blog.Tribulationperiod.com

War Drums al ong

the Mohawk sounding on Israel Borders

A M ag

nificent Summary of Middle East Situation by Glick

An Exposition of True events that are leading to War

A Biblical war of wars that will end the Gentile Age

When the Jewish Messiah comes to restore Her

To greatness greater than she’s ever Known.

I LOVE THE LAST Paragraph In Glick’s Post.

June 19, 2011

http://www.tribulationperiod.com/

Caroline B. Glick, in my opinion, is the best analyst on the Middle East and, as such, is my favorite. Her Excerpt extracted from the Jerusalem Post is a masterpiece in covering a wide range of multiple dangers in the Middle East in a meticulous quality of accurate analysis, based on premises of fact. Her detailed factual analysis is more that worth reading, if you want to know the truth about the situation Israel faces in the Middle East. PLEASE CONSIDER IT!

I LOVE THE LAST PARAGRAPH IN HER ARTICLE, AND HAVE DONE THE SAME THING SHE RECOMMENDS CONCERING ISRAEL. I HOPE BOTH JEW AND GENTILE WILL DO THE SAME!

Begin Excerpt from THE JERUSALEM POST by CAROLINE B.

GLICK

Column One: A do-or-die moment

By CAROLINE B. GLICK

06/17/2011 16:38

As was the case in May 1967, when the combined Arab armies gathered with the express purpose of wiping the Jewish state off the map – today again, Israel is alone at its hour of greatest peril.

Every day, major stories come out of the Middle East. And behind each of these stories are major developments that deserve of our attention and, more often than not, our intense concern.

Just this week, major stories have come out of Syria, the Palestinian Authority, Egypt, Turkey, Lebanon, Yemen and Pakistan that are all deeply disconcerting.

In Syria, dictator Bashar Assad’s violent repression of the popular revolt against his tyrannical, minority regime has exposed the Syrian leader as a vicious murderer. While there is some room for hope that the Syrian people may successfully overthrow him, given the US’s refusal to provide any tangible assistance to the regime opponents, it is hard to see

how such a happy future could come about.

For his part, Assad is the beneficiary of a steady stream of support from the Iranian regime.

The mullahs and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards will ensure that he never runs out of bullets to kill his people.

As to the Palestinian Authority, this week’s Fatah-Hamas coalition negotiations in Cairo revealed the depth and breadth of Hamas’s control over the unity government now being formed. Despite massive American pressure, Hamas successfully vetoed Fatah’s bid to retain Salam Fayyad as prime minister in the unity government.

Moreover, in the face of significant international pressure, Hamas maintains its refusal to accept the so-called Quartet conditions of recognizing Israel, ending terrorism and agreeing to respect all previous agreements signed between the Palestinians and Israel.

Given Hamas’s maintenance of its annihilationist goals toward Israel and Fatah’s inability to convince Hamas to accept its minimal demands, it is obvious that Hamas is the stronger force in the Palestinian unity government. It is also clear that this government will not under any circumstances agree to make peace with Israel.

AND YET, in the face of these realities, US President Barack Obama is intensifying his pressure on Israel to agree to the now-powerless Fatah’s preconditions for negotiating. Indeed, he has adopted Fatah’s preconditions as his own.

Obama is demanding that Israel agree to surrender its right to defensible borders by insisting that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu accept the pre-1967 boundaries – that is the 1949 armistice lines – as the starting point for future negotiations. Since Obama surely recognizes that a Hamas-controlled Palestinian Authority will not accept Israeli control over anything from the Temple Mount in Jerusalem to the Jordan Valley, he knows that he is requiring that Israel surrender its right to defensible borders before it even begins negotiating.

It is not surprising that the unity talks that crowned Hamas the king of Palestinian politics have taken place in post-Mubarak Egypt.

Despite the rosy, post-Mubarak scenarios put forward during the revolution in January by American liberal and neo-conservative intellectuals, post- Mubarak Egypt is shaping up to be a dangerous, frightening place.

With the supposedly liberal Wafd Party merging with the Muslim Brotherhood this week, the Brotherhood took a significant step toward consolidating its rise to political leadership of the country in the elections scheduled for September.

The ruling military junta’s decision to arrest Israeli-American Ilan Grapel on trumped-up espionage charges last week is just one more signal that post-Mubarak Egypt is turning its back on Egypt’s peace with Israel.

And as The Washington Times reported last week, the US has been reduced to begging the Egyptian military authorities to re-arrest a number of top jihadist terrorists freed from Egyptian prisons in the aftermath of Hosni Mubarak’s ouster. Yet, not only have the terrorists not been re-jailed, some of them have formed new political parties and are slated to run in September’s elections. Clearly, the US is also being betrayed by the new regime.

