blog.Tribulationperiod.com

Preparing for War – Russia gets Richer, Iran gets Deadlier, U.S. and Israel get the Shaft!

April 8, 2007

http://www.tribulationperiod.com/

I have never believed the final war Middle East war, which closes

the Age of the Gentiles, would be nuclear, but I have always

believed it was destined to be a high tech nightmare, both offensively and defensibly. The high tech ingredients for it have been assembling across the Middle East for some time.

In several previous Blogs I have made the case that Iran would never launch

the first atomic missile against Israel. We ran this December 5, 2005 article from Jane’s Weekly previously, but I am running it again to add to the reasons I have given in many updates and Blogs as to why I do not fear a nuclear war in the Middle East. Sure, I would much prefer that Iran not possess a nuclear warhead, but I am not nearly as concerned about it as the majority of prophecy teachers. I am confident the next Middle East war will be fought by conventional weapons. The nation of Israel has a superb anti-missile defense and the capability to launch hundreds of Jericho Missiles, carrying a wide variety of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), from the Negev. Iran, along with the rest of the Islamic nations, knows that Israel has the capacity to void their very existence as a people and as nations across the Middle East. And they also know that Israel will not launch WMD’s against them, unless they first launch against Israel.

I believe that Israel is perfectly satisfied it can knock down any Shihab-3 Missile before it reaches the eastern border of Israel.

It is far more advantageous for the nations of Islam to fight a war using only conventional weapons. They outnumber the Israelis and it will be to their advantage to fight a conventional war.

To attempt to fight a nuclear war, in which the United States would be free morally to launch against the Arab nations in the eyes of the international community, if they launched first against Israel, would be the height of stupidity. Iran may be a fanatical nation of Islamic extremism, but in their cold hatred of Israel, they are coolly cunning, and realize a first strike against Israel would bring about their end as a people and as a nation.

Begin Jane’s Defense Weekly Article

Jane’s Defense Weekly

5 December 2005

Israel’s Anti-ballistic Missile Test Pushes Altitude Boundaries

By Alon Ben-David JDW Correspondent

Tel Aviv

Israel’s anti-ballistic missile Arrow Weapon System (AWS) successfully intercepted a target simulating an Iranian Shahab-3 medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) in a test over the Mediterranean on 2 December.

The interception was conducted at a record low altitude, con sider

ed below the AWS’s performance envelope, and determined the operability of the Arrow II Block 3 interceptor, manufactured jointly by Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) and Boeing Integrated Defense Systems.

“We have never before tried the Arrow against the Shahab characteristics, but we know now that we are capable of intercepting all existing ballistic missile threats in the region, whether conventional or non-conventional, and we are developing capabilities to deal with future threats,” Director of the Israel Missile Defence Organisation Arieh Herzog told JDW.

Following the interception, IAF’s MIM-104 Patriot low- to high-altitude air-defence batteries joined the test, simulating an additional interception at lower altitude.

Israel’s ballistic missile defence concept is based on a two-tier layered defence in which the AWS constitutes the higher layer and the Patriot an additional, lower layer.

End Jane’s Weekly Report of December 5, 2005

I am sure that Israel has done a lot more testing and correcting on the Arrow Missile Systems since last December, and transformed the Arrow into a highly efficient anti-missile weapon.

I believe when the final war of the Gentile Age begins in the Middle East that both Iran and Israel will have excellent anti-missile defenses and, as I have always advocated, this last war will be a high tech grunt war, not involving nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons by either side.

The following DEBKAfile Report gives an account of the continuing improvement in the Iranian military arsenal by the acquisition of high tech Russian-made air defense and anti-tank systems.

Begin DEBKAfile Report

DEBKAfile Exclusive: Iran acquires Russian-made air defense and anti-tank systems to repel a possible US attack on Iran

April 7, 2007, 10:50 AM (GMT+02:00)

The Pantsyr 1 (known in the West as SA-19 GRISOM) system is designed to engage aerial targets, including missiles; the Khrizantema (9M123), to strike advancing tank columns at long range and destroy bunkers.

