Craig's Corner a member of The Tribulation Network.

September 11, 2007

THREE DAY WAR

ON IRAN?

Compiled by Craig Fain

Comments Included

Introduction by Doug Krieger

News coming out of both the Middle East and the US portends a most caustic scenario—one that casual observers into Middle East kaleidoscopes recognize . . . indeed, certain “configurations” connote imminent confrontation, and this time, on a massive scale.

The montage of articles coagulated by Craig Fain are not designed to scare the livin’ daylights out of you—their express purpose is for you to understand the times in which we live and that you, if you’re a believer, had better get seriously ready to testify in the midst of Babylon; furthermore, a little practice about now wouldn’t hurt either!

Prior to the Antichrist—and his “manifestation” will be most subtlety disclosed over the final days prior to his signature upon that dastardly document known as “Your Treaty-Covenant with Death, your Agreement with Hell-Sheol”—the “end of the war” (viz., the Syrophenician War No. 7 or the Arab-Israeli Conflict, now approaching its “seventieth stage”) will take place. It is known as the ORACLE OF DAMASCUS, the BURDEN OF DAMASCUS and is prophesied in Zechariah 9 and Isaiah 17. (See also: Isaiah 28:15, 18 and Daniel 9:26b)

This final phase of the Arab-Israeli Conflict will result in the exhaustion of secular Zionism, the complete destruction of Damascus, Syria (which the Bible forecasts will “become a ruinous heap”), and the miraculous spiritual revival of those nations immediately surrounding Israel following the disaster—they shall turn to the Lord! (Isaiah 17:4-8)

The “constellation of nations” involved in this calamity are clearly delineated in prophetic Scriptures, and their configurations are a prelude to those conglomerates which shall shortly evolve within the Seventieth Week of Daniel in preparation for the Gog-Magog War.

These latter-day “nations” or “peoples” opposed to Israel during the final Arab-Israeli Conflict which we have entitled, the Syrophenician War (#7 since 1948) include:

SYRIA – Zechariah 9:1-2a; Isaiah 17:1- (a.k.a. “Hamath” – the Syrian Baathists)

LEBANON – Zechariah 9:1b-4 (a.k.a. Tyre and Sidon – Hezbollah)

GAZA – Zechariah 9:5-7 (a.k.a. Ashkelon, Gaza itself, Ekron, Ashdod, and in sum, the Philistines - Hamas)

PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY – Isaiah 17:3a (a.k.a. Stronghold of Ephraim)

Again, this is NOT the Gog-Magog War (Ezekiel 38:1-39:16) but the “end of the war” (Daniel 9:26b) and prior to the signing of the comprehensive “peace accord” between the revelation of the Antichrist and “the many” (Daniel 9:27 - the majority of Israeli citizens).

Iran’s involvement in this final conflict prior to the Seventieth Week of Daniel’s prophecy (Daniel 9:24-27) is NOT ambiguous. She’s embodied and emboldened by the “Prince of Persia” (Daniel 10:13, 20).

It is shortly after, and into the Seventieth Week of Daniel, when Israel’s security is seemingly underwritten by the “Prince of the Covenant” (Daniel 11:22) and she dwells in “unwalled villages” (i.e., the infamous “WALL” is torn down via the “peace accord” wherein Israel’s security is underwritten by the Antichrist—Ezekiel 38:8-12)—though his full manifestation as such is not recognizable until the manifestation of the BEAST, half-way through the Seventieth Week of Daniel (cf. II Thessalonians 2:1-12; Revelation 11:7; 12:7-9, 12-13, 17; 13:1-7).

The question abides – will an immediate war on Iran—now suggested to be a takeout of thousands of Iranian targets, virtually the entire Iranian military obliterated, along with her nuclear program – all by the USA—commence this process? Undoubtedly, Syrian, based upon her alliances with Iran, would immediately trigger the conflict to the Eastern Mediterranean Theater.

Indeed, Persia/Iran is Biblically poised to descend, as the King of the North, upon Israel in the Latter Days – but how “Latter” is in question? Her involvement seems predictable in BOTH conflicts – but the lion’s share of the hostilities will be galvanized around Syria, her allies juxtaposed over and against Israel proper.

Hence, the Gog-Magog conflict, involving Turkey, Iran, Egypt, Libya and Sudan, against the West (the Ships of Tarsish) and her Arab allies (Iraq, by her omission from the radicalized Moslem states; Jordan (ancient Ammon and Moab); and, the nations of the Saudi Arabian Peninsula (ancient Sheba and Dedan) (please see Ezekiel 38:1-13; Daniel 11:40-43) takes place after the signing of the infamous Treaty.

Russian and Chinese engagement with Antichrist do not take place until after this “second conflict,” leading to the final Battle of Armageddon which appears in Daniel 11:44-45 and in Ezekiel 39:17-20 and, finally Revelation 19:17-21; 16:16) – it occurs immediately after the rapture of the Two Witnesses in Revelation 11:11-12 (i.e., AFTER the conclusion of Daniel’s Seventieth Week), whereupon the “Wrath of the Lamb” is poured out upon those “who destroy the earth,” leading to Armageddon wherein there is an horrific struggle between Antichrist of the West and the Kings of the East, all over Israel proper.