If the Muslim Brotherhood controls the next Egyptian government, Egypt will join Lebanon and Turkey as the newest member of the growing club of nations ruled by Islamic radicals. This week, Lebanon’s Hezbollah-appointed Prime Minister Najib Mikati finally formed his Hezbollah- controlled government.

Hezbollah has now officially swallowed Lebanon. The regional and indeed global repercussions of the development are simply mind-boggling.

Then there is Turkey. This week, the Turks went to the polls and re-elected Prime Minister Recip Erdogan and his radical Islamic AKP party to lead the country for a third term. In his victory speech, Erdogan signaled his Islamist and neoimperialist ambitions by stating that former Ottoman empire-controlled cities from Sarajevo to Jerusalem, from Damascus to Beirut to Ramallah should all be cheering his victory. Turkish intellectuals like Sinan Ulgen, who heads the Istanbul-based Center for Economics and Foreign Policy Studies, are arguing for a more independent Turkish role within NATO.

Both nuclear-armed Pakistan and Yemen are quickly approaching the day when they will be led by al Qaida or its affiliates. The forced departure of Yemini President Ali Abdullah Saleh two weeks ago after he was wounded in an attack on the Presidential Palace was seen as a major victory for al Qaida.

Al Qaida forces continue to attack government installations in Aden and other cities throughout the country.

As for Pakistan, the US’s assassination of Osama bin Laden last month exposed the dirty secret of Pakistani military collaboration with al Qaida for all to see. This week’s arrest of five Pakistanis accused of acting as informants to the US in its bid to locate the al Qaida chief is further proof – if any was needed – that the $21 billion in military and economic assistance the US has showered on Pakistan since 2002 has bought it precious little in the way of strategic support or partnership from Islamabad. Recent reports indicate increased concern that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal may eventually fall under the control of al Qaida sympathizers.

AMAZINGLY, WHILE all of these developments are alarming, and while all of them have justifiably dominated much of the coverage of the Middle East in recent weeks and months, the fact is that all of them pale in comparison to what is happening in Iran. And this story is receiving only scant and generally superficial attention from the international media and the major governments of the Western world.

Monday, The Wall Street Journal editorialists summarized the major developments on this front. First, last week the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency released previously classified sections of its latest report on Iran. The report says that in the last six months, Tehran enriched 970 kilos of uranium to reactor-grade levels, bringing its publicly known stockpile of low enriched uranium to 4,105 kilos.

Iran also has enriched 56.7 kilos of uranium to the 20% level, from which it is a relatively simple matter to increase enrichment levels to the 90% needed to make a nuclear bomb.

Iran has also installed upgraded centrifuges in its until recently secret enrichment facility at Qom.

Rand Corporation scholar Gregory S. Jones wrote this month that Iran has reached nuclear breakout capacity. In his words, “Iran can now produce a weapons’s worth (20 kilograms) of HEU [weapons-grade uranium] any time it wishes.

With Iran’s current number of operating centrifuges, the batch recycling process would take about two months.”

Apparently owing to their certainty that Iran is an unstoppable nuclear power, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards took their guard down in a recent issue of their in-house journal. The magazine published an article describing the day after Iran performs a nuclear test.

And the beat goes on. Yesterday, Iran successfully launched a second spy satellite into space.

The launch indicates that Iran is acquiring greater prowess in developing intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities.

Such capabilities along with Iran’s nuclear program and global ambitions constitute a clear and present danger to Europe and the US.

Iran’s steady progress toward a nuclear arsenal was made all the more frightening in the face of the recent comments by retired Mossad director Meir Dagan. In a shocking breach of protocol and in apparent violation of the law, the man who until a few months ago stood at the helm of Israel’s efforts to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions attempted to take Israel’s military option for striking Iran’s nuclear installations off the table. In press interviews, Dagan stated that it would be disastrous for Israel to strike Iran’s nuclear installations.

Dagan failed to note that it would be far more disastrous to allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.

At this point, it is inarguable that the policy of sanctioning Iran favored by the US and Europe has failed to dampen Iran’s commitment to developing nuclear weapons. It has also failed to significantly slow Iran’s progress towards the atom bomb. Obviously, the only possible way to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons at this late hour is to attack its nuclear installations.

For years, Israel’s governments have taken a back seat to Washington on Iran. From Ariel Sharon to Ehud Olmert to Netanyahu, since Iran’s nuclear program was first revealed in 2003, Israel has allowed itself to believe that the US could be trusted to take the greatest threat to Israel’s survival off the table.

