blog.Tribulationperiod.com

Time to Review Our Relationship With the Lord,

DAILY Observ ing the Middle East We View Forces,

Now exercis

ing weaponry for the eventual final War,

That shall be employed by participants in Engagement,

During What is Labeled Great Tribulation in the Final Days,

That culminates in a last battle when forces gather Together,

Into a place in Israel called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon!

It is time for the world’s unbelievers to become believers in Christ!

It’s time for believers to serve him insuring Receipt of Outer Garment!

Cause the clock for this final generation is ticking down to its Final Tock!

September 13, 2009

http://www.tribulationperiod.com/

Romans 10:8-10 – But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; [9] That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

[10] For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Acts 4:12 – Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Romans 10:13 – For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Revelation 16:15,16 – Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame. [16] And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.

Revelation 3:3,4 – Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent.

If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee. [4] Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy.

Begin Excerpt from Jerusalem Post

Security and Defense: Israel goes ballistic

September 10, 2009

Yaakov Katz , THE JERUSALEM POST

On Sunday, the USS Higgins hauled up its anchor and sailed out of Haifa Port where it had docked for a short visit.

An Arleigh Burke class destroyer – one of the largest and most powerful naval vessels built in the United States – the Higgins is one of 18 American ships with an Aegis interceptor system, capable of destroying enemy ballistic missiles above the atmosphere.

In just a few weeks, additional Aegis vessels will arrive here to participate in the biennial Juniper Cobra missile defense exercise that the IDF has been holding with the US European Command (EUCOM) and Missile Defense Agency since 2001.

This year’s drill, scheduled for mid-October, is being described as the largest joint exercise ever held by the countries.

During it they will jointly test four ballistic missile defense systems.

In addition to the Aegis, the MDA and EUCOM are sending THAAD and Patriot 3 missile defense systems – America’s most-advanced – for the first time.

While the Higgins has not yet needed to use its Aegis system to intercept missiles fired into Israel, its crew is intimately familiar with the country’s various security issues, particularly along the northern border.

The ship is named for US Marine Col. William R. Higgins, who was kidnapped by Hizbullah in southern Lebanon in 1988, while serving as a commander of a UN peacekeeping mission.

In August 1989, a cell linked to Hizbullah murdered him in response to the IDF kidnapping of Sheikh Abdul Karim Obeid, a senior cleric and leader of the guerrilla group who was involved in the kidnapping. His body was dumped, over a year later, on a Beirut side street.

Israel had planned to use Obeid to obtain information regarding the fate of IAF navigator Ron Arad. Obeid was released in 2004 in exchange for the bodies of three soldiers – kidnapped in October 2000 – as well as shady businessman Elhanan Tannenbaum, in a large prisoner swap with Hizbullah.

The cooperation between Israel and the US on missile defense dates back to the mid-1980s when they began to jointly develop the Arrow missile defense system. Since then, the US government has spent close to $3 billion on the Arrow, which is manufactured by Israel Aerospace Industries and Boeing. Earlier this year, Congress approved additional funding for the development of the Arrow 3, a larger version with greater range and the capability of intercepting missiles at higher altitudes.

The cooperation peaked ahead of the 1991 Gulf War when the first Bush administration sent Patriot missile batteries to help defend the country against Saddam Hussein’s Scud missile attacks.

Last October, the Bush administration gave Israel a farewell gift in the form of the X-Band radar, which is deployed in the Negev and is capable of detecting targets thousands of miles away, providing five to seven minutes of warning before an Iranian missile strikes.

This is in contrast to the 10 seconds the residents of Sderot have when a Kassam rocket is launched from the Gaza Strip.

Juniper Cobra, senior defense officials said this week, is aimed at creating infrastructure in case Israel is attacked and the US decides to send the Aegis or THAAD to bolster the Arrow. The exercise spans several days and involves hundreds of Israeli and American soldiers, mostly from the air force.

The primary focus of the Juniper Cobra exercise held in 2007, for example, was integrating the lower-altitude US Patriot missile systems with the higher-altitude Arrow-2. This year, the integration will focus on improving the interoperability between the Arrow, THAAD and Aegis.

Officials said that the exercise may include live fire by the systems – most likely the Patriot – but the teams will mainly conduct computerized simulations of various threat scenarios launched from fictitious countries. The threats are then tracked and engaged by the various systems and the teams jointly write doctrine and staff procedures.

For Israel, the exercise could not have come at a more important time. Since the beginning of the year, Iran has made some impressive leaps with its ballistic missile development, culminating with the February launch of its first homemade satellite – called Omid – as well as the successful launch in May of a new missile, the Sajil, that has a range of more than 2,000 kilometers, easily reaching most of Eastern Europe.