Hence, all of these most recent developments are NOT peripheral in the sum total of prophetic import—we, very possibly, could be awaiting the ORACLE OF DAMASCUS with Persian participation, triggered by the USA and the THREE-DAY WAR ON IRAN!

The Next War?

Arnaud de Borchgrave

(September 3, 2007)

BERN, Switzerland

After a brief interruption of his New Hampshire vacation to meet President Bush in the family compound at Kennebunkport, Maine, French President Nicolas Sarkozy came away convinced his U.S. counterpart is serious about bombing Iran’s secret nuclear facilities. That’s the reading as it filtered back to Europe’s foreign ministries:

Addressing the annual meeting of France’s ambassadors to 188 countries, Mr. Sarkozy said either Iran lives up to its international obligations and relinquishes its nuclear ambitions — or it will be bombed into compliance. Mr. Sarkozy also made it clear he did not agree with the Iranian-bomb-or-bombing-of-Iran position, which reflects the pledge of Mr. Bush to his loyalists, endorsed by Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut Independent. But Mr. Sarkozy recognized unless Iran’s theocrats stop enriching uranium to weapons-grade levels under inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), we will all be “faced with an alternative that I call catastrophic.”

A ranking Swiss official privately said, “Anyone with a modicum of experience in the Middle East knows that any bombing of Iran would touch off at the very least regional instability and what could be an unmitigated disaster for Western interests.”

Leaks about the administration’s plan to brand Iran’s 125,000-strong Revolutionary Guards a global terrorist organization is widely interpreted as a major step on the escalator to military action. Belatedly, Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil producer, has signed a contract with Lockheed Martin for the training of 35,000 elite guards to be assigned to protect the kingdom’s widely scattered oil installations. With 25 percent of the world’s oil reserves, Riyadh has earmarked $5 billion to train and field as soon as possible a high-tech force. Eighteen months ago, the desert kingdom was jolted by an al Qaeda terrorist squad that managed to penetrate the first two layers of defenses at Abqaiq, the nerve center of the entire oil infrastructure.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has now stated publicly his country holds the key to the conditions of a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq . Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of Iraq , much criticized by the United States for his lack of leadership, and who has been deserted by half his Cabinet, is much praised in Tehran, where he has gone twice in 11 months to confer with Iranian leaders. Mr. Ahmadinejad also says Iran is ready to fill the power vacuum in Iraq following a U.S. withdrawal. “The political power of the occupiers is collapsing rapidly,” he said, “and soon we will see a huge power vacuum in the region.”

The United States is not alone in trying to prove Mr. Ahmadinejad's geopolitical weather forecast wrong. Saudi Arabia and its five Gulf Cooperation Council allies in the Gulf, Egypt and Jordan, are terrified at the idea of Iraq falling under Iranian domination.

Hoping to head off a U.S.-Iran military confrontation, European countries are still pinning their hopes on major Iranian concessions at the International Atomic Energy Commission in Vienna. Iran is back to cooperating with IAEA — but only one comma or semicolon at a time. The three European Union countries acting as U.S. surrogates on nuclear matters with Iran, and IAEA chief Mohamed El Baradei, detect progress where the U.S. sees only stalling. Iran is still resisting short-notice inspections of sites that are not officially declared nuclear facilities, and where secret nuclear work is believed to be taking place.

Tehran’s only objective at the IAEA and the U.N. Security Council is to head off further economic sanctions from its major EU trading partners. Thus the mantra that its only interest in nuclear matters is as an alternative source of energy in a country already awash in oil taxes credulity.

Both the Bush administration and Israel are painstakingly fashioning a casus belli with Iran. For Israel, the training and weapons support Iran furnishes Hezbollah in Lebanon (now with more rockets of all kinds than it had before the 2006 war when it fired 4,000 into Israel) and Hamas in Gaza (now equipped with Katyusha rockets and a range of 10.6 miles), coupled with Mr. Ahmadinejad’s existential threats against the Jewish state, are sufficient evidence to justify air attacks against Iran’s nuclear facilities. And for the White House, there is daily evidence of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards meddling in Iraq, from improved explosive devices made in Iran to behind-the-scenes dominance in the affairs of the oil-rich south.

Arnaud de Borchgrave is editor at large of The Washington Times and of United Press International.

10 Indications that the U.S. is

Planning Military Action Against Iran

Omid Memarian

(New American Media – Sept. 2, 2007)

Editor’s note:

The Bush administration appears to have rejected the Baker-Hamilton Commission’s recommendations for a diplomatic offensive towards Iran. Instead, key indicators suggest that Bush is preparing to expand the war on terror by attacking Iran . . . writes Omid Memarian. Memarian is an Iranian journalist and blogger and Peace Fellow at the UC Berkeley, Graduate School of Journalism.

The United States is headed toward a serious confrontation with the Iran’s hardliner government. The administration is positioning itself for battle by shifting the focus of its dispute from Iran’s nuclear program to winning the “War on Terror.” What may ignite the fire is the possible labeling of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a ‘terrorist group’ by U.S. officials.