The belief that the US would lead a military strike against Iran was always based more on blind faith than fact. When, in 2003, George W. Bush decided to work through the UN Security Council on the issue. despite Russia’s open assistance to Iran’s nuclear and missile programs and China’s growing addiction to Iranian natural gas, it was already apparent that the US was not serious about preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. And when, in late 2007, the US’s National Intelligence Assessment published the demonstrably false claim that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003, it became clear to anyone willing

to see that the US had decided not to take any significant action to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

This dire state of affairs was reinforced with the inauguration of Obama as US president in 2009.

Obama’s sole policy for dealing with the nuclear weapons-seeking and openly genocidal Iranian regime is appeasement. And Obama doesn’t seek to appease the mullahs in order to convince them to end their nuclear program.

For Obama, appeasement is an end in and of itself. This is why – even after Iran has spurned all his offers of appeasement and has been caught red-handed repeatedly aiding Iraqi and Afghan forces killing US servicemen, and despite Iran’s swift progress toward a nuclear arsenal – Obama refuses to even state openly that he would use force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

What this means is that – as was the case in May 1967, when the combined Arab armies gathered with the express purpose of wiping the Jewish state off the map – today again, Israel is alone at its hour of greatest peril. All of the lesser threats now gathering from Egypt, the Palestinian Authority, Syria, Lebanon and Turkey will become insurmountable if Iran becomes a nuclear power.

As was the case in May 1967, Israel has arrived at a do-or-die moment. And we should all pray for the strength and courage of our leaders, our soldiers and our nation at this time.

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.

The Islamic Arab kings setting up to not be plucked up after foreign Troops Vacate!

After Foreign Troops Withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan a Middle East War Begins,

Troop withdrawal was the major parameter among the factors I considered in 2006,

To make a prediction Middle East war would begin at a time twixt 2010 & 2015,

With the most likely time for an initial attack to occur being between 2013 to 2015!

The Two Excerpts from BBC and DEBKAfile on June 9th and 18th are worth Reading!

June 19, 2011

http://www.tribulationperiod.com/

Daniel 7:24,25 – And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that

shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first,

and he shall subdue three kings. [25] And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

Begin Excerpt 1 -from BBC News

Mark Urban, Diplomatic and Defense Editor

Newsnight June 9, 2011

US could move faster on Afghanistan troop withdrawals

Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary, today told fellow Nato ministers meeting in Brussels that there should be, “no rush for the exits” as the alliance draws down its forces in Afghanistan.

He was responding to concerns that Washington’s imminent announcement of troop reduction plans could trigger a wave of pull outs.

Mr Gates has just returned from a final trip to Afghanistan (he is expected to step down from his job next month) and will soon put forward the official Pentagon view about how quickly and deeply the US can cut its force of nearly 94,000.

The issue h as c

aused a lively debate in the White House, but it appears that the Obama Administration will move faster rather than slower when it announces the reductions set to start in July.

Some have characterised the current battle as one between generals and politicians. But it is more accurate to say it has played out between those who believe in a slow drawdown – notably Mr Gates and General David Petraeus, commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan – and those who argue that it should be speeded up.

The Afghan surge of more than 30,000 troops was announced in December 2009, following requests for more troops from the then commander General Stan McChrystal.

Calculations about how long this additional force should stay remained classified in his report, though I can reveal that Gen McChrystal envisaged a fast drawdown: 40,000 troops during the first year of the process.

Gen Petraeus on the other hand has always been much more circumspect about promising a rapid exit, and was last year heard to describe the July 2011 milestone, as ‘an aspiration’ rather than a firm target.

As his president’s desire to start the process on time has hardened, Gen Petraeus conceded that something would have to begin this summer, and that it must involve significant units rather than just token ones.

Even last November, at Nato’s summit in Lisbon, the Petraeus/Gates view held sway.

The alliance shied away from specific proposals and insisted that the pull out would be ‘conditions based’ – in other words that it could be slowed down if there were reverses in the field.

Those who have followed this thinking were expecting the July announcement to start the withdrawal of units numbering 5-6,000. Steps beyond that would have followed the Lisbon formulation of being based upon progress on the ground.

Thinking in the White House has changed though. The evidence so far of the ‘fighting season’ that began in April is that Nato casualties will not be any lower this summer than last – despite the claims by many military leaders to have taken the initiative from the Taliban.

This has empowered sceptics in Washington (and indeed London) who believe that the military has had its chance, as has the government of President Hamid Karzai, and that it is now time to start cutting the cost of the whole venture. The killing of Osama bin Laden has boosted the ‘faster rather than slower’ lobby that includes Vice President Joe Biden.

It is clear that the strongest voices in favour of the cautious approach were those of Mr Gates and Gen Petraeus.

President Obama’s recent re-shuffle of national security leaders will though move CIA director Leon Panetta to run the Pentagon, and put Gen Petraeus in his stead, running the espionage agency in Langley. Thus at one stroke the two most cautious figures in Afghan strategy will have been removed from the drawdown equation.