Our military sources report that the two weapons systems combined are built to repel advancing armored units while at the same striking helicopter commando drops behind their lines. A third recently-delivered Russian system, the TOR M1, has been put into service by the Revolutionary Guards to protect nuclear and other strategic sites against missile attack, including cruise missiles.

The Israeli military fears Moscow is also planning to supply Syria and Hizballah with the sophisticated SA-9 and 9M123. DEBKAfile’s military sources say that the two weapons in Syrian hands could seriously impair Israeli tank and helicopter movements and hit IDF positions and command posts deep inside the Golan.

Col. Yury Solovyov, commander of Russia’s Air Defense Forces Special Command, told Novosti news agency Friday, April 6, that Iran’s air defense system is strong enough to repel a US strike.

“Currently Iran has our defense missile systems which are capable of tackling US combat aircraft,” he said. “Iran also has French and other countries’ defense systems.”

Earlier, Russian Dept FM Alexander Losyukov stated that no US attack on Iran is expected in the coming days, contradicting a previous quote by Novosti from Russian intelligence officials who predicted a US missile strike against Iran, codenamed Operation Bite, at 4:00 a.m. April 6. Other Russian sources speak of an April attack.

The Pantsyr 1 is a radar command-guided, two-stage surface-to-air missile battery mounted on a 2S6 integrated air defense system, which is fitted with two banks of four missiles in blocks of two. Each can be independently elevated vertically. The weapon can engage aerial targets moving at a maximum speed of 500 meters per second at altitudes ranging from 15 to 3,500 meters. Its effective range is 2..4 to 8 km. A high-explosive fragmentation warhead is activated within 5 metes from target with a kill probability of 70%.

The Khrizantema’s supersonic missiles shoot at a speed of 400 meters per second to hit moving targets, including armored vehicles, at a distance of 6 km. This weapon can pierce 1,200mm of steel armor – even explosive reactor armor (ERA) – making both the US Abrams and Israeli Chariot tanks vulnerable. It can also destroy bunkers and engage low-flying helicopters.

The Khrizantema uniquely features two guidance modes – automatic by roof-mounted radar, and semi-automatic by a laser beam rider.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site

is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving

the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.

Islamic Psychology – Hey!

Look at the Infidels – They are Weaklings!

Thoughts on the UK – Iranian Sea Confrontation

April 7, 2007

http://www.tribulationperiod.com/

The decapitation of hostages has long been an established practice of the Islamic war tactics.

To show prisoners on their knees, humbled before their Islamic conquerors, is a marvelous moral booster to those who are afraid of the might of their enemies.

It was a common practice of the great Middle East Empires of antiquity to parade their prisoners before their fatherland population to give them courage against their enemies.

Sometimes they don’t have to capture prisoners to humble them before their Islamic captors – Sometimes, in a guise of “political correctness,” we humble ourselves before them by appeasement, which they accept as one of our weaknesses, as the last of the four articles which follow, does indeed attest.

The four articles which follow were taken from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs Daily Alert, June 7, 2007

Begin UK Times Excerpt

The Undeclared War with Iran Is Far from Over

Amir Taheri

The seizure of hostages is based on an ancient tradition first practiced by early Islamic conquerors. The Arab general Saad Abi Waqqas realized that Muslim fighters were awestruck by the Byzantine soldiers.

He solved the problem by putting captured Byzantine soldiers on show to demonstrate that the “Infidel” were fragile men, not mythical giants.

The mullahs’ first aim was to capture some Americans. Last September, they set a trap for a platoon of GIs from

the 101st Airborne Division patrolling the Iraqi border with Iran.

After an intense shooting match with the Iranian force sent to capture them, the Americans managed to flee to safety.

So the British, whose rules of engagement prevent

them from fighting Iranians even in self-defense, were chosen as the softer target.