Despite all its challenges in stabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. has its eye on Iran: It has tried to mobilize Iranian opposition, pressure the UN Security Council members to adopt economic sanctions against Iran, marginalize Iran in the region by inflaming/exacerbating the anti-Iranian sentiment, expand its military presence in the Persian Gulf, and encourage an arms race in the region. And, of course, the only way to seal a grand bargain with Iran for this administration is through military action versus diplomatic negotiation.

There are 10 indications that the U.S. is planning to pursue military action against Iran:

1. Ignoring Iran’s proposed ‘Grand Bargain’ of 2003: Prior to Ahmadinejad’s presidency – when the reformist, pro-West, moderate president, Mohammad Khatami was in power - the Iranian government sent a secret letter through the Swiss Embassy, proposing various compromises from stalling nuclear developments to stopping support for Hamas and Hezbollah. The Bush administration refused the offer, which undermined the moderate government in Iran and led to the emergence of fundamentalists in

Tehran. The U.S. seemed to have a different plan for Iran, which did not call for diplomatic negotiations.

2. Allocating 75 million dollars for ‘promoting Democracy in Iran’: Although this move seems to favor democracy, many Iranians in Iran and abroad believe that this policy is designed to create social and political unrest rather than to promote democratic movements. It has actually done more harm than good; it has become an excuse for the hardliners to target activists and suppress civil movements by accusing them of operating with western ‘dirty money.’ The money has never gone to any Iranian institutes, press, civil society organizations or NGOs inside the country. Rather it has been distributed to opposition groups who are not even connected with the current society in Iran.

3. Supporting terrorist groups like ‘Jondollah’ in Iran’s Eastern Provinces: The U.S. is supporting ‘Jondollah’, a group who is notorious among Iranians worldwide, for being a terrorist organization. They have been successful in destabilizing Iran’s Eastern provinces, hence weakening the government’s central authority. The U.S. support of Jondollah was uncovered by the media, and this information has further ruined the U.S.’s reputation - even among critics of Ahmadinejad’s government.

4. Supporting opposition groups in Northern Iraq: The administration is supporting armed opposition groups such as the PJAK in northern Iraq. These groups claim that they are fighting for federalism and disintegration of Iran’s Kurdish provinces. However, these groups have no legitimacy among the Kurdish population, let alone the Iranian people.

5. Gathering international community support against Iran: The U.S. has mobilized the EU countries, and even China and Russia, to isolate Iran by cutting their economic ties with governmental and private companies. Additionally, two recent sanctions by the United Nations Security Council against Iran have applied further economic pressure on the Islamic government.

6. Stationing three aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf: Three U.S. aircraft carriers have been stationed in the Persian Gulf in the last year: the Nimitz, a nuclear-powered carrier, John C. Stennis Strike Group, and Dwight D. Eisenhower, a relief carrier. Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 this is the strongest U.S. military presence in the region in terms of scale, number, or advanced technology.

7. Inviting Iran’s neighbor to an arms race: The U.S. proposed a $20 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia, followed by a promise to provide $30 billion worth of arms to Israel. Ehud Olmert, Israel’s prime minister, confirmed this arms deal by stating, “We understand the need of the United States to support the Arab moderate states, and there is a need for a united front between the U.S. and us regarding Iran.”

8. Shifting of the U.S. foreign policy doctrine: The administration is shifting its problem with Iran from a ‘nuclear issue’ to one of ‘War on Terror.’ Therefore, regardless of the results of Iran-EU negotiations, Iran will be accused of terror activities in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine or any country U.S. is facing opposition in. While the international community is very reluctant to let the U.S. confront Iran because of its nuclear program, the administration feels free to confront Iran using the country’s alleged support of terrorism in the Middle East.

9. Labeling the Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) a ‘Terrorist Organization’: U.S. officials have announced that the administration is going to declare that the IRGC, is a terrorist group. The IRGC is a part of Iran’s army and in labeling them a terrorist organization, the U.S. is labeling the entire government a terrorist state. Hence paving the way to declare any form of military action against them in the name of the “War on Terror.”

10. Political frustration and the 2008 election: For many neo-cons in Washington, a new war, even an air strike, would divert the attention from U.S. failure in Iraq. It would boost their support, as many Americans opt for maintaining status quo in the middle of war.

The Bush administration follows a rule that has succeeded in numerous occasions: Make a story you want people to believe, repeat the message over and over, feed the media so they can beat Americans over the head with the info, and eventually everyone will believe it. It worked with WMD in Iraq, and now it seems to be Iran’s turn - the Islamic government is the root of all evil, from nuclear proliferation to supporting insurgents who are killing the U.S. soldiers. The administration seems to have its story set, true or not, and is enforcing its own conclusion – despite the dire consequences.

SYRIA: AIR DEFENSES FIRED AT ISRAELI AIRCRAFT OVER OUR AIRSPACE

AP, JPOST.COM STAFF AND YAAKOV KATZ

Syrian air defenses opened fire on Israeli aircraft that violated Syrian airspace overnight Thursday, a Syrian military spokesman said.