This is impressive considering that just 10 years ago, the Iranians only had Scud B and C missiles. Today, they have their own production line of Shihabs and Sajils, for which they are building underground silos.

In addition, Israeli assessments are that the Iranians will soon be capable of independently manufacturing their own version of the BM25 missile which they received from North Korea

and has a range of more than 3,000 km.

According to the assessments, the launch of the Omid demonstrates that Iranian scientists have also made breakthroughs in guidance technology which has also likely been applied to its ballistic missiles.

According to Uzi Rubin, founder of the Arrow missile and a former head of the Homa Missile Defense Agency, Iran can also take unguided rockets like the Zelzal – which are also in Hizbullah’s hands – and turn them into guided rockets with ranges topping 220 km.

“This is an original Iranian project; we don’t see it anywhere else,” Rubin noted in a recent briefing at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

The second major breakthrough is in the propulsion systems, which Iran has succeeded in upgrading from liquid to solid fuel. The main difference is that a missile that operates on liquid fuel needs to be fueled very close to launch, making it easier to discover with surveillance satellites or hovering aircraft. Solid-fuel missiles have a significantly longer shelf life and can be stored in underground silos for a long time, allowing the Iranians to just lift their cover and launch.

It is not an easy task though to assess Iran’s progress in missile development.

On May 19, the EastWest Institute, a New York-based think tank that monitors global security, issued a report claiming that there was “no reliable information” on Iran’s success in developing a solid fuel rocket. The next day, on May 20, Iran test fired the Sajil, proving without a doubt that it had independently mastered the capability.

These developments indicate as possible reversal in roles between Iran and North Korea. If Teheran bought technology from Pyongyang two decades ago, today the flow of technology is believed to have reversed.

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.

Do Not be Surprised If We See

American Troops Pulled Out of Both

Iraq and Afghanistan by the end of 2011!

September 12, 2009

http://www.tribulationperiod.com/

Begin Excerpt from New York Times via World News

September 11, 2009

Of all the countries in the Middle East, none is better suited for guerilla warfare and terrorist attacks than Afghanistan. The mighty Soviet discovered that in its effort to establish control of Afghanistan

I have consistently contended in all my blogs and prophecy updates the impossibility of sustaining an American style democratic government in an Islamic country in the Middle East. I advocated the overthrow of Saddam himself, a quick withdrawal, and a policy of letting the Kurds, Shiites,

and Sunnis slug it out for supremacy after we pulled out. I was told that would cause “instability” in the Middle East if we did it in that manner. Good Grief! Instability in the Middle East has reigned supreme since 1948. The quicker we get out of Iraq and Afghanistan the better!

With the fantastic deficit in the trillions we now face, and the sour pickle America is being forced to eat in the form of political corruption, massive bailouts, insane shifts of money, chaotic moves toward socialism, czars, ACORN improprieties, outright lies by politicians, and growing hatred between ethnic groups, surely it will dawn on Washington politicians we need to bring our troops home, and stop trying to play the role of world policeman in trying to accomplish mission impossible. Our deficit is not helped by large military expenditures in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the deaths of our military personnel will not change the eventual outcome in the Middle East.

I admit my viewpoint is tied to the fact I believe that God’s Word indicates what must happen in what I believe is the near future. So, admittedly, I must confess my mindset is religiously extremely biased and opinionated, in that I do not believe we can go anything to stop what I will write about in the next paragraph.

America cannot stop the coming Middle East War. America cannot stop the final battle of Armageddon. American cannot stop God’s horrific coming judgment on the earth. America cannot stop the Second Advent of Jesus Christ. But men and women can turn to God in repentance of their ways, and they can put their faith in Jesus Christ, whose Second Advent is not a far distant event.

We might as well bring them home because we can’t change what the Scriptures say MUST happen sooner or later. So, believing what I believe, THE SOONER THE BETTER.

Acts 20:20,21 – And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house, [21] Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.

Revelation 5:9 – And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

Luke 21:25-28 – And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; [26] Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. [27] And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. [28] And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

Begin Excerpt from New York Times via World news

Obama Faces Doubts From Democrats on Afghanistan

By ERIC SCHMITT and DAVID E. SANGER

WASHINGTON — The leading Senate Democrat on military matters said Thursday that he was against sending more American combat troops to Afghanistan until the United States speeded up the training and equipping of more Afghan security forces.

