WAR 03/15 to 03/21 TheWindsofWAR***

The Flying Dutchman · Mar 15, 2012

=

14:40 15.03.12

Netanyahu is preparing Israeli public opinion for a war on Iran

In response to Netanyahu's AIPAC speech, Haaretz's editor-in-chief says that what looks like a preparation
for war, acts like a preparation for war, and quacks like a preparation for war, is a preparation for war.

By Aluf Benn
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...eli-public-opinion-for-a-war-on-iran-1.418869

Since his return from Washington, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has mainly been preoccupied with one thing: Preparing public opinion for war against Iran.

Netanyahu is attempting to convince the Israeli public that the Iranian threat is a tangible and existential one, and that there is only one effective way to stop it and prevent a "second Holocaust": An Israeli military attack on Iran's nuclear infrastructure, which is buried deep underground.

In his speech before the Knesset on Wednesday, Netanyahu urged his colleagues to reject claims that Israel is too weak to go it alone in a war against a regional power such as Iran and therefore needs to rely on the United States, which has much greater military capabilities, to do the job and remove the threat.

According to polls published last week, this is the position of most of the Israeli public, which supports a U.S. strike on Iran, but is wary of sending the IDF to the task without the backing of the friendly superpower.

Netanyahu presented three examples in which his predecessors broke the American directive and made crucial decisions regarding the future of Israel: the declaration of independence in 1948, starting the Six Day War in 1967 and the bombing of the nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981.

The lesson was clear: Just as David Ben-Gurion, Levi Eshkol and Menachem Begin said "no" to the White House, Netanyahu also needs not be alarmed by President Obama's opposition to an attack on Iran. Netanyahu believes that, as in the previous incidents, the U.S. may grumble at first, but will then quickly adopt the Israeli position and provide Israel with support and backing in the international community.

If Netanyahu had submitted his speech as a term paper to his father the history professor, he would have received a very poor grade. In 1948, the U.S. State Department, headed by George Marshall, opposed the declaration of independence and supported a United Nations trusteeship for Palestine. But President Truman had other considerations.

Like Obama today, Truman was also a democratic president contending for his reelection, who needed the support of the Jewish voters and donors. Under those circumstances, Truman rejected Marshall's advice, and listened to his political adviser Clark Clifford, who pressured him to recognize the Zionist state. And indeed, Truman sent a telegram with an official recognition of Israel just 11 minutes after Ben-Gurion finished reading the Scroll of Independence. The U.S. opposition to the recognition of Israel was halted at the desk of the president, who repelled the explanations by the Secretary of State and the "Arabists" in his office.

In 1967, the official U.S. position called on Israel to hold back and refrain from going to war, but a different message was passing through the secret channels: go "bomb Nasser," reported Levi Eshkol's envoys to Washington, Meir Amit and Avraham Harman. This message tipped the scales in favor of going to war. In 1981, Begin did not bother asking the Americans their opinion before attacking Iraq, but lulled them to sleep and launched a surprise attack.

In these past incidents, Israel acted against the U.S. position formally, but made sure that the Americans will accept the results of the action and support it in retrospect. And indeed, the U.S. recognized Israel in 1948, allowed it to control the territories annexed in 1967, and made do with weak condemnations of the attack on the Iraq nuclear reactor in 1981.

That being the case, then Netanyahu is hinting that in his Washington visit, he received Obama's tacit approval for an Israeli attack against Iran – under the guise of opposition. Obama will speak out against it but act for it, just as the past U.S. administrations speak against the settlements in the territories but allow their expansion. And in this manner Netanyahu summarized the visit: "I presented before my hosts the examples that I just noted before you, and I believe that the first objective that I presented – to fortify the recognition of Israel's right to defend itself – I think that objective has been achieved."

This morning, the editor-in-chief of the Israel Hayom newspaper, Amos Regev, published on his front page an enthusiastic op-ed in support of a war against Iran. Regev writes what Netanyahu cannot say in his speeches: that we cannot rely on Obama – who wasn't even a mechanic in the armored corps - but only on ourselves. "Difficult, daring, but possible," Regev promised. We need not be alarmed by the Iranian response: the arrow would take down the Shahab missiles, and Hezbollah and Hamas would hesitate about entering a war. The damage would be reminiscent of the Iraqi scuds in the 1991 Gulf War - unpleasant, but definitely not too bad. The analysts are weak, but the soldiers and the residents of the Home Front have motivation. So onward, to battle!

To use Netanyahu's "duck allegory", what looks like a preparation for war, acts like a preparation for war, and quacks like a preparation for war, is a preparation for war, and not just a "bluff" or a diversion tactic. Until his trip to Washington, Netanyahu and his supporters in the media refrained from such explicit wording and made do with hints. But since he's been back, Netanyahu has issued an emergency call-up for himself and the Israeli public.