The seizure of the British naval personnel is the latest episode in a low-intensity war that the Islamic Republic has waged against the West for almost three decades. In this war, Iran has killed hundreds of Westerners, especially American and French troops, in suicide attacks in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. More recently, its agents have killed at least 200 American troops and an unknown number of British soldiers in Iraq. (Times-UK)

Begin Chicago Tribune Article

Hostage Diplomacy

Editorial

Will the Security Council reward Tehran for taking hostages as a diversionary tactic – or turn up the heat? The message from the hostage incident: Sanctions are working. Tehran is squirming. The regime knows it has a lot to lose.

You want to stop Iran from going nuclear? Dial up the pressure fast. (Chicago Tribune)

Begin UK Telegraph Article

They’re Free, But Britain Has Been Humiliated

Editorial

The satisfaction of a diplomatic challenge eventually handled with skill is soured by the string of psychological humiliations that Britain has suffered.

First, there is

the apparent incompetence of the Royal Navy in providing insufficient protection to lightly armed inflatables.

Second, the seized personnel lost no time in admitting to having trespassed and in apologizing for their mistake.

The old military practice of giving name, rank and number, and no more, has obviously been abandoned.

Third, the denouement of this crisis showed Ahmadinejad in

the most favorable of lights.

(Telegraph-UK)

Begin Y Net News Article

Release of British sailors signals strength, Iran says

Top Tehran officials claim decision to free 15 British soldiers sends clear message to international community regarding country’s independence, strength.

Audi Cohen

The release Thursday of the 15 British military personnel who were being held by Iran was a signal of Iran’s strength, Iran’s Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar said Friday.

” Our handling of the affair was based on strength.

Thanks to Islam’s kindness, we released the 15 sailors on the occasion of Prophet Muhammad’s birthday,” he told the Iranian news agency ISNA.

“We proved that should anyone even consider invading Iran’s territorial waters and violating its territorial independence, he would face severe consequences,” he said.

Another top Iranian official, the head of the parliament’s Foreign Policy and Security Commission, Aleddin Boroujerdi said that “Iran has sent a clear message that whoever invades the country would face a serious and powerful response.”

“After the message had been conveyed to the other side, it was no longer useful to continue holding the soldiers. The important aspect of this affair is that Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair had thanked Iran publicly for the move, and that it proved Iran is not interested in creating tension, but in peace, stability and security,” he added.

Begin UK Daily Mail Article

Teachers Drop the Holocaust to Avoid Offending Muslims

Laura Clark (Daily Mail-UK)

Schools are dropping the Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils, a study funded by the UK Department for Education and Skills has revealed.

Some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear of upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance underst anding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific,

and social justice issues, etc.

We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.

PEACE IN OUR TIME!

April 7, 2007

http://www.tribulationperiod.com/

In one of our BLOGS on April 3, I closed my heading with the following comment: “Perhaps she (Pelosi) will return with a signed agreement shouting ‘Peace in our Time.’” This was of course the notorious shout of Neville Chamberlain, as he held high a document signed by Hitler, after returning to England from the 1938 Munich Conference.

I watched Hitler’s infamous Nazi butchers sweep across Poland in 1939, and, if I live long enough, I will also see the Islamic headhunters sweep south in Israel to Beersheba. I believe Israel will eventually agree to a long term Hudna (truce) with the Hamas PA government, and as soon as the Arab nations think they are strong enough, Islamic forces will sweep south, while the PA attacks from within.

No one really thought the funny little shouting. red faced man, could do very much – After all, England ruled the seas, and France had her great invincible Maginot Line.

The Maginot Line dominated French military thinking in 1929-1939 inter-war years. The Maginot Line was a vast fortification that spread along the French/German border, but became a military liability when the Germans attacked France in the spring of 1940 using blitzkrieg – a tactic that completely emasculated the Maginot Line’s purpose.

It would have been beneficial if Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton could have been teenagers from 1929 to 1939, and actually experienced the appeasement attitude that developed in this country.

Congress had no desire to let Britain and France drag them into another European war, and we played a role of dialog, dialog, dialog, diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy, while the American public’s attitude was strictly anti-war.

