May by a U.S. commando team. They said he was targeted in a strike by a U.S.-operated drone on January 10 directed at what news reports said was a compound near the town of Miranshah in the border province of North Waziristan.

That strike broke an undeclared eight-week hiatus in attacks by the armed, unmanned drones that patrol Pakistan's tribal areas and are a key weapon in U.S. President Barack Obama's counter-terrorism strategy.

The sources described Awan, who also was known by the nom-de-guerre Abdullah Khorasani, as a significant figure in the remaining core leadership of al Qaeda, which U.S. officials say has been sharply reduced by the drone campaign. Most of the drone attacks are conducted as part of a clandestine CIA operation.

Pakistani officials could not confirm that Awan was killed in the drone attack, but the U.S. official said he was.

One of the sources described Awan as an associate of al Qaeda's current chief of external operations, whose identity is known to intelligence officials but not to the general public.

"Aslam Awan was a senior al-Qaeda external operations planner who was working on attacks against the West. His death reduces al-Qaeda's thinning bench of another operative devoted to plotting the death of innocent civilians," a U.S. official said.

Several previous alleged chiefs of external operations for al Qaeda have been caught or killed in drone attacks or counter-terrorism operations, the most notorious being Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, alleged mastermind of the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington D.C. Mohammed was captured and is being held by U.S. authorities in the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba detention facility.

Because their role in arranging operations involves interacting with militants in the field, external operations chiefs of al Qaeda have found themselves more vulnerable to exposure and counter-attacks by security forces than the movement's most senior leaders, who until bin Laden's demise last year appeared to be able to move about the region and issue provocative audio and video messages with near-impunity.

A Pakistani security source based in the country's border region said that Awan was the remaining member of an al Qaeda cell Pakistani authorities have been trying to roll up since 2008.

"We thought he was very close to Ayman al-Zawahiri," the source said, referring to al Qaeda's current leader and bin Laden's long-time deputy, a former Egyptian doctor.

However, a U.S. source said that American experts did not believe that Awan was particularly close to al-Zawahiri.

The drone strike that targeted Awan was one of two such attacks last week, in what U.S. sources indicated was a resumption of the U.S. drone campaign following the eight-week pause. In the other drone strike, also in North Waziristan, a group of "foreign fighters" sympathetic to the Taliban and al Qaeda, some of Uzbek ethnicity, were targeted on January 12.

MILITANTS HIT NEAR BORDER

The targeted militants were believed to be travelling, possibly in preparation for an operation near Pakistan's border with Afghanistan, and some were injured or killed in the attack, the U.S. source said.

U.S. officials said they could not confirm news reports, based on claims from Pakistani sources, that Hakimullah Mehsud, leader of the TTP, Pakistan's most potent domestic affiliate of the Taliban movement, was also killed in the June 12 attack. Pakistani and U.S. sources said that Mehsud was not targeted in the drone strike, and one Pakistani source said:

"He is alive. Hakimullah is alive."

U.S. officials insisted that the drone strike lull did not represent an official moratorium on such operations by the Obama administration. The officials maintained that any fall-off in the pace of such operations was related to the availability of intelligence and operating conditions, such as weather.

However, some officials did privately acknowledge that the drone lull was at least in part calculated to try to improve strained relations between Washington and Islamabad, which had been on a downswing for much of last year in the wake of Pakistan's detention of a CIA operative and the secret U.S. commando raid on bin Laden's Pakistani hideout.

Relations plummeted to a new low following a late November incident in which 24 Pakistani troops were killed accidentally in a NATO aerial attack on border outposts.

Some U.S. and Pakistani officials say that both governments are making efforts to improve relations. As part of this process, a U.S. official said, it is possible that some permanent tweaks could be made in the U.S. drone program which could slow the pace of attacks.

For Our Allies, Death from Above

The New York Times
November 3, 2011

LAST Friday, I took part in an unusual meeting in Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad.

The meeting had been organized so that Pashtun tribal elders who lived along the Pakistani-Afghan frontier could meet with Westerners for the first time to offer their perspectives on the shadowy drone war being waged by the Central Intelligence Agency in their region. Twenty men came to air their views; some brought their young sons along to experience this rare interaction with Americans. In all, 60 villagers made the journey.