=

The Flying Dutchman · Mar 15, 2012

=

03/15/2012, Adar 21, 5772

“Iron Dome has Made Bomb Shelters Part of the Game”

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/234861

Chairman of Likud Jewish Leadership, Moshe Feiglin asserts that “The Iron Dome strategy is disastrous. In the past, missile attacks on major Israeli cities would mean a declaration of war, but now that we have the Iron Dome anti-missile system, rocket attacks have become nothing more that another round of the game, that legitimately puts Israeli cities in bomb shelters.

"We’re telling A-jad that he can quietly develop a nuke, and we’ll just come up with a good anti-missile Arrow system. The Iranian nuke has just become another part of the game.”

=

The Flying Dutchman · Mar 15, 2012

=

04:47 15.03.12

Iron Dome won't save Israel

Missile defense technology, however impressive, is still defensive. The south will be
saved by offense, not defense - by preemptive strikes, not ex post facto interceptions.

By Israel Harel
http://www.haaretz.com/print-editio...-save-israel-1.418750?localLinksEnabled=false

Our leaders declare that "We've taught them a lesson." True. For many years now, the terrorist leaders are saying to themselves, we've disrupted life in southern Israel - and recently, on the outskirts of central Israel as well. Yet despite having one of the world's best-equipped armies, Israel is incapable of stopping us. The Zionist army, which in the past was noted for its courage and originality, has lost both courage and originality. It is pinning its faith, and exhausting its budget, on expensive interceptor missiles to use against our primitive rockets.

The terrorist leaders watch television and conclude that the Zionist state's southern residents are depressed and disappointed. What has been is what will be, the terrorists hear them saying.

After the latest round, too, the Israeli government will continue to accept the ongoing, almost daily launching of mortar shells and Qassam rockets. ("If the firing continues," warned the Israel Defense Forces chief of staff after the latest truce was announced, "we'll respond just as we responded previously." ) And when the army spokesman once again declares, "There were no casualties and no damage," he signals that Israel will continue to contain itself (after all, "containment" is their strategy, not seizing the offensive and winning ) in the face of the nonstop assaults on its sovereignty, the disruption of its citizens' lives and the destruction of their sense of security.

The Israelis know quite well, say the terrorists, that only a ground operations could end our rockets. But ground operations entail soldier casualties, and for Israelis avoiding soldier casualties takes precedence over freeing mothers and fathers from having to fear for their young children, for their property and for their dignity. And so, in the long run we will wear them down.

Missile defense technology, however impressive it may be, is still defensive. The south will be saved by offense, not defense - by preemptive strikes, not by ex post facto interceptions. By the audacity of its statesmen, commanders and soldiers, not by awe at the accuracy of the Iron Dome antimissile batteries. As long as technology assists the fighters, it's a blessing. But when it replaces them, the result is more than a dozen years of enduring injury to life, property, morale and deterrence.

Who needs tanks and planes, the terrorist leaders say to themselves, when every explosive-filled pipe sends hundreds of thousands of Zionists into bomb shelters and causes them to use up the stock of expensive Iron Dome missiles in which they place their faith?

Terrorist leaders in the south, like Hezbollah in the north, reached these conclusions - which they have tested over and over - many years ago. In every round, just as we did this week, we have opted for "containment" rather than victory. The prime minister, defense minister, chief of staff, generals, mayors and party leaders who declared that we won this last round are misled and misleading.

A significant blow to the terrorists' infrastructure and leadership cannot be delivered using drones. The rockets must be detroyed before they are launched. Only ground operations can achieve victory - and even then, only on condition they aren't stopped almost as soon as they begin, as Operation Cast Lead was in 2009.

The IDF, which has failed in recent years to grant residents of Israel true relief from the terror of rockets, must return to the sources of the spirit, daring, sense of mission and uniqueness that guided it in its first decades. Iron Dome won't save us, and breathtaking surgical strikes won't defeat terror. Only the daring and resourcefulness of the soldier who seizes the offensive (along with the daring of those who send him into battle ), the soldier who seeks engagement with the enemy and makes every effort to locate the rocket stores and destroy them, is capable - with sophisticated technology in the supporting role of providing protection and direction - of actually winning the battle.

=

The Flying Dutchman · Mar 15, 2012

=

March 15, 2012 9:28 AM

Israel ambassador keeps door open to Iran strike

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57397940/israel-ambassador-keeps-door-open-to-iran-strike/

(CBS News) Israel's ambassador to the United States reiterated the possibility of his country striking Iran over its nuclear program, saying on "CBS This Morning" Thursday that the nation "has not just the right but the duty and the ability to defend itself."

Ambassador Michael Oren dismissed comments made by Israel's former spy chief in an interview broadcast on CBS' "60 Minutes" Sunday in opposition to Israel launching a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear program. Israel and the United States have accused Iran of trying to use the program to develop nuclear weapons, which Iran has denied.

"Listen, at the end of the day, the person who has the make the decisions are the democratically elected leaders of Israel as in the United States," Oren said.

President Obama wants to use economic sanctions and diplomacy to pressure Iran, a strategy which Oren said Israel agreed with but wouldn't say for how long.