The Israelis broke the sound barrier and “dropped ammunition” over deserted areas of northern Syria overnight, the spokesman was quoted by the official Syrian Arab News Agency.

“We warn the Israeli enemy government against this flagrant aggressive act, and retain the right to respond in an appropriate way,” the Syrian spokesman said.

It was not clear if Syria was accusing the Israelis of using warplanes or some type of other aircraft like drones.

“The Israeli enemy aircraft infiltrated into the Arab Syrian territory through the northern border, coming from the Mediterranean heading toward the eastern region, breaking the sound barrier,” the spokesman said. “Air defense units confronted them and forced them to leave after they dropped some ammunition in deserted areas without causing any human or material damage.”

The IDF (Israel Defense Forces) did not confirm the claims and said the incident was unknown to them.

Israel acknowledges flying over Lebanon routinely, but it is unclear how often its aircraft fly over Syria.

At the beginning of last summer’s war against Lebanon, Israeli warplanes buzzed the palace of Syrian President Basher Assad in what analysts called a warning to Damascus. In June of the same year, they also flew over Assad’s summer home in the coastal city of Latakia, after Syrian-backed Palestinian militants in Gaza kidnapped IDF soldier Cpl. Gilad Schalit.

SYRIA FIRES ON ISRAELI WARPLANES – By the BBC

Syria says its air defenses have opened fire on Israeli war planes which had entered Syrian airspace.

Israeli planes had “dropped ammunition” over desert areas of Syria, before being forced to leave, according to the official Syrian news agency, SANA.

Quoting a Syrian military spokesman, the official agency says the action took place “without causing human or material loss.”

The Israeli military says it is looking into the reports.

Syria and Israel have remained technically at war since the seizure of the Golan Heights in 1967.

Tensions between Israel and Syria have been rising in recent months. Both countries’ leaders have said they do not want a war, while accusing the other side of arming for a conflict.

Syria says it last fired at Israeli warplanes in June 2006, when Israeli aircraft flew over the summer residence of the Syrian president, while he was inside.

PENTAGON THREE-DAY BLITZ PLAN FOR IRAN

(The Sunday Times of London – Sarah Baxter, Washington)

(September 2, 2007)

One Washington source said the “temperature was rising” inside the administration. Bush was “sending a message to a number of audiences” he said, to the Iranians and to members of the United Nations security council who are trying to weaken a tough third resolution on sanctions against Iran for flouting a UN ban on uranium enrichment.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week reported “significant” cooperation with Iran over its nuclear program and said that uranium enrichment had slowed. Tehran has promised to answer most questions from the agency by November, but Washington fears it is stalling to prevent further sanctions. Iran continues to maintain it is merely developing civilian nuclear power.

CRAIG’S COMMENT:

Sounds like something we have heard before from the Bush Administration. This same rhetoric is what Bush and his cronies said months prior to Shock and Awe in Iraq!

The Full Article continues . . .

THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive air strikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians “military capability in three days,” according to a national security expert.

Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for ‘pinprick strikes’ against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

“They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said. Debat was speaking at a meeting organized by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: “Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same.” It was, he added, a

‘very legitimate strategic calculus.’

President George Bush intensified the rhetoric against Iran last week, accusing Tehran of putting the Middle East ‘under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust.’ He warned that the US and its allies would confront Iran ‘before it is too late.’ One Washington source said the ‘temperature was rising’ inside the administration. Bush was ‘sending a message to a number of audiences,’ he said to the Iranians and to members of the United Nations security council who are trying to weaken a tough third resolution on sanctions against Iran for flouting a UN ban on uranium enrichment.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week reported ‘significant’ cooperation with Iran over its nuclear program and said that uranium enrichment had slowed. Tehran has promised

to answer most questions from the agency by November, but Washington fears it is stalling to prevent further sanctions. Iran continues to maintain it is merely developing civilian nuclear power.

Bush is committed for now to the diplomatic route but thinks Iran is moving towards acquiring a nuclear weapon. According to one well placed source, Washington believes it would be prudent to use rapid, overwhelming force, should military action become necessary.

Israel, which has warned it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, has made its own preparations for air strikes and is said to be ready to attack if the Americans back down.

Alireza Jafarzadeh, a spokesman for the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which uncovered the existence of Iran’s’ uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, said the IAEA was being strung along.

“A number of nuclear sites have not even been visited by the IAEA,” he said. “They’re giving a clean bill of health to a regime that is known to have practiced deception.” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, irritated the Bush administration last week by vowing to fill a ‘power vacuum’ in Iraq. But Washington believes Iran is already fighting a proxy war with the Americans in Iraq.

The Institute for the Study of War last week released a report by Kimberly Kagan that explicitly uses the term ‘proxy war’ and claims that with the Sunni insurgency and Al-Qaeda in Iraq ‘increasingly

under control,’ Iranian intervention is the “next major problem the coalition must tackle.”

Bush noted that the number of attacks on US bases and troops by Iranian-supplied munitions had increased in recent months—despite pledges by Iran to help stabilize the security situation in Iraq.