The meeting was organized as a traditional jirga. In Pashtun culture, a jirga acts as both a parliament and a courtroom: it is the time-honored way in which Pashtuns have tried to establish rules and settle differences amicably with those who they feel have wronged them.

On the night before the meeting, we had a dinner, to break the ice. During the meal, I met a boy named Tariq Aziz. He was 16. As we ate, the stern, bearded faces all around me slowly melted into smiles. Tariq smiled much sooner; he was too young to boast much facial hair, and too young to have learned to hate.

The next day, the jirga lasted several hours. I had a translator, but the gist of each man’s speech was clear. American drones would circle their homes all day before unleashing Hellfire missiles, often in the dark hours between midnight and dawn. Death lurked everywhere around them.

When it was my turn to speak, I mentioned the official American position: that these were precision strikes and no innocent civilian had been killed in 15 months. My comment was met with snorts of derision.

I told the elders that the only way to convince the American people of their suffering was to accumulate physical proof that civilians had been killed. Three of the men, at considerable personal risk, had collected the detritus of half a dozen missiles; they had taken 100 pictures of the carnage.

In one instance, they matched missile fragments with a photograph of a dead child, killed in August 2010 during the C.I.A.’s period of supposed infallibility. This made their grievances much more tangible.

Collecting evidence is a dangerous business. The drones are not the only enemy. The Pakistani military has sealed the area off from journalists, so the truth is hard to come by. One man investigating drone strikes that killed civilians was captured by the Taliban and held for 63 days on suspicion of spying for the United States.

At the end of the day, Tariq stepped forward. He volunteered to gather proof if it would help to protect his family from future harm. We told him to think about it some more before moving forward; if he carried a camera he might attract the hostility of the extremists.

But the militants never had the chance to harm him. On Monday, he was killed by a C.I.A. drone strike, along with his 12-year-old cousin, Waheed Khan. The two of them had been dispatched, with Tariq driving, to pick up their aunt and bring her home to the village of Norak, when their short lives were ended by a Hellfire missile.

My mistake had been to see the drone war in Waziristan in terms of abstract legal theory — as a blatantly illegal invasion of Pakistan’s sovereignty, akin to President Richard M. Nixon’s bombing of Cambodia in 1970.

But now, the issue has suddenly become very real and personal. Tariq was a good kid, and courageous. My warm hand recently touched his in friendship; yet, within three days, his would be cold in death, the rigor mortis inflicted by my government.

And Tariq’s extended family, so recently hoping to be our allies for peace, has now been ripped apart by an American missile — most likely making any effort we make at reconciliation futile.

Q&A: The Use of Drones to Kill Terrorists Comes Under Fire

New Jersey On-Line
October 2, 2011

EPA Site/Intelligence HandoutAn undated handout photograph provided by the Site Intelligence Group on September 30 shows Anwar al-Awlaki speaking in a video message posted on an internet website in an unkown location.

The U.S. government on Friday trumpeted the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born cleric who rose to the top of al Qaeda in Yemen. He was taken out by a CIA-operated drone missile as he sat in a vehicle with another American radical, reportedly the editor of an online jihadist magazine.

Awlaki’s death comes in the midst of a contentious debate between the State Department and the Pentagon: In its ongoing efforts to prevent another terrorist attack, can the United States use drone missiles to kill suspected terrorists? And what if those suspects are far from any battlefield, in countries with whom we are not at war? Getting Osama bin Laden and other high-ranking al Qaeda officials has been the focus of U.S. efforts so far, but that soon may change.

David Cole, a professor of constitutional law, national security and criminal justice at Georgetown University Law Center, recently wrote about the implications of that discussion for the New York Review of Books. Editorial writer Linda Ocasio spoke with Cole about his thoughts on what the shift in strategy might mean for the United States and its relations with other nations.

Q. We’ve been told for the last 10 years that the war on terror is a war like no other. We’re fighting stateless terrorists, so why is it a problem to chase after them, no matter where they are?