"America, big country, has a big window, looks out that window and sees the Middle East far away; Israel, a small country with a very small window, we look out that window and we see Iran in our backyard," said Oren. "Prime Minister Netanyahu said the other day that we're not talking about years but we're not talking about days and weeks either."

=

The Flying Dutchman · Mar 15, 2012

=

04:47 15.03.12

When the missiles rain on Tel Aviv

It is possible to understand those people in Tel Aviv who enjoyed themselves
these last few days. There is not a great deal of time left for them to celebrate.

By Yossi Klein
http://www.haaretz.com/print-editio...-on-tel-aviv-1.418749?localLinksEnabled=false

The residents of Sderot are disciplined soldiers. They know that "an assassination in Gaza" is a genuine alarm plus a call-up to reserve duty, all in one. They went into the bomb shelters and sat there in order to be what they were expected to be - potential victims, waiting quietly.

In Tel Aviv, too, they heard about the assassination but there people filled the streets. There were traffic jams on Ibn Gabirol Street on Friday because on such a sunny day it was impossible to stay home. It is possible to understand those people who enjoyed themselves in Tel Aviv. There is not a great deal of time left for them to celebrate. It's not yet known when, but informed sources say that in a few days, or a few weeks, or perhaps in the next few months (depending on the surveys ), they will get a volley of Iranian missiles on their heads, compared to which the Qassam rockets and the Grads will seem like a light drizzle at the start of fall.

The missiles that fell in Sderot, and the missiles that may fall in Tel Aviv connect the hedonist urban center with the suffering outlying districts of the country. Both in Tel Aviv and in Sderot residents were enlisted into the army to defend the country's security but the state was exempted from defending them. Missiles are a local affair. When missiles fall on Sderot, people lick ice creams on Ibn Gabirol; when they fall on Ibn Gabirol, people in Sderot go to a movie. That's the way it is - today it's you, tomorrow it's us. There's nothing to get worked up about and nothing to look forward to. It won't get any better.

It won't get any better but there will always be a price to pay. The bill is presented after every chapter in the war. That's the way it's been for decades. We killed a terrorist? Thanks very much, the bill is on the way and someone will have to pay. The price is fixed above your head. The price is set according to cost and benefit: the cost of your death as opposed to the benefit it will bring.

The one who decides on the price never has to pay himself. The one who decides is the one who sends us on missions, and our mission is to be a number among the statistics. If only four of us are killed then we have succeeded in safeguarding the country's security. If more are killed, then we will distribute the pictures of the dead around the world and ask: "What is this - Are they shooting at children?"

This week they decided that it was worthwhile, that it wasn't terrible, if people sat a few days in bomb shelters. That is certainly a reasonable cost relative to the benefit, they said In the General Staff which is five minutes' walk from Ibn Gabirol Street. The death of Zahid al-Kaisi met the criteria of cost-benefit analysis well. A few days of fear in Sderot are a small investment that will bring a big profit in terms of punishment and deterrence.

The people of Sderot don't want punishment and deterrence; what they want there is quiet. From their point of view, let them kill everyone in Gaza, or let them sign something with them. The important thing is that there should at long last be quiet here. They can't be soldiers all the time for whom the country's security is more important than their own security. Maybe they're fed up but they don't say anything because that is how things are with those of us in the periphery. On Sunday the prime minister praised them for their "steadfastness." Was he praising them? He was praising himself. He was satisfied that he had managed to get one million people, who had accepted his and Defense Minister Ehud Barak's stories without complaining, to go into the shelters.

In Tel Aviv, people are dubious about the stories. They ask what led to the assassination. Perhaps the State Comptroller's report? Perhaps a new survey? Everything depends on the price. The price of Sderot, the Tel Avivians say, is apparently cheap. And they don't begin to imagine that their price is even cheaper - one could say, negligible. In the opinion of the prime minister, the damage and the victims as the result of missiles on Tel Aviv would be negligible compared to the Iranians having a nuclear bomb.

What is a negligible number of victims? Less than 500, the defense minister promised on another occasion. What is less than 500 (100? 60? ) as compared with the satisfaction and pride of the whole country including, one can assume, the residents of Sderot?

There is a symmetry between Sderot and Tel Aviv. There is a symmetry between Jerusalem and Tehran. There is a symmetry between Benjamin Netanyahu and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. Both of them say: "The damage and the victims that we will suffer as the result of an attack are negligible compared with their atom bomb." Ahmedinejad is also prepared to pay for his missiles with a negligible number of victims (1,000? 10,000? ).

Tel Aviv is not Tehran. From Netanyahu's point of view, it is Sodom. And if someone has to pay the price for bombing the Iranian reactor, then let it be the wicked of Tel Aviv. A survey that was published last week showed that the number of people opposed to bombing Iran's nuclear facilities is only slightly larger than the number that supports it. It would be interesting to see a survey in which Israelis are asked where they would prefer the missiles to fall. It can be assumed that the tie would no longer exist then. The presumption is that Tel Aviv would win first place, big time.