The comments by the senator, Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who is the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, illustrate the growing skepticism President Obama is facing in his own party as the White House decides whether to commit more deeply to a war that has begun losing public support, even as American commanders acknowledge that the situation on the ground has deteriorated.

Senator Levin’s comments, made in an interview and in the draft of a speech he will deliver Friday, are significant because his stature on military matters gives him the ability to sway fellow lawmakers, and his pivotal committee position provides a platform for vetting Mr. Obama’s major decisions on troops.

Underscoring the increasing unease, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, said earlier on Thursday that the president would face opposition if he sought to fulfill an expected request from Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, for more American combat troops.

“I don’t think there is a great deal of support for sending more troops to Afghanistan in the country or in Congress,” Ms. Pelosi told reporters, emphasizing that she was eager to see a report due from the White House in two weeks on benchmarks to measure the success of the administration’s six-month-old strategy.

The White House has begun to indicate that it could be weeks or perhaps much longer before Mr. Obama decides whether to send more troops to Afghanistan.

Administration officials say they want to do a complete review of the effectiveness of the last troop increase, which will put the American presence at 68,000 troops by year’s end, an all-time high. They are also digesting a strategic assessment of the Afghan mission that General McChrystal has submitted.

A delay on deciding whether to increase American troop levels would also have the political advantage of pushing down the road a split within Mr. Obama’s party while he is trying to build coalitions for overhauling the health care system.

In the telephone interview on Thursday, Mr. Levin said he was not ruling out sending more troops eventually, but rather insisted that the United States try again on a years-old project: finding a way to expand and accelerate the training of the Afghan security forces.

“I just think we should hold off on a commitment to send more combat troops until these additional steps to strengthen the Afghan security forces are put in motion,” he said.

Mr. Levin, who returned from a trip to Afghanistan just last week, said that the Afghan national army should be increased to 240,000 troops by 2012 from a current goal of 134,000 by next year, and that Afghan national police forces should grow to 160,000 officers from 96,800 in the same period. These troop goals are consistent with General McChrystal’s planning but would be reached a year earlier, the senator said.

Mr. Levin acknowledged that more American trainers would be needed to meet that goal, but he said that he did not know how many. In the most recent deployment of 21,000 American troops, about 4,000 were trainers. The last of those forces will not be in place until November.

In counterinsurgency operations, there are sometimes few distinctions between trainers, support troops and combat forces, a fact that Mr. Levin said he recognized.

He said the United States should send Afghan forces more equipment — including rifles, bullets and trucks — and shift more equipment to Afghanistan from stocks now in Iraq.

Finally, Mr. Levin said the administration needed to adopt a plan to separate low- and midlevel insurgents from hard-core Taliban fighters and commanders. He said the current American efforts to do this had been tentative and halfhearted.

Mr. Lev in, who said he

intended to outline his proposal in a speech on the Senate floor on Friday, said he explained his concerns in meetings on Wednesday with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Mr. Gates has indicated that he is willing to consider a request for more forces. Separate from any troop request forwarded by the commanders in Afghanistan, Mr. Gates has said he will press for more troops and equipment to protect American, allied and Afghan forces from improvised explosive devices, which are the roadside bombs that have been the leading cause of death and injuries in Afghanistan.

Troops for the mission to counter roadside bombs, which potentially could number in the thousands, would include route- clearance teams and ordnance-disposal units — some of the most dangerous jobs in the military — as well as intelligence analysts and medical personnel. They would be in addition to a substantial increase in the number of armored troop transport vehicles sent to Afghanistan.

While Mr. Levin traveled to Afghanistan last week with two other colleagues, the lawmakers did not agree on all positions.

Senator Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat, said in an interview that he agreed with the need to speed the training and equipping of the Afghan security forces and to reintegrate any Taliban fighters willing to recognize the Afghan government.

Mr. Reed said he was waiting for the analysis by General McChrystal on possible troop increases before making up his mind. “What the president has to do is continually point to the fact that Al Qaeda is operating in the border areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan,” he said. “Given the chance to reconstitute themselves and operate in those border spaces, they’ll pose a threat to the United States.”

Representative Adam Smith, a Washington State Democrat on the House Armed Services and Intelligence Committees who traveled to Afghanistan and Pakistan in the past week, said he also wanted more information before deciding. “But my general position is we have to give General McChrystal what he needs to get the job done,” he said.

Other Democrats said Mr. Obama and his military commanders needed to make a more persuasive case to sell the administration’s Afghanistan strategy.

“They have a relatively short period of time to show that we’re on a path that’s going to demonstrate positive results,” said Representative Earl Pomeroy, a North Dakota Democrat who visited Afghanistan last week. “This is our last best chance to change things around.”