Barring serious military reverses this summer, the scene is set for deep cuts in US forces over the next year.

And if field commanders grumble, those who want out will always be able to say that they are only following the planning originally set out by Gen McChrystal.

Begin Excerpt from DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis

Karzai slams US, links hands with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia

DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis

June 18, 2011, 5:59 PM (GMT+02:00)

Afghan President Hamid Karzai, America and NATO’s key ally in the war on the Taliban and al Qaeda, turned furiously on the United States in a public outburst Saturday, June 18. He accused Washington of carrying on talks with the Taliban behind Kabul’s backs and contaminating the Afghan environment with chemical pollutants used in NATO war operations.

Karzai becomes the third head of a Muslim country, after Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, to take strong exception to US foreign policy and distance himself from the Obama administration.

Addressing an international conference of young Afghans Saturday, June 18, Karzai said: “You remember a few years ago I was saying thank you to the foreigners for their help, every minute we were thanking them. Now I have stopped saying that, except when Spanta forced me to say thank you.” (He was referring to Rangiin Spanti his national security adviser.)

As to the Americans, Karzai charged bitterly, “They’re here for their own purposes, for their own goals and they’re using our soil for that. Every time when their planes fly it makes smoke, when they drop bombs they have chemical materials in them, our people get killed but our environment is damaged… our animals, our people… They should not think we are uneducated and do not know anything.”

DEBKAfile’s sources report that the Afghan president’s diatribe was prompted by two developments.

1. He suspects that the United States is secretly bypassing US-Afghan-Pakistan talks with the Taliban which have been ongoing quietly for some months and opened up a direct channel to the Taliban irrespective of the interests of Kabul and Islamabad.

Karzai brought his suspicions out in the open by saying: “Peace talks are going on with the Taliban.

The foreign military and especially the United States itself is going ahead with these negotiations.” At the same time, he said: “The peace negotiations between the Afghan government and Taliban movement are not yet based on a certain agenda or physical [meetings]. Contacts have been established.”

The implication in his words was that the Americans have already given substantially more ground to the Taliban than Kabul was willing to venture. For instance, Friday, June 17, the UN Security Council unanimously agreed to rephrase previous resolutions defining al Qaeda and Taliban as terrorist organizations subject to sanctions by omitting reference to the Taliban.

DEBKAfile reports the conviction in Kabul and Islamabad that, less than two months after the death of Osama bin Laden, the Americans are in a hurry to draw their troops out of Afghanistan – even at the price of weakening Afghan and Pakistan bargaining positions against the insurgents.

Both have found a sympa thetic ear for

their gripes against the Obama administration in Riyadh. Afghanistan and Pakistan have begun reorienting their polices on a relationship with Saudi Arabia which has set up with the Gulf emirates a new grouping to launch a separate external and security policy in opposition to Washington’s approach to the Muslim nations and the revolts against Arab rulers.

Only a week ago, at the height of the Islamabad-Washington crisis which flared in the wake of the US raid that killed Osama bin Laden, Karzai visited Islamabad for two days (June 10-11) of long private talks with Pakistan’s leaders.

Some informed sources say the Afghan president also saw senior Saudi officials there on the quiet.

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.

Ahmadinejad Speaks Of World Order To China And Russian Leaders,

Says it’s “managed and run by slavers and colonizers of the Past.”

He issues “New call for a Wholesale shake-up of the World Order

States “toge ther we can reform

the way the world is Managed”

Closes Speech: “We can Restore the Tranquility of the World,”

June 18, 2011

http://www.tribulationperiod.com/

Begin Excerpt from AFP via Yahoo

Ahmadinejad joins China, Russia leaders at summit

By Aleks Tapinsh (AFP)

June 16, 2011

ASTANA — Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday joined the Chinese and Russian leaders in a rare encounter at a summit in Kazakhstan, where he launched a new attack on the “slavers and colonisers” of the West.

Host Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev urged the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), a security group regarded as a NATO rival founded in 2001, to take a more active role

in ensuring regional security.

But most attention was focused on Ahmadinejad, who was absent from last year’s SCO meeting in Tashkent after the UN Security Council agreed sanctions against Iran and was making a rare appearance at a big international meeting.

In a characteristically firebrand speech peppered with rhetorical questions, he launched a new call for a wholesale shake-up of the world order, which he said was “managed and run by slavers and colonizers of the past.”

“I believe together we can reform the way the world is managed. We can restore the tranquillity of the world,” he said.

Turning to his audience of ex-Soviet and Asian leaders he asked: “Have any of us used an atomic bomb against the defenceless citizens of any other country?”