It explains, in part, his lack of faith in diplomacy with the Iranians. But Debat believes the Pentagon’s plans for military action involve the use of so much force that they are unlikely to be used and would seriously stretch resources in Afghanistan and Iraq .

CRAIG INSERTS A RELATED ARTICLE FROM JERUSALEM:

MILITARY PLAN AGAINST IRAN IS READY

By Yaakov Katz, The Jerusalem Post

June 10, 2007

Predicting that Iran will obtain a nuclear weapon within three years and claiming to have a strike plan in place, senior American military officers have told The Jerusalem Post they support President George W. Bush's stance to do everything necessary to stop the Islamic Republic's race for nuclear power.

Bush has repeatedly said the United States would not allow Iran to “go nuclear.”

A high-ranking American military officer told the Post that senior officers in the US armed forces had thrown their support behind Bush and believed that additional steps needed to be taken to stop Iran.

Predictions within the US military are that Bush will do what is needed to stop Teheran before he leaves office in 2009, including possibly launching a military strike against its nuclear facilities.

On Sunday, Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut said the US should consider a military strike against Iran over its support of Iraqi insurgents.

“I think we’ve got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq,” he said. “And to me, that would include a strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers.”

According to a high-ranking American military officer, the US Navy and Air Force would play the primary roles in any military action taken against Iran. One idea under consideration is a naval blockade designed to cut off Iran’s oil exports.

The officer said that if the US government or the UN Security Council decided on this course of action, the US Navy would most probably not block the Strait of Hormuz - a step that would definitely draw an Iranian military response - but would patrol farther out and turn away tankers on their way to load oil.

On Sunday, the Israel Air Force held joint exercises with visiting US pilots, but IDF sources dismissed speculation that the drills were connected to an attack on Iran.

The US officer said that perhaps even more dangerous to Israel and the Western world than Iranian nukes was the possibility that a terrorist’s cell associated with al-Qaeda or global jihad would acquire a highly radioactive “dirty bomb” or a vial of deadly chemical or biological agents. The officer said al-Qaeda was gaining a strong foothold in the Middle East and that Israel was being surrounded by global jihad elements in Lebanon, Jordan and Sinai.

“Iran is a state-sponsored type of terrorism that can be dealt with,” he said, adding that it was far more difficult to strike at the source of an isolated terrorist cell.

To combat this threat, the US Navy has come up with a plan for a “1,000-ship navy” - a transnational network composed of navies from around the world that would raise awareness of maritime threats and more effectively thwart sea-based terrorism and the illicit transfer of arms by sea.

“The idea is to allow free trade and to prevent criminal and terror activity at sea,” the officer said.

A smaller-scale example of the US Navy's vision is NATO’s Active Endeavor antiterrorism operation based in Naples. Israel plans to send an officer to be stationed there in the coming months. NATO launched Operation Active Endeavor in wake of 9/11 and has succeeded in bringing together a number of Mediterranean countries to work together in Naples to share information on naval terrorism and suspicious vessels in the region.

CRAIG’S COMMENT: “But news from the north and east will trouble him; therefore he shall out with great fury to destroy and annihilate many” (Daniel 11:44).

US/MIDDLE EAST: “PLAN AGAINST IRAN MAY

TRIGGER ARMS RACE

Meena Janardhan

(Dubai, Aug 8, 2007 – IPS)

The new United States plan to sell arms to Saudi Arabia and other allies in the Middle East to counter growing Iranian influence could trigger an arms race and worsen instability in an already volatile region, say experts.

The arms deal, which still requires the approval of the Democrat-controlled U.S. Congress, is one of the biggest ever. It offers a package of 20 billion US dollars to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, 13 billion dollars to Egypt and 30 billion dollars to Israel over 10 years. Items include advanced fighter jets, smart bombs, computer systems and missile boats.

“It is an ill-advised strategic approach for geo-strategically containing Iran,” said Steven Wright, associate professor at Qatar University. “It is a flawed logic for Washington to see the arms sales as a means of strengthening its position against Iran and enhancing regional security.” “Selling more arms to the Gulf countries, along with Israel, will only serve to make Iran’s security concerns more acute and increase regional insecurity,” the Doha-based specialist on Gulf-US relations told IPS over e-mail. “On the

other hand, it will likely prompt Iran to devote more of its state budget towards defense expenditure.”

Supporting the anxiety about an arms race in the region are reports indicating that Russia is planning to sell 250 Sukhoi jets, including 30 of the most advanced jets it has, to Iran. Further, on Aug. 5, Iran unveiled its new fighter jet – ‘Azarakhsh’ (Lightning) -- said to be modeled on the American F-5, but using indigenous technology.

The proposed aid announcement was followed by a visit to the region by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, last week.

During the visit, Rice dismissed suggestions about shifting the military balance or starting a new arms race or the military aid to the Gulf countries being a ‘quid pro quo’ to get their assistance in Iraq. “We are working with these states to fight back extremism,” she insisted. But Iran accused the U.S. of trying to create fear and mistrust in the Middle East and aiming to destabilize the region.