Thom Shanker contributed reporting.

Begin Excerpt from The Independent via World News

1 in 2 believe Afghan war not making UK safer

By Craig Woodhouse, Press Association

Friday, 11 September 2009

Almost half the country believes the war in Afghanistan is doing nothing to reduce the threat of terrorism on Britain’s streets, according to a poll out today.

On the eighth anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks in the US, 49 per cent of people interviewed in a Populus survey for ITV News said military operations in Afghanistan were not reducing the terror threat in the UK.

A further 27 per cent said the war was reducing the threat of terrorism but did not justify the loss of UK service personnel, with just 17 per cent saying that Britain’s continuing military presence in the country makes a terrorist attack less likely and goes some way to justifying British

military deaths.

The poll suggests a growing lack of support for the war in Afghanistan following a bloody summer which has seen the British military death toll since the start of operations in October 2001 rise to 213.

Gordon Brown’s official spokesman said the Prime Minister had used a speech last week to set out Britain’s objectives in Afghanistan and would continue to emphasise the importance of operations to Britain’s security.

“We continue to communicate that and get people to understand that this comes back to the overriding issue as we all know of ensuring that the streets of the UK are safer as a result,” the spokesman said.

Populus interviewed a random sample of 1,005 adults by telephone between 4 and 6 September. Interviews were conducted across the country and results were weighted to be representative of all adults.

Begin Excerpt from the UK Guardian

Obama’s impossible ambition

The US president’s intention is to bridge the divide between Israel and Palestine is bound to fail

Benny Morris

The Guardian

Friday, 11 September 2009

President Obama’s efforts to revive the Middle East peace process are bound to fail because of the unbridgeable divide separating Israel’s and Palestine’s political goals.

The minor problems are Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s unwillingness to partition Jerusalem and enable the Palestinians to constitute the eastern half of the city as their capital, and his reluctance to freeze the settlement enterprise in the West Bank. The major problem is that the two-headed Palestinian national movement is averse to sharing Palestine with the Jews and endorsing a solution based on two states for two peoples.

Hamas, which won the Palestinian national elections in 2006, says so bluntly.

Its charter of 1988 explicitly calls for Israel’s destruction and assures the believers that “Islam will destroy Israel”. It repeatedly compares Israel to the medieval crusader kingdoms and states that its end will be identical.

(This comparison, incidentally, has been a constant in Arab discourse on Zionism. In September 1947, the Arab League’s secretary general, Abdul Rahman Azzam, told Zionist emissaries: “Centuries ago, the crusaders established themselves in our midst against our will, and in 200 years we ejected them.”)

Fatah too has a constitution, never revised since the 1960s, which advocates Israel’s destruction. During the 1990s, Fatah – then the leading component of the Palestinian national movement – agreed in negotiations with Israel to produce a revised Palestinian National Charter that deleted the clauses calling for Israel’s destruction. No such revised charter was ever produced, though these clauses were ostensibly revoked by a gathering of Palestinian notables in Gaza in 1998.

Fatah’s head, the president of

the Palestine National Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, in effect continues to promote the same rejectionist message. He publicly hails, to propitiate Washington, “the two-state solution”, but when pressed declines to endorse it. Yes, one state for Palestinian Arabs and another for whoever lives in Israel, but not a “Jewish state”. He seems to be hoping that Israel’s 20% Arab minority, with birth rates double those of the Jews, will overtake the Jews demographically; or that Israel will accede to Palestinian demands to allow the return of refugees. There are around five million refugees (nine-tenths are the descendants of the 1948 refugees). Israel has 5.5 million Jewish citizens. A mass repatriation coupled with the incumbent Arabs would turn Israel instantly into an Arab-majority state.

Hence Abbas’s unwillingness to recognise Israel as a “Jewish state”.

The Jewish national movement, Zionism, and the Palestinian Arabs’ national movement enjoyed common starting points but, over time, followed radically different trajectories. Both initially sought to establish a state of their own over all Palestine.

This was the Zionists’ aim from the movement’s inception in the early 1880s until the late 1930s. All of Palestine, the ancient land of Israel, rightfully would be theirs.

But the Arab revolt of 1936-39 and the resurgence of antisemitism in Europe persuaded the Zionist leaders that they would have to make do with only part of Palestine.

They accepted, in principle, the 1937 Peel commission partition proposal and, a decade later, the UN General Assembly partition resolution; thus, since the 1990s, they have reaffirmed the principle of two states for two peoples.