Returning to his past claims that a conspiracy could have been behind the September 11 attacks on the United States, Ahmadinejad added:

“Have any of our countries played a part in the creation of 9/11 under whose pretext Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded and more than one million people have been killed or wounded?”

Chinese leader Hu Jintao held talks on Tuesday with Ahmadinejad, discussing Tehran’ s controver

sial nuclear programme.

China urged Iran to participate in the six-party talks on nuclear energy and “take substantial steps in respect of establishing trust” and “speed up the process of dialogue,” the Chinese state news agency Xinhua reported.

Tehr an used to rely on Moscow

as a dependable ally in its standoff over the nuclear programme but relations have rapidly deteriorated as Russia increased pressure on Iran after Dmitry Medvedev became president.

Medvedev and Nazarbayev were later to have a trilateral meeting with Ahmadinejad on the sidelines of the summit, a Kazakh diplomatic source who asked not to be named told AFP.

On the unrest shaking the Arab world, the member states agreed a declaration expressing concern about the instability but supporting “the drive of regional states in the path of democratic development in accordance with their specific cultural and historical characteristics.”

Nazarbayev said in his opening address that the organisation had to become a greater force after it showed little capacity to react during last year’s uprising and ethnic violence in member state Kyrgyzstan.

“We watched over two sharp political conflicts and a coup in neighbouring Kyrgyzstan and our organisation did not and could not make any decisions,” he said.

With Afgh an President H

amid Karzai attending as a guest, Nazarbayev also expressed alarm that drug trafficking in Afghanistan had increased by a factor of ten in the last decade.

“It is clear that the source and reasons of this crime against humanity are far outside the borders of Afghanistan,” the Kazakh leader said.

The six-member SCO was set up in 2001 as a security counterweight to NATO that would allow Russia and China to rival US influence in Asia. It is now also looking to cooperate at an economic level.

Its membership includes the ex-Soviet Central Asian states and with the likes of India, Iran, Mongolia and Pakistan attending meetings as observers, its summits bring together an eclectic gathering of world leaders.

The summit is the latest in a string of big international meetings hosted by Astana, Kazakhstan’s shiny new capital, which in the last months has already welcomed a summit of the OSCE and the annual meeting of the EBRD.

Kazakhstan has embarked on a tireless campaign of self-promotion to show itself as Central Asia’s most stable and prosperous state although rights activists complain the country shows little tolerance for any dissent.

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.

The Destruction of a U.S. & Pakistan Relationship is Finally Ending,

I’ve watched Pakistan disintegrate as an ally for some 60 Years,

Lived In The Middle East, in USAF IHL’s, & Student Exchanges,

Hearing Many NSA Intelligence Briefings on The Middle East,

And seeing a long off again, on again, gone again Finigan!

June 17, 2011

http://www.tribulationperiod.com/

The two best Muslim friends I made in the Pakistan Military were Captains in the Pakistan Air Force, Omar and Nazier. We were students together in an Air Force Advance Forecasting IHL. They were both older than yours truly when we first met and are probably deceased. We had a lot of discussions on our beliefs.

The U.S. – Pakistan Relationship is in its death throes, and Pakistan will one day be part of a vast Caliphate with its capital in Cairo.

Begin Excerpt from Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pakistan – United States relations refers to bilateral relationship between the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the United States of America. The United States established diplomatic relations with Pakistan started on October 20, 1947.

The relationship since then was based primarily on U.S. economic and military assistance to Pakistan. Pakistan is a Major non-NATO ally of the United States. The history of Pakistan–American relations has been defined as one of “Roller Coaster”. Military pacts and suspension of aid

Baghdad Pact

Pakistan was a member of the Baghdad Pact from its adoption in 1955, until the pact’s dissolution in 1979. The promise of economic aid from the US was instrumental in creating the agreement. At the time the pact was adopted, Pakistan’s relationship with the United States was so friendly that it was called the United States’ “most-allied ally” in Asia. During the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, the US choose not to provide Pakistan with military support as pledged in the 1959 Agreement of Cooperation.

This generated a widespread feeling in Pakistan that the United States was no longer a reliable ally.

Foreign Assistance Act

In April of 1979 the United States suspended all economic assistance to Pakistan (with the exception of food assistance, as required by the 1977 Symington Amendment to the US Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) over concerns about Pakistan’s nuclear program. The US Foreign Assistance Act states that the US will not provide assistance to nations whose governments significantly violate human rights.

Soviet invasion of Afghanistan

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979 highlighted the common interest of Pakistan and the United States in peace and stability in South Asia. In 1981, Pakistan and the United States agreed on a $3.2 billion military and economic assistance program aimed at helping Pakistan deal with the heightened threat to security in the region and its economic development needs. With U.S. assistance – in the largest covert operation in history – Pakistan armed and supplied anti-Soviet fighters in Afghanistan, eventually defeating the Soviets, who withdrew in 1988.