=

The Flying Dutchman · Mar 15, 2012

=

Iran 'taking a grave risk', says
Foreign Office minister Alistair Burt

Gavin Cordon Thursday 15 March 2012
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...gn-office-minister-alistair-burt-7573800.html

Britain today sounded a new warning to Iran that it was taking a
"grave risk" if it did not end its banned nuclear programme and show the
world it was not seeking to acquire the bomb.

Foreign Office minister Alistair Burt urged Tehran to avoid "miscalculations" over its nuclear capability and demonstrate its programme was for purely civil purposes.

Giving evidence to a House of Lords select committee, he also expressed "great concern" over Iranian attempts to develop a long-range intercontinental ballistic missile.

He said they already had weapons which could hit British forces in Cyprus and Afghanistan and were now seeking to acquire a missile which could reach Europe.

Prime Minister David Cameron discussed the mounting international concern over Iran's nuclear intentions with Barack Obama during their talks yesterday at the White House.

Mr Burt echoed a warning by the US President following the meeting that the prospects for finding a diplomatic solution to the crisis were "shrinking".

"We know that mistakes are made when information is uncertain and miscalculations end up being made," he said.

"What we do know for absolute certain is that the Iranians are on a track that has alerted the international community to a situation of great danger.

"It is not just the United Kingdom that is making calculations - so are others.

"In order to prevent miscalculations being made, the time is right now for the Iranians to take the opportunity that it is being presented to be thoroughly open about its programme and to convince the world that it only has peaceful intentions for its nuclear activities.

"If it does not, it is taking a grave risk."

While Britain like the United States, was still advising Israel that military action to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities was not "appropriate", he said "no options are off the table" if the regime fails to allay international concerns.

Mr Burt also highlighted concerns over Iran's missile programme after Mr Cameron said last week that it appeared to be seeking an intercontinental ballistic missile capability.

Iran already had the largest ballistic missile force in the Middle East, he said, with 200 to 300 medium range missiles - including the Shabab 3 - which had been tested to a range of 2,000 km.

"To put this into perspective, Cyprus and UK troops in Afghanistan fall well within that range along with Israel, Turkey and Saudi Arabia," he said.

"Iran also has ambitions to extend the range of its missiles which could give it the capability to target a number of European countries.

"In part, we believe this is supported by Iran's continuing development of a satellite launch programme.

"The fact that Iran continues to engage in this activity in defiance of UN Security Council resolutions - and particularly given unresolved concerns over the military dimension of its nuclear programme - is a cause of great concern."

He said the UK authorities were on the alert for "illegal and aggressive activity" by Iranian agents following the plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington and their suspected involvement in attacks in Thailand, India and Georgia.

"We will remain vigilant to such activity by Iran and others and we have contingency plans for dealing with Iranian threats to UK interests," he said.

=

The Flying Dutchman · Mar 15, 2012

=

04:47 15.03.12

An Iran attack is the toughest
question Israel faced since 1948

Standing at the last crossroad, the debate we conduct with
ourselves has to be deep, wise, responsible, clear, and level-headed.

By Ari Shavit
http://www.haaretz.com/print-editio...d-since-1948-1.418747?localLinksEnabled=false

Those who support an attack on Iran must honestly address 10 decisive questions.

Have all the avenues been exhausted, to the point that there is no chance that the international community could still stop Iran's nuclear program through a diplomatic-economic siege? Is it absolutely clear that the Americans will not stop the Iranian nukes with an aerial bombardment in 2013? Will an Israeli attack indeed delay the Iranian nukes by at least five years? Won't a military attack spark a bloody regional conflict and an endless religious conflict?

Won't a counterattack by Iran and Hezbollah cause terrible mass killings that the Israeli home front won't be able to tolerate? Won't an attack that doesn't have U.S. support shatter our strategic alliance with the United States? Won't the global economic crisis that would result lead to a shock wave of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism that would threaten the Jewish state? Won't an attack on Natanz ultimately end up harming Dimona? Won't an attack dismantle the sanctions regime and thus give the Iranians both the justification and the ability to go nuclear even faster? Won't an attack on Iran leave Israel totally isolated?

Those who oppose an attack on Iran must honestly address 10 critical questions.

Can 21st century Israelis continue to live their lives with the shadow of a Shi'ite mushroom cloud hovering above their heads? Will Israel be able to withstand the endless conventional wars that will break out on its borders once Iran goes nuclear? Will Israel be able to handle a nuclear, wild and radical Middle East? Will Israel survive when the United States starts ignoring it because it will be forced into appeasing the rising nuclear power, Iran? Will Israel be able to survive the diplomatic isolation that will be its lot when a nuclear Iran takes control of the Persian Gulf and dictates the price of oil to the world?