But from the beginning, the Palestinian national movement saw the struggle as a zero-sum game. As Palestinian notables told the King-Crane commission in 1919, “We will push the Zionists into the sea, or they will send us back into the desert”; there could be no partition.

This was to be the stance of the Palestinian national movement’s first major leader, Haj Amin al-Husseini, and of its second, Yasser Arafat. (His only concession to the realities of power was that Israel would have to be destroyed not in one fell swoop but in stages.) And this remains the goal to this day. The rejection of Israel as “a Jewish state” and the unwavering insistence on the refugee “right of return” are the “tells”.

Obama will press Netanyahu on settlements and achieve some sort of freeze.

But once the negotiations begin, the issue of Jerusalem will loudly surface. And then the refugees. And Israel will insist that Abbas – who does not represent Hamas and perhaps only a minority of Palestinians – accept the Clinton-Barak formulation of an “end to the conflict” and an “end to all claims”. And Abbas will demand Israeli acceptance of the “right of return” – the demographic battering ram designed to subvert Israel’s Jewish character and existence. And the talks will founder, possibly followed by a new round of violence.

I fear that history is against Obama.

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.

There is Only One Thing for Certain,

In the chaotic instability in the Middle East,

It is definitely headed for Islamic – Israel Warfare,

That will end temporarily in ano ther Middle East Truce,

Then later finally end

ing life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. [3] And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever. [4] But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro,

and knowledge shall be increased.

Luke 21:25-28 – And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; [26] Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.

[27] And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. [28] And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption

draweth nigh.

There is nothing man can do to stop these prophecies from being fulfilled, but there is something individual men and woman can do – They can be prepared spiritually when they are fulfilled.

John 5:40 – And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

John 5:24 – Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Revelation 1:5 – And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth.

Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

I Peter 1:18,19 – Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; [19] But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

Revelation 5:9 – And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

Ephesians 4:30 – And GRIEVE NOT the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

Revelation 16:15,16 – Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and KEEPTH HIS GARMENTS, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.

[16] And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.

Begin Excerpt from Arutz Sheva

Military Action May Not Halt Regional Nuclear Proliferation

Elul 21, 5769, 10 September 09 11:44

By Nissan Ratzlav-Katz

(Israelnationalnews.com) A former Mossad director says only military action can halt Iranian nuclear weapons development at this point, but the French chief of staff says that it is already too late for that. Meanwhile, a former US envoy to the International Atomic

Iran’s regional ally Syria is operating more nuclear sites than generally assumed.

Energy Agency (IAEA) believes that Iran’s regional ally Syria is operating more nuclear sites than generally assumed.

Iran

Speaking on IDF Radio on Wednesday, former intelligence chief Danny Yatom said that, in his estimation, only military action can now stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

At the same time, he added that the United States, and the free world in its wake, is “not willing to take the risks inherent in a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.” Yet, in Yatom’s view, the free world must be made to understand that weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in the hands of the Islamic Republic are a danger to all nations.

On the other hand, the French armed forces chief of staff, General Jean-Louis Georgelin, said on Thursday, “I don’t think at this stage a military option is still available.”

Answering questions following a lecture he delivered at the Atlantic Council, a Washington-based think tank, Georgelin explained, “It is very difficult to plan a military operation in Iran, because we are not sure in one shot to be able to solve a problem, and if you fail in one shot, it is a catastrophe.”

The French general also added that he believes it imperative for Western powers “not to let [Israel] strike alone, with all the risks it could entail.” Instead, Georgelin said, the West should employ “financial pressure, economic pressure, political pressure” on Iran to deter its nuclear weapons development.

Also on Thursday, Iranian spokesman Ali Asghar Soltanieh said his country’s nuclear program is not up for debate. Soltanieh declared: “Tehran is prepared to have fair and substantive talks about various problems, including the guarantee of access by all countries to nuclear energy and preventing the proliferation of nuclear arms. But these talks do not include Tehran’s nuclear program and legal activities in this connection.” %ad%

Syria

On another front among Israel’s regional adversaries, Syria is believed to have establ

ished several secret nuclear development facilities that have yet to be exposed. According to the former US representative to the IAEA, Gregory Schulte, the Syrians refused to grant the international nuclear watchdog agency access to several suspected nuclear facilities in the country. Damascus “claimed they were military sites,” he said during an interview with Israel’s Channel 10 news Thursday night. After Israel reportedly bombed a suspected nuclear reactor at Deir Azour in September of 2007, Schulte continued, the Syrians told IAEA inspectors that uranium particles at the site “came from Israeli bombs.”