A. First of all, it’s not a war on terror. That’s like having a war on murder; it doesn’t make sense. Obama has avoided that rhetoric. It’s a war with the organization that attacked us on 9/11, al Qaeda, and the group that harbored it, the Taliban.

Using military force against them is one thing. When you start saying you can target anyone, not just members of groups against which Congress authorized military action, in any country, we’re overstepping the authority that international law and the U.S. Constitution give us.

In a military conflict, the U.S. unquestionably has the authority to kill those fighting against us on the battlefield. But where do we get the right to target and kill a member of al Shabab, a militant group in Somalia, where we are not at war? Is it enough that the group is believed to have some al Qaeda sympathies?

The use of military force is permitted within the confines of war, not outside it. From my view, it’s critical we have clear lines about when it is appropriate to use these practices and when it is not. And thus far, the policy has operated in secret, without any clear lines that we can see.

Q. Was the killing of al-Awlaki legal?

A. The killing of al-Awlaki may or not have been legal. He was far from any battlefield, but news reports state that he was involved in encouraging or directing several attacks, including that of the "Christmas Day bomber," and may have been planning future attacks. If that is true, and if he was effectively a "co-belligerent" fighting with al Qaeda, and if Yemen could not detain him, the attack may well have been legal. But because the entire drone program operates under a shroud of secrecy, we just don’t know.

And regardless of the legality of this particular attack, it ought to be a matter of grave concern to all Americans that our government is killing its own citizens pursuant to a program that it has yet to delineate or defend publicly.

Q. Was there any question that we had a right to assassinate Osama bin Laden?

A. No, he’s the leader of al Qaeda, and we targeted him in Pakistan, from which many attacks have been launched by al Qaeda, so that was permissible. What’s troubling about the debates within the Obama administration is that they’re not talking about targeting al Qaeda leaders, but rank-and-file members of other groups that never attacked us, in countries far from the military conflict, like Yemen and Somalia.

Q. What would be the consequences to the U.S. of pursuing that strategy?

A. We have to ask: Is this a strategy we would be comfortable with other countries employing? Other countries may already have, or will soon develop, drone capability.

Do we want China, Russia or Pakistan to use targeted missiles to kill people, in other countries, they claim they suspect of terrorism? It’s a very dangerous sort of strategy, which could create more military conflict, war and instability around the world.

Q. How then do we effectively pursue those plotting against the United States?

A. Outside of a specific ongoing war, the state generally may not simply kill those it suspects of wrongdoing. We require a trial and appeals process so we don’t punish, much less kill, the wrong people — even for terrorist offenses.

We have successfully dealt with many terrorist threats through the criminal process, working with allies and other nations to bring people to justice. It is dangerous to put that aside and adopt a strategy that allows us to kill without any process.

While killing is an inevitable part of war, it is critical that we have clear lines that distinguish war and peacetime authorities. And the fact that the current policy has been maintained in secret means that we the people have no opportunity to judge whether our government is overstepping its bounds.

Read More...

Ahmadinejad and Chavez Joke About a Nuclear Strike Against the U.S

Ahmadinejad and Chavez joked about a nuclear strike against the U.S.; however, Ahmadinejad and Chavez were apparently serious when discussing the threat they believe the U.S. poses. “We are very worried,” Chavez said of the pressures being put on Iran by the United States and its allies, which he accused of being a threat to peace. “They present us as aggressors,” Chavez said as he received Ahmadinejad at the presidential palace. “Iran hasn’t invaded anyone,” he added. “Who has dropped thousands and thousands of bombs … including atomic bombs?”

‘Big Atomic Bomb Will Come Out’: Ahmadinejad and Chavez Joke About Nuclear Strike Against U.S

The Blaze/AP
January 10, 2012

President Hugo Chavez defended his close ally Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Monday and warned of “U.S. warmongering threats” amid tensions over Tehran’s nuclear program.