A Washington Post report went a step further suggesting that “the United States and Iran are now facing off in a full-fledged cold war.” The Bush administration is trying to drape a kind of Green Curtain dividing the Middle East between Iran’s friends and foes. The new showdown may well prove to be the most enduring legacy of the Iraq conflict.”

In its Aug. 2 editorial, the Dubai-based Gulf News said: “Their (U.S.) purpose is clear: to raise the stakes in the threats against Iran primarily, but also Syria, Hezbollah and al Qaeda, the bete noire of the current US administration.”

However, it questioned why the GCC countries have to “blindly follow the wishes of the US?” Without naming the UAE, it added, “Some GCC nations have had territorial disputes with Iran “and have deliberately avoided using the military option in the belief that the issues can be resolved through talks and mediation.”

The London-based Arabic language newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi on Aug. 1 interpreted the promised military package as confirming “Washington’s abandonment of democracy in favor of preparing for war.” Questioning if the “sale of U.S. weapons to the Gulf countries in the past (acted as) a deterrent to Iran or any other country,” the paper asked: “Can the deal be a reward for the Saudi policy that is deepening the US quandary in Iraq” or “is it a blatant and theatrical motive for making relations between Riyadh and Tehran tense as part of a regional umbrella for a U.S. political and media, and probably military, escalation against Iran?”

The aid proposal also came amid U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad accusing U.S. allies, particularly Saudi Arabia, of pursuing destabilizing policies in Iraq by funding Sunni militants against the mainly Shiite government in Baghdad. “Saudi Arabia and a number of other countries are not doing all they can to help us in Iraq,” he was quoted saying last week. “At times, some of them are not only not helping, but they are doing things that are undermining the effort to make progress.”

In fact, a growing cadre of U.S. congressmen is resisting the Bush administration’s Middle East arms plan. Within five days after the proposed sale was announced on July 27, 114 members of the House, including 18 Republicans, informed President George W. Bush that they intend to vote against the plan. U.S. policies in the region during the last few years, according to Prof. Gary Sick of Columbia University, is a “marvelous example of political jiu jitsu... The United States made possible an emergent Iran by eliminating its Taliban rivals to the east and its Baathist rivals to the west and then installing a Shiite government in Baghdad for the first time in history.”

Sick told a Web-based forum of Gulf experts that, “Having inadvertently increased Iranian strength and bargaining power that frightened U.S. erstwhile Sunni allies in the region and undermined U.S. strength and credibility, Washington now proposes a new and improved regional political relationship to deal with the problem, and, incidentally, to distract attention from the U.S.’s plight in Iraq while reviving America’s position as the ultimate power in the region.”

The new U.S. policy, according to Sick, includes providing “military cover for the Arab Gulf states as they take a more confrontational position vis-à-vis Iran, which of course produces some juicy profits for the U.S. aerospace industry, but also provides a framework for getting Israeli (and U.S. congressional) acquiescence for selling some significant

new military technology to the Arabs.”

CRAIG’S COMMENT:

And finally—could this be the beginning of said arms raced and the prophecy of Daniel 11:44?

SANCTIONED SUDAN TURNS TO

CHINA, RUSSIA, IRAN AND NORTH KOREA FOR WEAPONS

(From Cairo – World Tribune, Sept. 6, 2007)

“Sudan has reported the development of unmanned aerial vehicles as part of a military modernization effort that is going forward despite U.S. sanctions.

“There are countries that are prohibited from selling weapons to Sudan,” Sudanese Defense Minister Abdul Rahim Mohammed Hussein said on Sept. 1.

Hussein said Khartoum has turned away from U.S.-origin weapons amid an embargo by Washington. He said military suppliers to Sudan now include Belarus, China, Iran, Malaysia, North Korea and Russia.

Officials have reported contracts with China and Russia for the

modernization of the Sudanese Air Force. They said both countries would supply platforms, upgrades as well as train Sudanese personnel.

Hussein said Khartoum has developed and produced UAVs for the military. Hussein said the Defense Ministry has overseen a UAV production line as part of plans to expand its indigenous defense industry and bypass any international arms embargo.

Hussein did not provide details of the new Sudanese UAVs. He said Khartoum plans to produce missiles and heavy weapons to achieve self-sufficiency in basic armaments.

Sudan has succeeded in producing general purpose bombs for combat aircraft as well as artillery shells, Hussein said. He said Khartoum intends to also produce aircraft components and platforms.

The defense minister said Sudan has acquired sufficient technology and expertise to fulfill its conventional weapons requirements. He said Khartoum has the third largest defense industry in Africa.

“We are the number three country in Africa” after Egypt and South Africa “regarding the manufacturing of military equipment,” Hussei said.

August 30

US war posturing over the last 4 to 5 months, last weeks article giving a “best guess” time frame of an attack and now this article; you would think they are trying to “hint” at something . . .

http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Study_US_preparing_massive_military_attack_0828.html

Study: US preparing 'massive' military attack against Iran

08/28/2007 @ 11:04 am

Filed by Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane

The United States has the capacity for and may be prepared to launch without warning a massive assault on Iranian uranium enrichment facilities, as well as government buildings and infrastructure, using long-range bombers and missiles, according to a new analysis.