That Syrian evasiveness “gave us concern… gave the IAEA concern,” according to Schulte.

Yet, IAEA Chairman Mohammed El-Baradei was not concerned about Syria, the former US envoy added. “He was mad at Israel, he was mad at the United States; he didn’t express any discontent about Syria,” Schulte said. “He sort of deplored Israel’s unilateral action… [and] the late provision of intelligence, which was a direct slap at the United States.”

While Syria’s protests of innocence were intended to conceal what IAEA inspectors suspected was secret nuclear development activities, Iran is using negotiations and talks as cover for its continuing nuclear program, according to Schulte. “Iran is always trying to buy time,” he said.

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.

Accepting THE Inevitable,

If you have FAITH in Christ,

Is not a Difficult Assignment!

My life is hid in God with Jesus,

Why worry as death comes Near.

His word let’s me know war’s Near,

But it also tells me how the war Ends,

So I could care less when it does Begin,

Since I Know my Savior Will Win The War,

And Give me a GLO RI

FIED spiritual Exterior,

And My Glorified Body Will NEVER WEAR OUT!

When He comes will you KNOW HIM as Savior

?

It is quite possible by Faith IN HIM to wait in Joy,

Accepting the Inevitable IS NOT A difficult Journey,

When SAVED learn to take His yoke and REST IN IT.

Middle East War And HIS Second Advent’s Inevitable,

Accept His Gift & Take His Yoke to Keep Your Garment!

September 11, 2009

http://www.tribulationperiod.com/

Matthew 11:28-30 – Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. [29] Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. [30] For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Revelation 16:15,16 – Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame. [16] And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.

Begin Series of Excerpts from Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs/Daily Alert

September 10, 2009

Begin Excerpt 1 from Wall Street Journal

Taking Iran Seriously

Daniel R. Coats, Charles S. Robb, and Charles Wald

(Wall Street Journal)

September 10, 2009

Last year, a high-level Bipartisan Policy Center task force in which we participated concluded that a nuclear weapons-capable Iran would be “strategically untenable.” Not only has Iran continued its nuclear program

unabated, but its regime has emerged from post-election turmoil more radical than ever.

A nuclear-armed Iran would not only pose a security threat to the U.S. and its allies.

It would embolden Iranian-sponsored terrorist groups, destabilize the region, upset global energy markets, and spark a wave of proliferation across the Middle East.

We understand the reluctance of Americans to consider confronting the Iranian nuclear threat, given their weariness from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and continued economic hardships.

But after eight months of diplomatic overtures, numerous rebuffs and a brutal crackdown on its own people, Tehran’s willingness to negotiate in good faith is subject to considerable doubt. We believe it is now time to devise a new strategy.

Mr. Coats, a former Republican senator from Indiana, Mr. Robb, a former Democratic senator from Virginia, and Mr.

Wald, a retired general and air commander in Operation Enduring Freedom, are authors of a new Bipartisan Policy Center report on Iran, “Meeting the Challenge: Time Is Running Out.”

Begin Excerpt 2 from New York Times

U.S. Says Iran Has Ability to Expedite a Nuclear Bomb

William J. Broad, Mark Mazzetti and David E. Sanger

American intelligence agencies have concluded in recent months that Iran has created enough nuclear fuel to make a rapid, if risky, sprint for a nuclear weapon, but has deliberately stopped short of the critical last steps to make a bomb.

Glyn Davies, the American ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, declared on Wednesday that Iran now had a “possible breakout capacity” to enrich its stockpile of uranium to bomb-grade material. In interviews over the past two months, intelligence and military officials, and members of the Obama administration, have said they are convinced that Iran has made significant progress on uranium enrichment, especially over the past year.

In a 2007 announcement, the U.S. said Iran had worked on designs for making a warhead in a project that was halted in 2003. The new intelligence finds no convincing evidence that the design work has resumed.

But Israel has cited evidence that the design effort secretly resumed in 2005, at the order of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The Israelis have argued that there could be little or no warning time before Iran completes building an actual weapon – especially if Iran has hidden facilities. Israeli officials cite two secret programs in Iran, Project 110 and Project 111, the code names for what are believed to be warhead-design programs run by an academic, Mohsen Fakrizadeh. International inspectors have shown videos and documents suggesting that Fakrizadeh’s group has worked on nuclear triggers, trajectories for missiles and the detonation of a warhead at almost 2,000 feet above ground – which would suggest a nuclear detonation.

Accurate intelligence about the progress of Iran’s weapons programs has been notoriously poor. Much of the country’s early activity was missed for nearly 18 years, until a dissident group revealed the existence of enrichment efforts.