Will Dimona be enough to stand up to the ensuing nuclearization of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt? Will Dimona address the risk of nuclear terror? Will Israel be able to withstand a situation in which the Iranian nukes put an end to peace or the hope of peace? Will Israel be able to withstand a situation in which a nuclear Iran forces it to live by the sword, day in and day out, with a cruelty it has never known before? Are we prepared to take the one-in-a-hundred chance that a nuclear bomb will explode over Tel Aviv?

The picture looks gloomy indeed. Israel's policy of prevention has gained some time, but has failed. The international policy of appeasement created an illusion and collapsed. The sanctions imposed were too little, too late, and won't likely stop Iran in time.

Nor did the recent meetings in Washington go well. There is no strategic cooperation between Israel and the United States. There is no trust between U.S. President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The U.S. president did not give the Israeli prime minister any guarantees that immediately after the November elections he will stop Iran at any price.

In short, the world that was meant to save the Jewish state from the terrible dilemma it faces, failed to do so. It's true, there could still be a miracle. Maybe Iran will blink at the last minute. Maybe the United States will sober up at the edge of the abyss. But in March 2012 the feeling in Jerusalem is that Israel is utterly alone. And we are getting closer to the moment of truth.

We cannot err. We absolutely, positively cannot make a mistake. There are 10 questions on one side, and 10 questions on the other. The 21st question is: Attack, or don't attack?

When confronting this existential question, there is no right or left, no bad guys or good guys, and no warmongers or pacifists. When facing this existential question, we cannot be critical or sloppy and we cannot think dogmatically. Standing at the last crossroad, the debate we conduct with ourselves has to be deep, wise, responsible, clear, and level-headed.

Because the 21st question is the toughest one we've faced since May 1948. And it's a matter of life and death.
[/size]

=

The Flying Dutchman · Mar 15, 2012

=

Lieberman:
Nuclear-Armed Iran a 'Global Threat'

Barnstorming Asia, FM Lieberman is telling all who will listen
that Iran's nuclear weapons program isn't just a regional problem.

By Gavriel Queenann
First Publish: 3/15/2012, 1:53 PM
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/153788

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman on Thursday warned that a nuclear-armed Iran would "destabalize the region" and constitute a "global threat."

Lieberman's remarks came during a meeting with South Korean Foreign Minister Kim Sung-hwan in Seoul.

He also reportedly discussed parallels between Pyongyang and Tehran, noting Israel and South Korea both face threats from neighboring dictatorships.

Earlier this week, it was reported that North Korea may have allowed Iran to detonate a test nuclear weapon in its facilities.

During his Seoul visit, Lieberman called on the world to learn the lessons of North Korea.

"In both cases these nations conducted a sophisticated fraud designed to buy time in order to obtain weapons of mass destruction," Lieberman said.

Many have also accused Pyongyang of 'nuclear extortion' in using its nuclear weapons program as a lever to obtain nutritional assistance for its deeply impoverished population.

Lieberman also said that the international community must act collectively against the new "Axis of Evil," including Iran, North Korea and Syria.

He will next travel to Beijiing, where Iran is expected to be at the top of his agenda.

=

The Flying Dutchman · Mar 15, 2012

=

New 'massacre' as Syria crisis enters 2nd year

AFPUpdated March 16, 2012, 1:38 am
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/13179972/new-massacre-as-syria-crisis-enters-2nd-year/

DAMASCUS (AFP) - Twenty-three mutilated corpses were found on Thursday near a Syrian protest city seized by regime forces, monitors said, as the regime's bloody crackdown entered its second year to a rising world outcry.

Human rights monitors said the victims had been blindfolded and handcuffed before being shot dead and their bodies dumped outside the northwestern city of Idlib, in an apparent repeat of a similar "massacre" in the flashpoint city of Homs last weekend.

As the Syrian regime and the opposition continued to trade blame for the earlier killings, both sides organised mass demonstrations to mark the first anniversary of the eruption of anti-government protests in the city of Daraa, south of the capital, which was again the scene of deadly violence on Wednesday.

"Twenty-three bodies with marks of extreme torture were found near Mazraat Wadi Khaled, west of the city of Idlib," said the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights in a statement.

It also said at least five others were killed in raids by security forces across the province of Idlib on Thursday and that violent clashes broke out overnight as rebels attacked army posts in the eastern region of Deir Ezzor.

On Wednesday, 37 people were killed in violence across Syria, 20 of them in Daraa, the Britain-based watchdog said.

Human Rights Watch on Thursday demanded an end to the "scorched earth methods" being deployed by President Bashar al-Assad and that China and Russia stop blocking UN efforts to take tough action.

"City after city, town after town, Syria's security forces are using their scorched earth methods while the (UN) Security Council's hands remain tied by Russia and China," HRW's Sarah Leah Whitson.

"One year on, the Security Council should finally stand together and send a clear message to Assad that these attacks should end," said the New York-based group's Middle East director.

Moscow and Beijing have since October blocked two Security Council draft resolutions on the crisis in Syria on the grounds that they were unbalanced and aimed at regime change.