It is one thing to learn about this period from books, but it was realism personified to have lived through it.

Pelosi was born during the 1940 French blitzkrieg as a forerunner of baby boomer Hillary Clinton, who was born in 1947 after WW2 ended. I lived through both the Depression and World War II.

I learned as a teenager the terrible price a country eventually pays when it takes the path of appeasement toward evil fanatics. I am now watching the same type of appeasement toward a funny little man in Iran with a scraggy beard and a forced little smile, who is planning to do the same thing across the Middle East and North Africa that Hitler did across Europe. Hitler’s goal was a Nazi Empire composed of a genetically perfect super race of Arians. Ahmadinejad’s goal is an Islamic Caliphate composed of the true followers of Allah.

The Article which follows by Ronald Kessler hits the mark on the path of appeasement that is surrendering our will to evil fanatics, who have nothing but harm intended for us and Israel in the future.

Begin NewsMax.com Washington Insider Column by Ronald Kessler

OUR PELOSI IS NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN

By Ronald Kessler

With her trip to Syria, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi achieved two things: She undercut her own credibility in Washington, and she spotlighted what is wrong with the Democrats’ approach to national security.

The spectacle of Pelosi making nice with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus and accepting at face value his claim that he is ready to “resume the peace process” with Israel had a large portion of official Washington tittering.

At the same time, Syrian authorities were telling the local press that there had been no change in its position. And Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Pelosi that “a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar al-Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel.”

Pelosi’s Charade

Moreover, Pelosi misrepresented Israel’s position to Assad, announcing that she had delivered a message from Olmert that “Israel was ready to engage in peace talks” with Syria. Olmert quickly issued a statement denying that.

Even the Washington Post saw through the charade.

“Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel’s position, but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad’s words were mere propaganda,” an editorial in the paper said. The editorial added that “Ms. Pelosi’s attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish.”

While that is certainly true, the specter of Pelosi naively chatting with Assad and announcing that she had helped achieve a diplomatic breakthrough also highlights all that is wrong with the Democrats’ approach to foreign police today.

Syria hosts the exiled leadership of Hamas, as well as other Palestinian radical groups, and is a major supplier of funds to Hezbollah.

Syria is also believed to be involved in the assassination of Lebanese political figures and allowing its territory to be used by jihadists fighting against the United States-led coalition and the coalition-backed government in Iraq.

History Repeats

Pelosi’s willingness to undercut the president and accept the word of the chief of state of a sponsor of terrorism is on a par with the Democrats’ effort to set a timetable for fighting the war in Iraq.

It brings to mind the efforts of Joseph P. Kennedy, the founder of the Kennedy dynasty, to appease Adolf Hitler.

As ambassador to the Court of St. James, Joe Kennedy met on June 13, 1938 with Herbert von Dirksen, the German ambassador. The two got along famously, and Dirksen later reported on the conversation in great detail to Baron Ernst von Weizsäcker, the German state secretary.

According to that report, Kennedy confided to the German ambassador that Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister, was anxious to have some sort of settlement with Germany.

By saying this, he undercut Great Britain’s negotiating position with Hitler. Moreover, Kennedy said President Roosevelt was not anti-German and wanted friendly relations with Hitler. However, no European leader spoke well of the Germans because most of them were “afraid of the Jews” and did not “dare to say anything good about Germany . . .” Kennedy stated.

Even as the two met at the German embassy in London, Hitler was planning to gobble up most of Europe and exterminate the Jews. The following year, World War II began after Hitler invaded Poland.

“Speaker Pelosi is the Neville Chamberlain of our time,” said Brad Blakeman, a Republican strategist who was an aide in the Bush White House. “Cowering to and appeasing the dictator of a terrorist state was a disgrace to the high office she holds. The Syrians used this visit to validate their bad behavior by propagandizing the whole visit and her anti-war stance.”

The Pelosi visit underscores that, when it comes to dealing with our enemies, the Democrats live in a dream world.