The paper, "Considering a war with Iran: A discussion paper on WMD in the Middle East" – written by well-respected British scholar and arms expert Dr. Dan Plesch, Director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy of the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) at the University of London, and Martin Butcher, a former Director of the British American Security Information Council (BASIC) and former adviser to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament – was exclusively provided to RAW STORY late Friday under embargo.

"We wrote the report partly as we were surprised that this sort of quite elementary analysis had not been produced by the many well resourced Institutes in the United States," wrote Plesch in an email to Raw Story on Tuesday.

Plesch and Butcher examine "what the military option might involve if it were picked up off the table and put into action" and conclude that based on open source analysis and their own assessments, the US has prepared its military for a "massive" attack against Iran, requiring little contingency planning and without a ground invasion.

The study concludes that the US has made military preparations to destroy Iran’s WMD, nuclear energy, regime, armed forces, state apparatus and economic infrastructure within days if not hours of President George W. Bush giving the order. The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely. The US retains the option of avoiding war, but using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.

Any attack is likely to be on a massive multi-front scale but avoiding a ground invasion. Attacks focused on WMD facilities would leave Iran too many retaliatory options, leave President Bush open to the charge of using too little force and leave the regime intact.

US bombers and long range missiles are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours.

US ground, air and marine forces already in the Gulf, Iraq, and Afghanistan can devastate Iranian forces, the regime and the state at short notice.

Some form of low level US and possibly UK military action as well as armed popular resistance appear underway inside the Iranian provinces or ethnic areas of the Azeri, Balujistan, Kurdistan and Khuzestan. Iran was unable to prevent sabotage of its offshore-to-shore crude oil pipelines in 2005.

Nuclear weapons are ready, but most unlikely, to be used by the US, the UK and Israel. The human, political and environmental effects would be devastating, while their military value is limited.

Israel is determined to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons yet has the conventional military capability only to wound Iran’s WMD programmes.

The attitude of the UK is uncertain, with the Brown government and public opinion opposed psychologically to more war, yet, were Brown to support an attack he would probably carry a vote in Parliament. The UK is adamant that Iran must not acquire the bomb.

The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely. The US retains the option of avoiding war, but using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.

When asked why the paper seems to indicate a certainty of Iranian WMD, Plesch made clear that "our paper is not, repeat not, about what Iran actually has or not." Yet, he added that "Iran certainly has missiles and probably some chemical capability."

Most significantly, Plesch and Butcher dispute conventional wisdom that any US attack on Iran would be confined to its nuclear sites. Instead, they foresee a "full-spectrum approach," designed to either instigate an overthrow of the government or reduce Iran to the status of "a weak or failed state." Although they acknowledge potential risks and impediments that might deter the Bush administration from carrying out such a massive attack, they also emphasize that the administration's National Security Strategy includes as a major goal the elimination of Iran as a regional power. They suggest, therefore, that:

This wider form of air attack would be the most likely to delay the Iranian nuclear program for a sufficiently long period of time to meet the administration’s current counterproliferation goals. It would also be consistent with the possible goal of employing military action is to overthrow the current Iranian government, since it would severely degrade the capability of the Iranian military (in particular revolutionary guards units and other ultra-loyalists) to keep armed opposition and separatist movements under control. It would also achieve the US objective of neutralizing Iran as a power in the region for many years to come.

However, it is the option that contains the greatest risk of increased global tension and hatred of the United States. The US would have few, if any allies for such a mission beyond Israel (and possibly the UK). Once undertaken, the imperatives for success would be enormous.

Butcher says he does not believe the US would use nuclear weapons, with some exceptions.

"My opinion is that [nuclear weapons] wouldn't be used unless there was definite evidence that Iran has them too or is about to acquire them in a matter of days/weeks," notes Butcher. "However, the Natanz facility has been so hardened that to destroy it MAY require nuclear weapons, and once an attack had started it may simply be a matter of following military logic and doctrine to full extent, which would call for the use of nukes if all other means failed."

Military Strategy

The bulk of the paper is devoted to a detailed analysis of specific military strategies for such an attack, of ongoing attempts to destabilize Iran by inciting its ethnic minorities, and of the considerations surrounding the possible employment of nuclear weapons.

In particular, Plesch and Butcher examine what is known as Global Strike – the capability to project military power from the United States to anywhere in the world, which was announced by STRATCOM as having initial operational capability in December 2005. It is the that capacity that could provide strategic bombers and missiles to devastate Iran on just a few hours notice.

Iran has a weak air force and anti aircraft capability, almost all of it is 20-30 years old and it lacks modern integrated communications. Not only will these forces be rapidly destroyed by US air power, but Iranian ground and air forces will have to fight without protection from air attack.

British military sources stated on condition of anonymity, that "the US military switched its whole focus to Iran" from March 2003. It continued this focus even though it had infantry bogged down in fighting the insurgency in Iraq.