HRW said that "accounts from witnesses reveal significant destruction and a large number of deaths and injuries of civilians in Syria's bombardment of the city of Idlib."

Syrian activists have compiled a list of 114 civilians killed since security forces launched their assault on Idlib, the watchdog said.

The city fell to government forces on Tuesday night, two weeks after the regime stormed the Baba Amr district of Homs in central Syria, following a month-long blitz that activists said left hundreds dead.

Following that offensive, residents of nearby neighbourhoods reported finding the mutilated bodies of women and children. Activists posted video footage they said proved regime forces were to blame.

The government blamed "armed terrorist gangs."

The Damascus government on Thursday renewed its demands for foreign governments to leave Syrians to resolve the crisis by themselves and loyalists held mass demonstrations in the capital and other large cities.

State television showed tens of thousands of people waving Syrian flags and Assad's portrait in cities including Damascus, the second-largest city Aleppo and Latakia, a stronghold of Assad's minority Alawite community on the Mediterranean coast.

"After a whole year of pressure on Syria, we want to make the world hear our voice: Leave Syria in peace," a woman on the street told the state broadcaster.

The authorities, which have blamed the revolt on foreign-backed "terrorist gangs," announced a "global march for Syria" to counter anti-regime demonstrations being organised by the opposition across the world.

"For the lives lost in the battle for Syria," was the slogan beamed across the television screen.

Last week, the Syrian Observatory gave a breakdown of around 8,500 deaths in the past 12 months: apart from 6,200 civilians, it said the toll included more than 1,800 members of Assad's security forces and more than 400 rebels.

In neighbouring Turkey, hundreds of Syrian activists in a "Freedom Convoy" left from the near city of Gaziantep for the border with Syria to mark the one-year anniversary.

"Our goal is to put pressure in our way on the Syrian government to stop its massacres and its embargo on its own people," Moayad Skaif, one of the organisers, told AFP.

France, Syria's former colonial ruler, acknowledged on Thursday that the situation in the country was far too complex to be resolved by a Libya-style armed uprising with outside support.

"The Syrian people is deeply divided and if we give arms to a particular faction of the opposition we could trigger a civil war between Christians, Alawites, Sunnis and Shiites," Foreign Minister Alain Juppe warned.

"It could become an even bigger catastrophe than we have now."

=

The Flying Dutchman · Mar 15, 2012

=

Iran sending aid to Syria

Published: March. 15, 2012 at 8:48 AM
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2012/03/15/Iran-sending-aid-to-Syria/UPI-20451331815731/

TEHRAN, March 15 (UPI) -- Forty tons of medical aid has arrived in Damascus, Syria, the first of four plane loads Iran said it is sending its "regional ally."

Raouf Sheibani, Iran's ambassador to Syria, told the official Islamic Republic News Agency Thursday the supplies included medicine, medical equipment, food products, ambulances, blankets and tents.

The move he said was to show Tehran's support for Syria.

"Iran is standing fully behind the Syrian regime of President Bashar Assad as it battles armed rebel groups it describes as terrorists," Sheibani said.

The Iranian aid shipment arrived in Damascus Thursday, the day marking the first anniversary of the anti-government demonstrations that erupted in Syria last year and has so far claimed more than 8,000 lives.

Gen. James Mattis, head of the U.S. military's Central Command, was quoted by The New York Times recently saying Iran is working earnestly to keep Assad in power.

An unnamed U.S. intelligence official was quoted in The Washington Post saying "the aid from Iran is increasing, and is increasingly focused on lethal assistance."

=

The Flying Dutchman · Mar 15, 2012

=

Syria violence rages as uprising enters second year

Mar 15, 2012, 14:27 GMT
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/...violence-rages-as-uprising-enters-second-year

Beirut - At least 50 people were killed by Syrian government forces on Thursday, the first anniversary of the pro-democracy revolt, the opposition said, while refugees flocked to neighbouring Turkey.

The Turkish Foreign Ministry said that around 1,000 Syrian refugees, including a defecting general, had crossed into Turkey in the past 24 hours.

Activists, meanwhile, said that Syrian government forces had started to plant mines along the northern border with Turkey to stem the exodus of refugees.

The total number of Syrian refugees in Turkey now stands at 14,700, a spokesman for the Turkish Foreign Ministry told dpa.

'Two months ago, the number stabilized at around 7,500, but over the past few weeks, it has been rising steadily,' he said.

'We are expecting that trend to continue, although obviously we hope it doesn't,' he said declining to put a figure on how many refugees from Syria Turkey is able to handle.

Turkey has been receiving refugees from Syria and housing them in border camps since the uprising against the rule of President Bashar al-Assad began a year ago.

In the Syrian province of Idlib, near the border with Turkey, government forces reportedly killed at least 40 people on Thursday.

The deaths included 23 whose bodies were found near Idlib, said Rami Abdel Rahman, the head of the London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

'The bodies of blindfolded and handcuffed men were found near Mazraat Wadi Khaled, west of Idlib,' Abdel Rahman told dpa.