End Excerpt from Wikipedia

Begin Excerpt from MEMRI

Middle East Media Research Institute

Special Dispatch Number 3923

June 16, 2011

Editorial in Pakistani Daily Warns of Al-Qaeda Threat to Pakistan: “A Break With the U.S. Might Go In Favor of Al-Qaeda’s Plans to Impose a ‘Nuclearized’ Theocracy on Pakistan”

At an extraordinary meeting in Islamabad on June 14, 2011, Pakistan Army chief General Ashfaq Kayani, President Asif Zardari and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and other military leaders decided not to come under “foreign” – i.e. American – pressure for a military operation in North Waziristan

. According to a Pakistani media report, the political and military leaders “resolved not to make any compromise on national security matters.”[1]

The meeting was also attended by Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee chairman General Khalid Shameem Wynne, Naval Staff chief Admiral Noman Bashir, Air Staff chief Air Chief Marshal Rao Qamar Suleman and Defense Secretary Lt.-Gen. (retired) Syed Athar Ali. This was the first high-level meeting in which President Zardari, Prime Minister Gilani and all the services chiefs and chairman joint chiefs of staff committee sat down together to discuss Pakistan’s situation in the wake of the May 2 unilateral U.S. operation in Abbottabad that killed Osama bin Laden, and the May 22 terror attack on PNS Mehran, the headquarters of the Pakistan Navy.

According to the report, “issues of better coordination between civilian and military institutions, the Abbottabad probe commission, investigations regarding the terrorist attack on the Mehran Base and the new wave of terrorist attacks were discussed… The civilian and military leadership resolved to launch an operation against the terrorists to stem the new wave of attacks and decided not to accept any external pressure.”[2]

In an editorial titled “Of Khaki and Mufti,” The Express Tribune, a leading Pakistani daily, warned the Pakistani leadership against cutting ties with the U.S., noting: “From [militant commanders] Nek Muhammad to Baitullah Mehsud and Ilyas Kashmiri, Pakistan has been able to tackle its tormentors only with America’s help. Hence, a break with the U.S. might go in favor of Al-Qaeda’s plans to impose a ‘nuclearized’ theocracy on Pakistan.”

Following are excerpts from editorial:[3]

“The Military Wanted To Reaffirm the ‘National Consensus’ On Not Operating Against the Terrorists in North Waziristan At the Bidding of the U.S.”

“Islamabad has quietly witnessed another extremely important meeting – for the first time at such a level – between the entire top brass of the Pakistan Armed Forces and the prime minister and president, representing the civilian setup of the country. According to reports, the meeting was attended by the military leadership comprising Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee General Khalid Shameem Wynne; Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Chief of Naval Staff Admiral Noman Bashir, Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal Rao Qamar Suleman and Defense Secretary Lt-Gen (retd) Syed Athar Ali.

“Since the one-line official statement about the meeting revealed nothing, the media excusably went on a guessing spree, starting with a civil-military resolve ‘not to compromise on national security matters.’ This was followed by other obvious topics: Better coordination between civilian and military institutions, the Abbottabad probe commission, investigations regarding the terrorist attack on the Mehran base, and the new wave of terrorist attacks. Unofficial sources added more spice by saying: ‘The civilian and military leadership resolved to launch an operation against the terrorists to stem the new wave of attacks and decided not to accept any external pressure.’

“The meeting took place at the Presidency [in Islamabad], thus highlighting a dialogue between party and government on the one hand and

the Pakistan military high command on the other.

The ultimate guess, given the general reading into the recent American visits to Islamabad, was that the military wanted to reaffirm the ‘national consensus’ on not operating against the terrorists in North Waziristan at the bidding of the U.S. Earlier, a separate statement from the meeting of the corps commanders had already pointed to the said consensus by reiterating the army’s resolve to go into North Waziristan at a time of its own choosing and opposing the operation of U.S. drones in the area. What was the need to go through the same exercise again?”

“It Is From the Inside That Pakistan is Being Defeated Through Al-Qaeda’s Terrorism”

“The meeting was attended by chiefs of all the arms of the military, including the naval chief, who has come under particular pressure after the Al-Qaeda attack on PNS Mehran in Karachi. The meeting also featured the air chief, who had reportedly offered to counter the drones operating in Pakistani territory with an air force response. General Wynne – who has been taking the current U.S.-Pakistan flurry of contradictions in his stride – was there too. President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani have already endorsed the ‘charter’ of ‘reassessing relations with the U.S.’ awarded to the Pakistan Army by a unanimous resolution of a joint session of the parliament. What more could they have told the top brass except that they oppose the U.S. policy in the region and are against the U.S.-proposed operation in North Waziristan?