Yet when another terrorist attack occurs in the U.S., they will be the first to say President Bush did not do enough to protect the country.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.

We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving

the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. You may use material originated by this site.

However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.

Calling a Spade a Spade!

PLEASE READ ALL OF CAROLINE GLICK’S LONG ARTICLE

April 6, 2007

http://www.tribulationperiod.com/

I would hate to have Caroline Glick irritated with me. After Korea and Vietnam, I would still run for cover. She has the pen of a raging Tiger and the mind of a synoptic analyst. She would make a great Israeli Prime Minister. In my opinion, her article from the Jerusalem Post is

the most accurate assessment of the current scenario in the Middle East I have encountered. She is a patriot, and Israel is fortunate to have her in its fold, although I feel certain all but the true hawks in government would love to have her fly to Outer Mongolia on a one-way trip.

Some of her recent articles have laid the wood to the corruption and graft among Israeli public officials. The same is true in America.

It was like that in Jeremiah the Prophet’s day before Israel was carried into Babylonian captivity.

Jeremiah 5:26-31 – For among my people are found wicked men: they lay wait, as he that setteth snares; they set a trap, they catch men. [27] As a cage is full of birds, so are their houses full of deceit: therefore they are become great, and waxen rich.

[28] They are waxen fat, they shine: yea, they overpass the deeds of the wicked: they judge not the cause, the cause of the fatherless, yet they prosper; and the right of the needy do they not judge. [29] Shall I not visit for these things? saith the Lord: shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this? [30] A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land; [31] The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?

In today’s society, across the surface of the globe, including America and Israel, I watch the appeasing compromisers prophesy peace falsely, and the leaders bearing rule by their graft, and the majority of people loving to have it so.

Begin Jerusalem Post Article

Column One: Iran doesn’t mix signals

Caroline Glick, THE JERUSALEM POST

April 5, 2007

The footage of the British hostages thanking Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for his hospitality and forgiveness, like the footage of Speaker of the US House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi covering her head in a scarf while on a visit to Damascus, was enough to make you sick.

Must we lose this war?

On Tuesday, US President George W. Bush had some clear thoughts on Pelosi’s visit. Bush said, “Going to Syria sends mixed signals – signals in the region and, of course, mixed signals to President [Bashar] Assad… Photo opportunities and/or meetings with President Assad lead the Assad government to believe they’re part of the mainstream of the international community when, in fact, they’re a state sponsor of terror; when, in fact, they’re helping expedite – or at least not stopping – the movement of foreign fighters from Syria into Iraq; when, in fact, they have done little to nothing to rein in militant Hamas and Hizbullah; and when, in fact, they destabilize the Lebanese democracy.”

The president’s criticism was well-founded. By visiting Damascus, Pelosi strengthened Assad’s view that the free world has no problem with his behavior. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem made this clear Tuesday when, speaking to a Kuwaiti newspaper, he said Pelosi’s visit proved that Syria’s international isolation, which began after Damascus masterminded the February 2005 assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri, is officially over.

Other Syrian officials made clear that far from softening Syria’s policies, Pelosi’s visit, like those of European leaders, will only toughen Syria’s positions. As Imad Moustapha, Syria’s ambassador in Washington, put it, “Syria will not hurriedly offer concessions when it refused to offer them under much greater pressure from the United States in the past.”

On Wednesday, Pelosi stated triumphantly, “We were very pleased with the assurances we received from [Assad that] he was ready to resume the peace process. He’s ready to engage in negotiations for peace with Israel.”

Yet this is a lie. Over the past several weeks, it has become abundantly clear that Syria is preparing to attack Israel in the coming months. If Pelosi had bothered to pay attention, she would have noted the terrorists from Gaza, Lebanon and Iraq passing her at the Damascus airport en route to training camps in Syria and Iran.

Unfortunately, Pelosi isn’t the only self-declared “champion of peace” who is strengthening Syria’s will to attack by appeasing Syria directly or through its master, Iran.