Israeli officials say privately that the Obama administration is deluding itself in thinking that diplomacy will persuade Iran to give up its nuclear program. Even inside the White House, some officials think Mr. Obama’s diplomatic effort will prove fruitless. (New York Times)

Begin Excerpt 3 from Atlanta Journal Constitution

Ayatollahs Cast Growing Shadow in Latin America

Roman D. Ortiz

Tehran employs a combination of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Lebanese terrorist group Hizbullah in its covert operations. The presence of both organizations in Latin America has substantially increased in recent years.

For example, the IRGC is cooperating closely with Venezuelan intelligence agencies.

Hizbullah has built a network of relations with Venezuelan citizens, making Caracas Hizbullah’s gateway into Latin America. The U.S. Treasury Department says a Venezuelan diplomat accredited in Beirut, Ghazi Nasr al D

in, provided support to Hizbullah, including help with setting up its fund-raising apparatus in Latin America.

Hizbullah’s presence has been detected behind the proliferation of Shiite mosques in Ecuador.

Hizbullah has been involved in contrab and drugs in Colombia

and in illegal immigrant traffic in Mexico. It is also expanding its presence in the region via proxies such as “Hizbullah Argentina” and “Hizbullah Venezuela.” The writer is a professor at the School of Economy at Los Andes University in Bogota, Columbia. (Atlanta Journal Constitution)

Begin Excerpt 4 from Fox News

Discovery of Weapons Cache Suggests Iranian Meddling in Afghan War

Jennifer Griffin

The discovery of a weapons cache in western Afghanistan has raised concerns that Iran is interfering in that country, much like it did in Iraq, by supplying weapons used to attack and kill U.S. and coalition troops, U.S. officials say. Afghan and NATO forces uncovered the weapons cache on Aug.

29 in Herat. It included a small number of Iranian-made “explosively formed penetrators,” hyper-powerful roadside bombs similar to the weapons used to kill U.S. forces in Iraq. Also seized were 107 Iranian-made BM-1 rockets and dozens of blocks of Iranian C4 plastic explosives. Other coalition countries allege the Iranian influence is even deeper and that Iranian intelligence is funneling money to Afghan President Hamid Karzai. (FOX News)

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.

Nuri al-Maliki!

Rise & Shine Iraq

Good Morning to Iraqis

Goodbye to American Troops

Goodbye to American Democracy

Hello to return to Islamic Government

Welcome to the Ten of Daniel and Revelation

Hello to Middle East War as a toe on Daniel 2 Statue

Welcome to a great Middle East war beginning before 2015

With the most likely starting time occurring between 2012 & 2015!

September 10, 2009

http://www.tribulationperiod

I do think it is possible for the final Middle East War to start as early as 2010, but believe the most likely time for the initial attack lies between 2012 and 2015. Once our troops are pulled out of Iraq in 2011 it is “Katy bar the door” for a Middle East War to begin.

Begin Excerpt from Asia Times via World News

Iraqi violence overshadowed

By Helena Cobban

September 8, 2009

WASHINGTON – Political violence in Iraq killed 456 Iraqis in August, the highest monthly death toll since July 2008. And with the United States showing no sign it plans to reverse the troop withdrawal that is now well underway, numerous struggles for power are shaping up inside Iraq.

They involve both competing factions within the country and also, perhaps more ominously, several neighboring countries.

These levels of violence are deeply entwined, as was shown by the aftershocks of the most deadly of August’s acts of violence: on August 19, unknown parties, suspected to be disgruntled Sunnis, detonated large vehicle bombs outside three Iraqi ministries, killing 95 people and injuring more than 600.

Shortly afterwards, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki accused Syria of giving safe haven to the men who masterminded the bombings, whom he identified as followers of Iraq’s former Ba’athist rulers. (Close observers of the Iraqi scene are divided on the authenticity of the televised “confessions” on which he based this charge.)

As the heat of Maliki’s accusations rose, he withdrew his ambassador from Syria.

That decision was all the more notable since just days earlier he had made a very friendly state visit to Damascus, where he and his hosts signed several important agreements.

In preceding months, Syrian officials had repeatedly stressed that they saw a strong interest in Maliki’s government successfully stabilizing its rule throughout Iraq. (Syria also started to work semi-quietly with US military planners to help achieve this.)

But as Maliki escalated his accusations against Syria, the previously burgeoning cooperation between the two governments lay in ruins. Syria, which had been one of the earliest Arab states to recognize Maliki’s government, also withdrew its ambassador from Baghdad.