“It is difficult to say what exactly transpired but other possible topics are: A discussion of the anti-army statements issuing from all quarters in

the political community and the media. The top brass could have gone through the contents of the recent high-level meetings with the Americans which have not gone well, including the one with CIA Director Leon Panetta where, according to Time Magazine, Mr.

Panetta accused Pakistan of colluding with pro-Afghan Taliban militants in the tribal areas. The military leadership may have pointed to other ‘irregularities,’ such as a recent statement by a Khyber Pakhtunkhwa [provincial] minister that Pakistan alone can’t fight the terrorists and that it must act together with the U.S. to defeat them.

“Next year, the Americans are going to start leaving Afghanistan. Unlike Pakistan, where policy is stuck obsessively on India, Washington is going to change tack and show flexibility, which some have already called defeat; but it may pan out negatively for Pakistan even if Islamabad and Kabul move closer and Pakistan can retain some semblance of leverage or control over the Afghan Taliban under Mullah Omar. It is from the inside that Pakistan is being defeated through Al-Qaeda’s terrorism. From [militant commanders] Nek Muhammad to Baitullah Mehsud and Ilyas Kashmiri, Pakistan has been able to tackle its tormentors only with America’s help. Hence, a break with the U.S. might go in favor of Al-Qaeda’s plans to impose a ‘nuclearized’ theocracy on Pakistan.”

Endnotes:

[1] The News (Pakistan), June 14, 2011.

[2] The News (Pakistan), June 14, 2011.

[3] The Express Tribune (Pakistan), June 15, 2011. The text of the editorial has been lightly edited for clarity.

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.

Don’t forget southeastern Turkey was part of greater Syria

I’ve long taught Antichrist would come from Greater Syria

Southeast Turkey+Lebanon+Northwest Iraq Possibilities

But Modern Syria Is Most Likely Place For Him To APPEAR

Falling a way

from True faith lets saved know it is SOON!

I believe he’ll be Revealed in Greater Syria before 2015!

Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, And Iraq Will Be 4 Of 10 Horns!

June 17, 2011

http://www.tribulationperiod.com/

II Thessalonians 2:3,4 –Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin BE REVEALED, the son of perdition; [4] Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Begin Excerpt from DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis

Assad’s purge of Jisr a-Shughour and Erdogan’s election

DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis

June 12, 2011, 8:30 AM (GMT+02:00)

It took Syrian president six days to send troops and tanks to punish the small northern town of Jisr a-Shughour near the Turkish border for attacking and killing 120 Syrian security personnel last Monday.

Although thousands of residents fled, the operation which began Friday June 10 ran into stiff resistance. Syrian TV later reported that security forces had arrested a large number of “armed group” leaders responsible for “violent acts” and wounded and killed many more – “despite the numerous ambushes set up against the army units.”

Refugees report a major purge is taking place in the defiant town and its buildings leveled. According to some reports, the soldiers are shooting defectors.

Saturday night, June 11, the US accused Syria, of creating a humanitarian crisis and urged it to stop offensive – still avoiding any reference to President Bashar Assad by name as the party responsible for the crisis.

It took Assad several days to attack Jisr a-Shughour because he couldn’t decide which unit to send to the rebellious town: He first sent the 85th Armored Brigade on this mission and then replaced it with the 47th Armored Brigade under the command of his brother Gen.

Maher Assad, together with the expanded 555th commando battalion. As the Syrian army’s top-notch unit, the 47th Brigade had been held in reserve in Damascus for defending the regime in a last resort. The opposition took advantage of its absence from the capital for an attempt to raise a protest rally which was broken up before it drew substantial numbers.

The small border town has acquired strategic importance way beyond its size and location – and not only as a potential tipping point for the uprising against the Assad regime.

The battles there will impinge on how the Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan fares in the general election Sunday, June 12 and the Muslim Brotherhood’s position in the Arab Revolt (Jisr a-Shughour is one of its bastions). Iran, as President Assad’s foremost ally, has a stake there, especially after Saudi military intervention stalled its push into the Gulf Emirates on the backs of Shiite protesters.

Erdogan is generally expected to achieve a major election victory in his run for a third term in office after 10 years – and even possibly a majority in parliament for reforming the constitution to unite the posts of prime minister and president.

He can boast of important achievements in his 10 years in office, but is after the major triumph of acknowledgement as head of the paramount Muslim power.

A Sunni Muslim rebel win against Assad’s Iran- and Hizballah-backed forces in the Battle of Jisr a-Shughour would show that Erdogan played the right horse after failing to ride the wind of protest in the Arab world.

Its eruption threw the bloc formed by Turkey, with Iran, Syria and Hizballah onto the wrong side of the Arab revolt.