ON THE face of it, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who also paid a visit to Syria this week, seems to take a stronger stand on the issues than Pelosi. While visiting Ramallah she called for Hamas to accept Israel. While in Lebanon she called for Syria to stop arming Hizbullah. While in Israel, as is her wont, she said that 70 years after her nation murdered a third of the Jewish people, she strongly opposes letting Iran acquire the means to kill another six million Jews.

Strong words. Unfortunately, Germany’s actions tell

a different story. As German political scientist Matthias Kuntzel pointed out in a recent paper, through its support for German trade with Iran, Merkel’s government is a central driver of the Iranian economy and so enables Teheran to finance both the global jihad and its nuclear weapons program.

Immediately after its sailors and marines were taken hostage on March 23, Britain tried to mobilize the European Union to support its actions to bring about their release. Since Britain is a member of the EU, and since the capture of the servicemen was an act of war, in taking the 15 British sailors and marines hostage, the Iranians committed an act of war against the EU.

Europe is Teheran’s largest trading partner.

A quarter of Iranian exports go to Europe, and 40 percent of Iranian imports are from Europe.

Britain reportedly asked its EU sister-states to respond to this act of war by freezing their trade ties with Iran. Its request was met with immediate rejection.

Reportedly, Germany led the pack in saying no. This is a shame since freezing European trade with Iran would effectively start the countdown for the fall of the mullahs.

Merkel’s Germany is Iran’s largest trading partner in Europe.

Kuntzel quotes Michael Tockuss, the former president of the German-Iranian Chamber of Commerce in Teheran, explaining, “Some two-thirds of Iranian industry relies on German engineering products. The Iranians are certainly dependent on German spare parts and suppliers.”

Germany’s booming trade with Iran would have gone bust long ago had it not been for the largesse of the German government. The German government, which supposedly opposes Teheran’s nuclear weapons program, provides export guarantees for 65% of German investments in Iran.

When seen in the context of her government’s subsidization of the Iranian economy, Merkel’s anti-Iranian and anti-jihad statements are exposed as farce. Iran, Syria, Hizbullah and the Palestinians have no reason to be concerned. Their principal trading partner in Europe will not abandon them.

FOR ITS part, Britain too, has little to be proud of. The British government’s response to the kidnapping of its sailors and marines was cowardly and dishonorable. Rather than fight to free them, Britain bowed before Ahmadinejad to free them.

Prime Minister Tony Blair claimed that London wished to bring about the hostages’ release without rewarding Teheran for its aggression. If this were the case then Britain did not have to turn to the EU, the UN or even the US for assistance. The British had ample options at their disposal to contend with Iran.

And none of them required the use of force, or the support of other states.

The British could have closed their embassy in Teheran. Indeed, after the mullahs organized a violent mob to attack the embassy and call for its capture, it was irresponsible for the British to keep their embassy open. Moreover, the British could have closed the Iranian embassy in Britain and either deported or detained Iranian officials operating in their territory.

In his paper, Kuntzel notes that while British trade with the mullahs is only one-fifth of Germany’s, it is nonetheless significant. Since 2003, when Iran’s nuclear program was first exposed, British trade with Iran has nearly tripled. And as is the case with Germany, the British government also backs the trade with export credits.

Earlier this year, the official UK Trade and Investment Department was promoting trade with Iran. Its Web site gushed, “Iran is one of the most exciting countries in the region for business development… The main opportunity for UK business is in providing capital and equipment to Iran’s priority sectors: oil, gas and petrochemicals, mining [and] power.”

If Blair truly wished to force Teheran’s hand, he might have considered ending his government’s subsidy of the Iranian economy.

Perhaps British and European hypocrisy, and even the hypocrisy of the US Democrats can be shrugged off as nothing new. But it is more difficult to shrug off complementary behavior by the Bush administration.

Today some of the most confusing signals are coming from the Bush administration. On the one hand, the US naval buildup in the Persian Gulf leads many to hope and believe that the US military is planning to launch a strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. On the other hand, it is fairly clear that Bush agreed to pay Teheran off in exchange for the hostages.