Ten others were killed Thursday in shelling attacks by government troops in the town of Rastan in the central province of Homs, said activists.

Government troops backed by tanks were Thursday pushing deep into Idlib, which is an opposition stronghold, said the activists.

Idlib was overrun by government troops on Wednesday after a four-day onslaught, according to the opposition.

In the southern province of Daraa, the birthplace of the Syrian revolt, mass protests were held near mosques on Thursday, at which the demonstrators chanted slogans calling for the regime's downfall, said the opposition.

Meanwhile, thousands of al-Assad's loyalists rallied Thursday in the capital Damascus to show support, according to state media.

Official television showed footage of thousands thronging Damascus' main square as they carried pictures of al-Assad and waved the national flag.

News from Syria is hard to independently verify as the government has barred foreign media from the country since the uprising began.

The escalation of violence Thursday prompted the rights group Human Rights Watch to urge Russia and China to back a United Nations Security Council resolution calling on Damascus to halt attacks on civilian areas and allow humanitarian and media access into the country.

'City after city, town after town, Syria's security forces are using their scorched earth methods while the (UN) Security Council's hands remain tied by Russia and China,' Sarah Leah Whitson, the group's Middle East director, said in a statement.

Russia and China, key allies of al-Assad's regime, have vetoed two UN Security Council resolutions on the Syrian unrest, which the UN estimates to have killed more than 8,000 people.

=

The Flying Dutchman · Mar 15, 2012

=

..

1.4 million 'risk hunger in Syria': UN agency

By AFP | AFP – 37 minutes ago.. .
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/1-4-million-risk-hunger-syria-un-agency-135524722.html

Civil unrest is increasing the risk of hunger for 1.4 million people in Syria, which must raise cereal imports by a third to offset a loss in output, the United Nations' food agency said Thursday

Civil unrest is increasing the risk of hunger for 1.4 million people in Syria, which must raise cereal imports by a third to offset a loss in output, the United Nations' food agency said Thursday.

"Continued civil unrest in the Syrian Arab Republic since mid-March 2011 has raised serious concern over the state of food security, particularly for vulnerable groups," the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) said.

The agency said that last year's cereal production in Syria -- estimated at 4.2 million tonnes -- was about 10 percent less than the previous five years' average, following late and erratic rains and widespread civil unrest.

"In several areas, it is reported that civil insecurity prevented farmers to access their farmland during the harvest," it said.

"The World Food Programme (WFP) estimated in 2010 that about 1.4 million food insecure were living in areas which have now become conflict hotspots such as Homs, Hama, rural Damascus, Daraa and Idleb," the FAO said Thursday.

"The concern is that they now have become even more vulnerable," it said.

Tens of thousands of people have already fled to neighbouring countries and access to food, water and fuel is reported to have become increasingly difficult in several areas, the FAO said.

Syria, which relies on food imports for almost half of its domestic use, should import around 4.0 million tonnes of wheat for food use and maize and barley for feed -- about 1 million tonnes more than the previous year, it said.

"An estimated 300,000 small farmers and herders in northeastern provinces, who have already suffered four consecutive seasons of drought, are also affected by the loss of opportunities from seasonal labour migration to the south and east," the FAO said.

"In addition, the unrest is affecting pastoralists by restricting mobility of herds, with negative effects on access to water and pasture, and reducing access to veterinary drugs and other supplies," it added.

=

The Flying Dutchman · Mar 15, 2012

=

Netanyahu:
Gaza is Iran

10:33 AM, March 15, 2012é Abby W. Schachter
http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/capitol/netanyahu_gaza_is_iran_DV6sP5ruGwUzVU3KAZQz8M

President Obama talks about Iran as if we are still in the stage of preventing them from initiating violence against the West. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told his parliament today that the battle is already joined.

The missiles fired from Gaza into Israel, that sent millions of Israelis into bomb shelters, were fired by Islamic Jihad which is owned and operated by Iran. None of this is in dispute. Even the Israeli left realizes that an Iranian-sponsored military force raining missiles down on Tel Aviv is completely untenable.

When Obama and Netanyahu met last week in Washington, the discussion was about timetables. Obama wanted to reinforce the impression that he will defend Israel and "have Israel's back" if and when Israel is attacked by Iran. But Obama's timetable was based on the assumption that Iran hadn't yet attacked Israel.

Mr. President, Israel has been attacked by Iran, now. Will you change your timetable?

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/capitol/netanyahu_gaza_is_iran_DV6sP5ruGwUzVU3KAZQz8M#ixzz1pCH9eWXX

=

The Flying Dutchman · Mar 15, 2012

=

Rocket fire from Gaza met with unusual restraint

Patrick Martin
Jerusalem— The Canadian Press
Published Thursday, Mar. 15, 2012 10:19AM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...za-met-with-unusual-restraint/article2370061/

Three days after an unofficial truce between Israel and Palestinian leaders in Gaza, rockets continue to fly from the territory aimed at southern Israel.