The Turkish prime minister played no role in the Egyptian uprising and, in Libya, both Muammar Qaddafi and the Benghazi rebel government Benghazi scorned his feelers for influence when they saw him gyrating between going with NATO of which Turkey is a member, siding with Qaddafi and aiding the rebels.

The Turkish prime minister’s decision to send troops into to Syria and establish a buffer zone on the Syrian side of the border (as DEBKfile first reported Friday, June 10) is a gamble which places him in opposition to Tehran, spells finis to the Turkish-Iranian pact and ends his hopes of acting as a bridge between Sunnis and Shiites.

Sunni Muslims across the Middle East are watching the battle of Jisr a-Shughour and assessing the numbers of Sunni defections from the Syrian army fighting their coreligionists there. If they are substantial and spill over into military units in other parts of Syria, this battle could become the tipping-point of the uprising against Bashar Assad.

It would also be the Muslim Brotherhood’s first military achievement since the Arab Revolt began, after holding themselves aloof from the uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Libya.

Begin Excerpt from Turkish Daily

Turkey is preparing for a buffer zone inside Syria

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Ankara is gradually losing hope and distancing itself from President Bashar al-Assad.

If you look closely, the prime minister is becoming increasingly tough with every statement he makes and the dose of his warnings is increasing. Even though he has not burned bridges like he did with Moammar Gadhafi, a surprise is still expected, the dominant belief is that Assad will not be able to solve the situation easily.

Those talks I have had with people who are the final decision makers on the subject s how clearly

how serious the situation is.

Syria has started blaming Turkey

It is not only that the tensions in Ankara are rising but the viewpoint of Damascus on Turkey is also changing. The embraces and words of fraternity of the past do not exist anymore.

On Syrian State Television, it is now openly said that the weapons of Muslim Brothers are coming from Turkey. Let us not forget that the Muslim Brothers is as dangerous and as much an enemy for the Syrian administration as the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, is for us.

As if this is not enough, a Turkish involvement behind the rebellions and the Antalya meeting of the dissidents is being discussed.

Assad has not put forward his stance; he has not put Ankara at his opposing side but, you will see, it is not too far away.

The worst case scenario Ankara fears

The worst case scenario that Ankara fears most and will mobilize it is that the clashes expand to Aleppo and Damascus and the Assad regime decides to react extremely tough and bloody way. The meaning of this is that Assad uses all his military power and the internal conflict transforms quickly into an Alawite-Sunni clash. What is expected as a consequence of this is the flow of tens of thousands of Sunni-Syrians to Turkey. An official I spoke to on this subject said exactly this:

“Turkey has opened its territory for now, but when the figure reaches a point where we cannot handle it then we will have to close the border.”

Now, this is the situation the political power in Ankara worries about the most. The same official continued:

“We would close the border but we cannot turn our backs on neither the Sunnis nor the Alawites. If chaos starts, then we will have to form a security zone or a buffer zone inside Syrian territory.”

In a summit in Ankara recently, this was the scenario discussed.

Robert Fisk wrote about this possibility before and had drawn much criticism, but what he said was true.

Scenarios and preparations are unfolding.

“Military and civilian meetings about the buffer zone and other measures to be taken have increased in recent days.

Add to that the invitation of all ambassadors in the Middle East to Ankara.

The pressure is building.”

It is not only talk when Ankara says, “all measures have been taken.”

The most dreadful item on the agenda is the formation of a security zone inside Syrian territory that has too many risks and could overthrow the regional equilibrium and for that reason is never a desired option.

But there is not much hope.

Let us be prepared.

When there is an internal fight, foreigners intervene

We should learn a lesson for ourselves from the developments in the region.

As a matter of fact, this situation is not only unique to our region. I will talk about an internationally known rule. Yet again, those that were experienced in Syria-Libya-Egypt-Tunisia-Bahrain make very good examples.

If a country is unable to solve or calm down an internal dispute or fight and on the contrary escalades it to such levels as civil war, then foreign powers meddle into their affairs for sure.

Some cite human rights to justify, some others remind them of the United Nations rules, yet others mention regional equilibriums.

Look, we are also doing the same.

We are preparing several scenarios in the name of protecting the Syrian people on the grounds that we fear the risk of a major flow of refugees.

Did we not interfere in the situation in Egypt? Are we not openly intervening at Libya? We are inviting the resistance and facilitating them to get organized.

You probably understand where I am heading.

Turkey, this way or another, has to organize its own kitchen and has to solve very soon the Kurdish issue, which has a high collision potential in an attainable way. If it [Turkey] acts roughly and we slide into an internal clash, then we should know almost everyone will meddle.

However high we cry, saying, “This is Turkey’s internal affair, you do not interfere,” just as we do today, nobody will care.

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.