The August 19 bombings were timed, perhaps deliberately, to be carried out on the anniversary of the massive truck bomb that in 2003 wrecked the United Nations mission in Baghdad, killing its head and many of his staff members.

That earlier bombing marked a turning point in Iraqi affairs.

Before it, many non-Iraqis and even many Iraqis hoped that somehow, with the UN’s help, Iraq could emerge fairly peacefully from the devastation that the US military had inflicted in its assault and invasion of the country just five months earlier.

After the August 2003 bomb, that hope lay in tatters – and the UN greatly downgraded its engagement in Iraqi affairs.

After the August 19 bombings of this year, the hope that Iraq might emerge fairly peacefully from the six-year-long US occupation has been similarly seriously dented.

The three ministries targeted were each known to fall more thoroughly under the sway of Iraq’s big ethnosectarian factions than under Maliki’s direct control. (That was one result of the system of “apportionment” of state positions and patronage among Iraq’s sects and ethnicities that was introduced by the US occupation.)

So it is plausible that strong Iraqi nationalists, whether Ba’athists or others, who have been very disturbed by the emergence of these factions may have been behind the bombings.

Another possibility, mentioned by more than a few Iraqis, is that forces near to Maliki himself may have had a hand in them, in an attempt to cut down the factions’ power.

In the same period the August 19 bombs were being planned, all the other Shi’ite factions that in 2006 had helped boost Maliki to power formed a new coalition – but without him, or his Da’awa Party. Indeed, Maliki’s party and its non-Shi’ite allies did much better in last January’s provincial election than any of the other Shi’ ite parties with which it was previously aligned.

“Right now, Maliki seems much happier hanging out people from the Sunni party he’s allied with than with his previous allies in the Shi’ite parties,” veteran Iraqi-American political scientist Adeed Dawisha told Inter Press Service.

There are further wrinkles in the story. Maliki is very close to the Iranians and receives strong backing from them – but so do just about all the other factional leaders who he is now opposing.

Iran has been a powerful player inside Iraqi politics ever since the US toppled Saddam Hussein. Now, as the US military footprint in the country contracts, Iran’s power there is growing very visibly.

This has greatly concerned all Iraq’s Arab neighbors – including Syria, despite the Damascus government’s lengthy de facto alliance with Tehran.

So one possible explanation for the vehemence with which Maliki accused Syria may be the Iranians urged it on him, in an attempt to deny the Syrians any potential influence over the Baghdad regime.

One notable aspect of the political tempests now swirling around Iraq is that neither in Iraq nor in the US has there been any significant movement calling for the US to delay or reverse its continuing pullout.

In the US, much more attention is now being paid to the military’s deeply troubled engagement in Afghanistan.

Under the Withdrawal Agreement that president George W Bush concluded with the Maliki government last November, all US troops should be out of Iraq by the end of 2011. But significant voices inside and outside the Pentagon are now urging the US to speed up that timetable, to free

up additional troops for Afghanistan.

When US commentators refer to the ongoing violence among Iraqis, which is not often, they express some mild regret. But none go on to urge that the US military there should do something active to bolster Iraqi security.

“There really is nothing the US can do in the security sector, at this point,” said Dawisha, whose latest book is Iraq: A political his tory from independence

to occupation.

He also judged there is very little the US – or any other outside powers – can do to intervene at the political level, to help Iraq’s 30 million people meet the many other political challenges that lie ahead.

The only outside power Dawisha saw as potentially able to make a small difference for the better was Turkey. He was very dismissive of the idea that the UN could do anything useful.

Right now, two major issues top the country’s political agenda. One is the still-simmering contest between ethnic Kurds and ethnic Arabs over Kirkuk, an oil-rich region long coveted by the Kurds. The other is the next round of national elections, scheduled for January 2010.

Dawisha noted that not all the news from inside Iraq is bad.

He po inted

in particular to signs that new cross-sectarian and cross-ethnic alliances are now emerging. “One of the most interesting is the ‘Hadba’ alliance that’s being built around the list of that name that did very well in the provincial elections in the northern city of Mosul,” he said. “And now, they’re making plans to field candidates in a number of other provinces, too, in the January elections.”

But the situation remains precarious.

“The reconstituted Iraqi security forces have the numbers they need now, and much of the training,” Dawisha said. “But there is still a real risk they could implode if the internal politics can’t be stabilized.”

Helena Cobban is a veteran Middle East analyst and author. She blogs at www.JustWorldNews.org.

(Inter Press Service)

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.