The two leaders met in Caracas on the first leg of a four-nation tour that will also take Ahmadinejad to Nicaragua, Cuba and Ecuador. Their conversation reportedly often focused on anti-U.S. rhetoric, which according to the Daily Mail included Mr Chavez saying that:

“He was hiding a bomb under a grassy knoll before the steps of the presidential palace, saying: ‘That hill will open up and a big atomic bomb will come out.

The imperialist spokesmen say Ahmadinejad and I are going into the basement now to set our sights on Washington and launch cannons and missiles… It’s laughable.”

The leaders were apparently serious, however, when discussing the threat they believe the U.S. poses.

“We are very worried,” Chavez said of the pressures being put on Iran by the United States and its allies, which he accused of being a threat to peace.

“They present us as aggressors,” Chavez said as he received Ahmadinejad at the presidential palace.

“Iran hasn’t invaded anyone,” he added. “Who has dropped thousands and thousands of bombs … including atomic bombs?”

Ahmadinejad’s visit comes after the U.S. imposed tougher sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program, which Washington believes Tehran is using to develop atomic weapons. Chavez and his allies back Iran in arguing the nuclear program is purely for peaceful purposes.

Both leaders joked that their relationship shouldn’t cause any concern.

Ahmadinejad said if they were together building anything like a bomb, “the fuel of that bomb is love.”

Chavez played on the same theme in his remarks:

“He’s going to work a lot for some bombs, for some missiles, to keep the war going. Our war is against poverty, hunger and underdevelopment.”

The Venezuelan leader said in his televised speech that Iranians assistance has helped the South American country build 14,000 homes as well as factories that produce food, tractors and vehicles.

“We will always be together,” Ahmadinejad said through an interpreter. Smiling as he put his hand on Chavez’s arm, the Iranian leader called the Venezuelan president “the champion of fighting against imperialism.”

Government officials signed two agreements promoting industrial cooperation and worker training.

Chavez accused the U.S. and its allies of wrongly demonizing Iran.

Iran finds itself under increasing pressure in the standoff over its nuclear program, and in response to the latest U.S. sanctions has threatened to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, an important transit route for oil tanker shipments.

Diplomats on Monday confirmed a report that Iran has begun uranium enrichment at an underground bunker, a development that increases fears among U.S. and European officials about Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Two diplomats spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because their information was confidential and based on an inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Chavez’s long-running confrontation with Washington also looks set to grow more antagonistic after the U.S. State Department announced, just hours before Ahmadinejad’s arrival, that it was expelling Venezuela’s consul general in Miami, Livia Acosta Noguera, due to allegations that she discussed a possible cyber-attack against the U.S. government.

The expulsion followed an FBI investigation into accusations contained in a documentary aired by the Spanish-language broadcaster Univision last month. According to the documentary, Acosta discussed the possible cyber-attack while she was previously assigned as a diplomat in Mexico. The documentary was based on recordings of conversations with her and other officials, and also alleged that Cuban and Iranian diplomatic missions were involved.

Chavez called the U.S. action “unjustified, arbitrary” and said his government will consider its response. He called it “an attack against our nation.”

The diplomat had already returned to Venezuela in December because “we knew that was going to occur,” Chavez said.

Beyond voicing criticism of the U.S. on his tour, Ahmadinejad is also likely to look for ways to use his Latin American alliances to diminish the impact of sanctions on Iran’s oil industry, said Diego Moya-Ocampos, an analyst with consulting firm IHS Global Insight in London.

However, Moya-Ocampos predicted that,

“Venezuela is going to be very careful not to push its relationship with Iran beyond the U.S. tolerance limits,” so as not to risk being hit with more U.S. sanctions.

Last year, the U.S. imposed sanctions on state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela SA for delivering at least two cargoes of oil products to Iran.

The U.S. government has also repeatedly accused Iran of sponsoring terrorism, and growing Iranian diplomatic ties with some Latin American countries have generated worries in Washington.

In Quito, Ecuador, Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino told reporters that Ecuador’s government “has no reason to stop having relations with Iran” and said his country recognizes Iran’s “right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy.”