Ahmadinejad announced that he was setting his British hostages free on Wednesday. On Tuesday, the US released Jalal Shirafi, who until his capture some months ago served as a terror master for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Baghdad while doubling as the second secretary at the Iranian embassy. Also Tuesday, the British announced that the US would allow Iranian officials to visit five other Revolutionary Guards terrorists that the US arrested in Irbil, Kurdistan, in recent months.

UNFORTUNATELY, IRAN and its underlings share none of the American or European penchant for two-facedness.

As the IDF’s head of Military Intelligence Maj.-Gen. Amos Yadlin told the cabinet on Sunday, Iran, Syria, Hizbullah and the Palestinians are all openly preparing to go to war against Israel and the US this summer.

Moreover, Iran maintains its single-minded pursuit of nuclear weapons. As ABC news reported on Monday, over the past three months, Iran has tripled to more than 1,000 the number of centrifuges it will use for uranium enrichment. This puts Iran well in line to abide by Ahmadinejad’s pledge to operate 3,000 centrifuges by next month.

Indeed, the latest report makes clear that if Teheran is not stopped, it will likely acquire nuclear weapons in another year and a half.

Even more distressing than America’s policy confusion is Israel’s policy collapse. Israel, the country most directly threatened by current regional and international trends, finds itself at this dangerous juncture with no policies toward our enemies or toward the countries of the free world.

In his recent holiday interviews, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert did not make one clear policy statement toward Iran, Syria, Hizbullah or the Palestinians. Olmert’s inability to assert a constructive or coherent Israeli policy on any strategic issue has rendered the country a strategic irrelevancy. As numerous Israeli officials have admitted since last summer’s war, the Americans and Europeans no longer give weight to Israeli statements. So too, as the Riyadh summit made abundantly clear, the Arabs and Iranians have also stopped taking us seriously. This unacceptable and dangerous state of affairs will end only after the Olmert-Livni-Peretz government is voted out of office.

If maintained, the current policy trend will lead us directly to the worst-case scenario. In this scenario, after the US leaves Iraq in shame, or remains only to watch the country officially become an Iranian proxy, Israel will find itself encircled and under attack from Teheran’s proxies as Iran itself becomes a nuclear power.

But it is far from inevitable that the current trend will continue. For every step that takes us toward the worst-case scenario, there are multiple counter-steps that can lead us away from it. This week the British could have honorably confronted the Iranians. They still can.

The Americans can attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Germany can destroy Iran’s economy.

Israel can initiate a campaign against the Palestinians or Hizbullah or Syria and so weaken Iran’s creeping regional hegemony and at least partially extricate itself from its present encirclement. (To this end, of course, the Knesset must vote for new elections and the people must choose a government capable of crafting policies to defeat our enemies.)

Iran grows stronger in the face of Western weakness and hypocrisy. But it still isn’t all that strong.

The fact remains that even at this late date, we alone will determine whether we win or lose.

FAIR USE NOTICE: Th is site

contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.

Choosing the Safest Port for the coming Storm!

The Most Disturbing Event in the Middle East – The Moderates are turning away from the West to Radical Islam and the East!

April 6, 2007

http://www.tribulationperiod,com/

Every morning, regardless of how he came to be the ruler of a Middle East Islamic state, the ruler wakes up face to face with the same ancient quandary, namely, how can I say in power?

One of the elements of this quandary, which has become quite acute in this century, has now advanced to the forefront of the “staying in power” syndrome, namely, how can I stay in power regardless of who wins the great war that is coming in the Middle East?

The “clay” toes of Daniel’s 2:42 great statue represent the “moderate” Islamic nations that are militarily weak, while the “iron” toes represent the Islamic nations that are militarily strong.

Daniel 2:42 – And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken. (See Archive Prophecy Update Number 233B for Exposition on the 10 toes)

The moderate Islamic nations are currently rushing to get one foot on the Syria-Iran ship deck, while maintaining a toe hold on the American ship mast.

They want to stay in power in their native country no matter who wins.