Global Strike could be combined with already-existing "regional operational plans for limited war with Iran, such as Oplan 1002-04, for an attack on the western province of Kuzhestan, or Oplan 1019 which deals with preventing Iran from closing the Straits of Hormuz, and therefore keeping open oil lanes vital to the US economy."

The Marines are not all tied down fighting in Iraq. Several Marine forces are assembling in the Gulf, each with its own aircraft carrier. These carrier forces can each conduct a version of the D-Day landings. They come with landing craft, tanks, jump-jets, thousands of troops and hundreds more cruise missiles. Their task is to destroy Iranian forces able to attack oil tankers and to secure oilfields and installations. They have trained for this mission since the Iranian revolution of 1979 as is indicated in this battle map of Hormuz illustrating an advert for combat training software.

Special Forces units – which are believed to already be operating within Iran – would be available to carry out search-and-destroy missions and incite internal uprisings, while US Army units in both Iraq and Afghanistan could mount air and missile attacks on Iranian forces, which are heavily concentrated along the Iran-Iraq border, as well as protecting their own supply lines within Iraq:

A key assessment in any war with Iran concerns Basra province and the Kuwait border. It is likely that Iran and its sympathizers could take control of population centres and interrupt oil supplies, if it was in their interest to do so. However it is unlikely that they could make any sustained effort against Kuwait or interrupt supply lines north from Kuwait to central Iraq. US firepower is simply too great for any Iranian conventional force.

Experts question the report's conclusions

Former CIA analyst and Deputy Director for Transportation Security, Antiterrorism Assistance Training, and Special Operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism, Larry Johnson, does not agree with the report’s findings.

"The report seems to accept without question that US air force and navy bombers could effectively destroy Iran and they seem to ignore the fact that US use of air power in Iraq has failed to destroy all major military, political, economic and transport capabilities," said Johnson late Monday after the embargo on the study had been lifted.

"But at least in their conclusions they still acknowledge that Iran, if attacked, would be able to retaliate. Yet they are vague in terms of detailing the extent of the damage that the Iran is capable of inflicting on the US and fairly assessing what those risks are."

There is also the situation of US soldiers in Iraq and the supply routes that would have to be protected to ensure that US forces had what they needed. Plesch explains that “"firepower is an effective means of securing supply routes during conventional war and in conventional war a higher loss rate is expected."

"However as we say do not assume that the Iraqi Shiia will rally to Tehran – the quietist Shiia tradition favoured by Sistani may regard itself as justified if imploding Iranian power can be argued to reduce US problems in Iraq, not increase them."

John Pike, Director of Global Security, a Washington-based military, intelligence, and security clearinghouse, says that the question of Iraq is the one issue at the center of any questions regarding Iran.

"The situation in Iraq is a wild card, though it may be presumed that Iran would mount attacks on the US at some remove, rather than upsetting the apple-cart in its own front yard," wrote Pike in an email.

Political Considerations

Plesch and Butcher write with concern about the political context within the United States:

This debate is bleeding over into the 2008 Presidential election, with evidence mounting that despite the public unpopularity of the war in Iraq, Iran is emerging as an issue over which Presidential candidates in both major American parties can show their strong national security bona fides. ...

The debate on how to deal with Iran is thus occurring in a political context in the US that is hard for those in Europe or the Middle East to understand. A context that may seem to some to be divorced from reality, but with the US ability to project military power across the globe, the reality of Washington DC is one that matters perhaps above all else. ...

We should not underestimate the Bush administration's ability to convince itself that an "Iran of the regions" will emerge from a post-rubble Iran. So, do not be in the least surprised if the United States attacks Iran. Timing is an open question, but it is hard to find convincing arguments that war will be avoided, or at least ones that are convincing in Washington.

Plesch and Butcher are also interested in the attitudes of the current UK government, which has carefully avoided revealing what its position might be in the case of an attack. They point out, however, "One key caution is that regardless of the realities of Iran’s programme, the British public and elite may simply refuse to participate – almost out of bloody minded revenge for the Iraq deceit."

And they conclude that even "if the attack is 'successful' and the US reasserts its global military dominance and reduces Iran to the status of an oil-rich failed state, then the risks to humanity in general and to the states of the Middle East are grave indeed."

Larisa Alexandrovna is managing editor of investigative news for Raw Story and regularly reports on intelligence and national security stories. Contact: larisa@rawstory.com

Muriel Kane is research director for Raw Story.

1)	Sep 11	Three Day War on Iran
2)	Aug 30	Study: US preparing 'massive' military attack against Iran
3)	Aug 24	Former CIA officer: US to attack Iran within 6 months
4)	Aug 15	Iranian Unit to Be Labeled 'Terrorist'
5)	Jul 21	Another Troop Build Up Possible (In Iraq) before Sept. 2007!
6)	June 13	Israel prepares for pre-emptive attack on Iran
7)	May 27	Who is able to make war with him (The Beast)?
8)	Feb 28	Wild Card: Israel Looking to Play Her Hand?
9)	Feb 17	10 Marks of the Early Church
10)	Dec 21	U.S. plans naval buildup in Gulf to counter Iran