Argentina, which has good relations with Venezuela, also has warrants out for the arrests of Iran’s defense minister and other officials suspected of involvement in the 1994 bombing of a Jewish center in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center, a Jewish human rights organization based in Los Angeles, urged Ahmadinejad‘s hosts to tell Iran that they support Argentina’s demands for the extradition of those implicated in the attack. The organization also condemned Ahmadinejad for threatening Israel, saying in a statement on Monday that “honoring that trafficker of hatred with impunity involves his hosts as accomplices.”

The Link between Iran and Venezuela: A Crisis in the Making?

Iran Says It Has Evidence U.S. Behind Scientist's Killing

Reuters
January 14, 2012

Iranian state television said on Saturday Tehran had evidence Washington was behind the latest assassination of one of its nuclear scientists.

In the fifth attack of its kind in two years, a magnetic bomb was attached to the door of 32-year-old Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan's car during the Wednesday morning rush-hour in the capital. His driver was also killed.

The United States has denied involvement in the killing and condemned it. Israel has declined to comment.

"We have reliable documents and evidence that this terrorist act was planned, guided and supported by the CIA," the Iranian foreign ministry said in a letter handed to the Swiss ambassador in Tehran, state TV reported.

"The documents clearly show that this terrorist act was carried out with the direct involvement of CIA-linked agents."

The Swiss Embassy has represented U.S. interests in Iran since Tehran and Washington cut diplomatic ties shortly after the 1979 Islamic revolution.

State TV said a "letter of condemnation" had also been sent to the British government, saying the killing of Iranian nuclear scientists had "started exactly after the British official John Sawers declared the beginning of intelligence operations against Iran."

In 2010, chief of the British Secret Intelligence Service Sawers said one of the agency's roles was to investigate efforts by states to build nuclear weapons in violation of their international legal obligations and identify ways to slow down their access to vital materials and technology.

Tehran has urged the U.N. Security Council and Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to condemn the latest killing, which Tehran says is aimed at undermining its nuclear work, which the West and Israel say is aimed at building bombs. Tehran says its nuclear programme is purely civilian.

Tension has mounted between Iran and the West as the United States and European Union prepare measures aimed at imposing sanctions on the Iran's oil exports, its economic lifeblood.

The United States and Israel have not ruled out military action if diplomacy fails to resolve the nuclear dispute.

Obama's Defense Strategy Expands the U.S. Military Presence in Asia

The Dragon Family, which is a group of several wealthy and secretive Asian families, has executed an elaborate sting operation where a vast international alliance of 117 countries now has a legal way to end the financial tyranny of the Old World Order. A lawsuit was filed on November 23, 2011, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York that could end the secret government that has ruled Western civilization for at least the past 300 years. The lawsuit was filed by Neil Keenan, acting as representative of the Dragon family. This particular lawsuit was triggered by the illegal detainment of two Japanese citizens, Akihiko Yamaguchi and Mitsuyoshi Watanabe, as well as the seizure of $134.5 billion in bonds they were holding in Italy on June 3, 2009. The roots of this case go back to between 1927 and 1938, when, under arrangements made between T.V. Soong (Finance Minister of China) and Henry Morgethau, Secretary of the Treasury, the United States Government purchased some 50 million ounces of silver and leased vast amounts of gold from the Nationalist Chinese Government, known as Kuomintang. For all the treasure handed in, certificates were given to those who surrendered their precious metals. Many of the bonds seized are backed with the Chinese gold taken by the Federal Reserve Board during those years and never returned to its legal owners. [Source]

New Pentagon Strategy Stresses Asia, Cyber, Drones

Reuters
January 5, 2012

President Barack Obama unveiled a defense strategy on Thursday that would expand the U.S. military presence in Asia but shrink the overall size of the force as the Pentagon seeks to reduce spending by nearly half a trillion dollars after a decade of war.

The strategy, if carried out, would significantly reshape the world's largest military from the one that executed President George W. Bush's "war on terrorism" in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Cyberwarfare and unmanned drones would continue to grow in priority, as would countering attempts by China and Iran to block U.S. power projection capabilities in areas like the South China Sea and the Strait of Hormuz.

But the size of the U.S. Army and Marines Corps would shrink. So too might the U.S. nuclear arsenal and the U.S. military footprint in Europe.