The following Arutz Sheva article, by Hillel Fendel, mentions some of the current actions that demonstrate the aforementioned quandary.

Gold: Western Inaction Pushing Saudi Arabia to Hamas, Hizbullah

by Hillel Fendel

For Saudi Arabia, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not the main issue; it is rather Iran – and the West’s inaction vis-a-vis the Iranian threat. So writes former Israeli Ambassador to the UN Dore Gold in a brief for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs’ Institute for Contemporary Affairs.

“What is shaping Saudi Arabia’s new diplomatic activism,” Gold explains, “is the rapidly expanding Iranian threat and the weakness of the Western response.”

Early Signs of a Bad Start

Gold feels that though expectations were raised that “the Riyadh Arab summit might provide a mechanism for restarting the Arab-Israeli peace process,” it got off to a “bad start when Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal warned Israel that its rejection of the [Saudi complete-withdrawal] plan would leave its fate in the hands of the ‘lords of war.’ Rather than obtaining some flexibility, Israel was handed an ultimatum.”

Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah was to have had a mid-April gala dinner with President George W. Bush at the White House later this month – but abruptly canceled it. This was a clear signal, Gold writes, that the time was far from ripe for a Saudi-Israeli rapprochement under an American umbrella.

Saudi Arabia Turns to Hamas and Hizbullah

Why were the hopes of both the US and Olmert-government diplomats dashed? Gold quotes the Washington Post that “Riyadh had decided for now to seek common ground with Iran, Hamas, and Hizbullah.” Why? Because the West has responded weakly to the growing Iranian threat.

Gold concurs with other experts in positing that Saudi Arabia feels threatened by Shiite-controlled Iran.

Haifa University’s Middle Eastern affairs expert Dr. David Bukai said at last month’s Jerusalem Conference, “The main dispute in the Middle East is between the Shiites (10% of the world’s Moslems) and the Sunnis and

the so-called moderate nations.

The Shiites are more threatening to Saudi Arabia than to Israel.”

Iran is committed to “a second Iranian revolution,” Gold writes, referring to a “revival of Iranian efforts to export revolutionary Shiism, wherever possible.

In some Sunni-dominated countries, like Sudan and Syria, the Iranians hope to convert Sunnis to Shiism. In the [Persian] Gulf, there are already substantial Shiite populations. Indeed, Saudi Arabia’s main vulnerability is in its oil-rich Eastern Province, which has nearly a majority of Shiites. Neighboring Bahrain, now connected to Saudi Arabia by a bridge, has an 80 percent Shiite majority. The potential for revolutionary subversion is enormous,” as has already happened in the past.

Israel and the Saudi Plan

The Saudi plan, first advanced in 2002, has two demands that are anathema to most, if not all, Israelis. One is the “right of return” of millions

of descendants of the roughly half-million Arabs who left Israel during the 1948 War for Independence. The second is a total and complete withdrawal from every inch Israel liberated in the 1967 Six Day War – thus stripping Israel of the “defensible borders” that President Bush said was Israel’s right in his April 2004 letter to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Despite this, Gold writes, “Israeli diplomats had hoped that a modified peace plan might be adopted by the Arab heads of state that would leave out any references to the return of Palestinian refugees to Israel… When that seemed unlikely, there was increasing speculation that while the formal initiative would remain unchanged, then at least some other statements would be made separately that would try to reach out to Israeli public opinion and build mutual confidence.” But this did not occur.

No More Western Apathy or Israeli Withdrawals

What must be done, Gold writes, is the following: For one thing, the West must be more assertive about countering Iranian power. In addition, bombastic summits and Israeli withdrawals are not helpful at this time: “The last thing [Saudi Arabia] needs are planeloads of Israeli negotiators and journalists in Riyadh.

And with Hamas in power among the Palestinians and building its military strength daily in Gaza, Israel does not need to experiment with new withdrawals. Under such circumstances, quiet contacts between Israel and its neighbors make far more sense than grandiose public diplomacy.”

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.

We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.