Troop- and time-intensive counter-insurgency operations, a staple of U.S. military strategy since the 2007 "surge" of extra troops to Iraq, would be far more limited, with the force no longer sized for large-scale, long-term missions.

"The tide of war is receding but the question that this strategy answers is what kind of military will we need long after the wars of the last decade are over," Obama told a Pentagon news conference alongside Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

SMALLER, LEANER

Panetta said the new strategy would mean the Pentagon would field a "smaller and leaner" military force but said the exact number of personnel would not be determined until the Defense Department finishes its proposed 2013 budget in the coming weeks.

Administration officials have said they expect Army and Marine Corp personnel levels to be reduced by 10 percent to 15 percent over the next decade as part of the reductions.

The Army's current strength is about 565,000 soldiers and there are 201,000 Marines, meaning an eventual loss of between 76,000 and 114,000 troops.

Critics already are charging that the cuts are being driven by budget woes rather than U.S. defense needs but Obama and Panetta emphasized that the reverse is true. They did not divulge details of spending and cuts, which will be detailed in Obama's upcoming federal budget for fiscal year 2013.

"Some will no doubt say the spending reductions are too big; others will say they're too small," Obama said.

He emphasized that even after enactment of the $487 billion in reductions agreed with Congress in August, the defense budget would still be larger than it was toward the end of Bush's administration.

"Over the past 10 years, since 9/11, our defense budget grew at an extraordinary pace," Obama said. "Over the next 10 years, the growth in the defense budget will slow but the fact of the matter is this - it will still grow because we have global responsibilities that demand our leadership."

The shift in focus to Asia comes amid increasing concern at the Pentagon over China's strategic goals as it begins to field a new generation of weapons that American officials fear are designed to prevent U.S. naval and air forces from projecting power into the Far East.

"We will be strengthening our presence in the Asia-Pacific," Obama said, "and budget reductions will not come at the expense of that critical region."

The new strategy calls for the U.S. military to "rebalance toward the Asia-Pacific region" even as it continues to actively counter the threat of violent extremism.

It also calls for increased investment in cyber capabilities and suggests the United States may be able to shrink its nuclear arsenal further without jeopardizing security.

The strategy says the United States should maintain a force that can win one major war while still being able to deter an aggressor in a second conflict. In the past the Pentagon has tried to field a force that could fight and win two major wars at once.

Panetta played down the differences, saying the earlier strategy dealt with large conflicts of the past while the current strategy was considering the conflicts the United States is likely to face in the 21st century.

"Make no mistake - we will have the capability to confront and defeat more than one adversary at a time," he said.

NEW PLAN AFTER DECADE OF GROWTH

Obama initiated the strategic review last summer after asking the Pentagon to begin planning for major cuts to the U.S. defense budget after a decade of growth.

The strategy document released on Thursday addressed U.S. interests in broad brush-strokes but did not get into specifics about how many troops would be reduced or deal with specific budgetary issues.

Panetta acknowledged that the cuts would require difficult choices.

"There is no question that we have to make some tradeoffs and that we will be taking on ... some level of additional but acceptable risk in the budget plan we release next month," he said. "These were not easy choices."

The strategy underscores the United States' "enduring interests" in Europe and the importance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization but says the force posture in Europe must "evolve" with the changing times, opening the door for troop reductions.

Administration officials have said the United States is likely to further reduce the number of ground forces in Europe by another combat brigade, a unit of 3,000 to 4,000 people depending on its composition.

The strategy document underscores a U.S. interest in maintaining stability in the Middle East while responding to the aspirations of the people as expressed in the Arab Awakening last year. It also says the United States will continue working to halt nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea.

"U.S. policy will emphasize Gulf security, in collaboration with the Gulf Cooperation Council countries when appropriate, to prevent Iran's development of a nuclear weapon capability and counter its destabilizing policies," it says.

The document expresses concern about new weapons being developed by China and Iran that could make it difficult for the U.S. Navy and Air Force to project power abroad.

"The United States must maintain its ability to project power in areas where our access and freedom to operate are challenged," it says.