But something remarkable has happened: Leaders of both Hamas, which governs the Gaza Strip, and Islamic Jihad, the more radical, Iran-assisted resistance movement that was responsible for most of the rockets fired in the past week, announced today they are not behind this new rocket fire and are actively trying to halt the missiles being fired, they say, by maverick individuals or cells.

And they made these announcements on Israel Radio, of all places.

Nafez Azzam, a senior Islamic Jihad official, told Israel Radio in Arabic that Islamic Jihad was “fully committed to the truce.”

Something else was remarkable: Israel, which had been launching several spontaneous attacks on rocket launchers in Gaza in the first four days of the crisis, was being quite restrained in its response to the latest rockets.

While three Grad rockets were fired yesterday, one of which was shot down by the Israeli Iron Dome anti-missile system in Beersheva, and no injuries were reported, Israel’s response was to strike hours later against a launching site in northern Gaza and a tunnel under Gaza’s frontier with Egypt. These are relatively benign targets; no injuries were reported.

Again today, four Grad rockets were fired this morning, one exploding near the southern Israeli town of Netivot, and two were shot down approaching Beersheva.

Several hours later, Israel still had not struck back.

Contrast this approach to the one in which more than 25 Gazans, most of whom were militants, were killed in near spontaneous strikes between Friday and Monday.

Asked to explain why Israel was showing such restraint, Major General Amram Mitzna told Israel Radio: “… what we are trying to do is to gain time and we have to pay attention and see – is this trickle [of rockets] just their wanting to get in the last word?”

“There is some infighting today in the Gaza Strip among the various organizations, and Islamic Jihad apparently doesn’t control all its members … But I have no doubt that the correct thing to do today is to try and lower the flames, because I don’t think that it is possible to extinguish them entirely.”

The “truce” mediated by Egypt, stressed that there would be mutual cessation of attacks – “quiet for quiet,” as the Israelis like to say. For their part, Hamas and Islamic Jihad say they understand that Israel will not carry out any further assassinations of Palestinian leaders. A “targeted killing” on Friday of Zuhair al-Qaissi, leader of the Popular Resistance Committees, another militant organization, triggered the recent crisis.

Israel insists it will continue to strike at anyone about to carry out attacks on Israel.

It is worth noting that while both sides insist they will not talk to the other, today’s communications via Israel radio (and other back channels) certainly came close to such talk.

Indeed, Maj. Gen. Mitzna, asked if Israel should talk to Hamas, replied: “The door to talks should be opened with the [Ramallah-based] Palestinian Authority. As long as we don’t do that, we certainly shouldn’t do it with terror organizations that don’t recognize the State of Israel and whose goal is to shake up the Middle East.”

He then added: “I do think that without a peace process and without dialogue and without an attempt to deal with reality, [nothing] is possible in the Middle East. It is the duty of the Israeli government to hold dialogue and I am among those who think that this could have results.”

=

CGTech · Mar 15, 2012

The Flying Dutchman said:
=

04:47 15.03.12

An Iran attack is the toughest
question Israel faced since 1948

Standing at the last crossroad, the debate we conduct with
ourselves has to be deep, wise, responsible, clear, and level-headed.

By Ari Shavit
http://www.haaretz.com/print-editio...d-since-1948-1.418747?localLinksEnabled=false

Those who support an attack on Iran must honestly address 10 decisive questions.

Have all the avenues been exhausted, to the point that there is no chance that the international community could still stop Iran's nuclear program through a diplomatic-economic siege? Is it absolutely clear that the Americans will not stop the Iranian nukes with an aerial bombardment in 2013? Will an Israeli attack indeed delay the Iranian nukes by at least five years? Won't a military attack spark a bloody regional conflict and an endless religious conflict?

Won't a counterattack by Iran and Hezbollah cause terrible mass killings that the Israeli home front won't be able to tolerate? Won't an attack that doesn't have U.S. support shatter our strategic alliance with the United States? Won't the global economic crisis that would result lead to a shock wave of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism that would threaten the Jewish state? Won't an attack on Natanz ultimately end up harming Dimona? Won't an attack dismantle the sanctions regime and thus give the Iranians both the justification and the ability to go nuclear even faster? Won't an attack on Iran leave Israel totally isolated?

Those who oppose an attack on Iran must honestly address 10 critical questions.

Can 21st century Israelis continue to live their lives with the shadow of a Shi'ite mushroom cloud hovering above their heads? Will Israel be able to withstand the endless conventional wars that will break out on its borders once Iran goes nuclear? Will Israel be able to handle a nuclear, wild and radical Middle East? Will Israel survive when the United States starts ignoring it because it will be forced into appeasing the rising nuclear power, Iran? Will Israel be able to survive the diplomatic isolation that will be its lot when a nuclear Iran takes control of the Persian Gulf and dictates the price of oil to the world?

Will Dimona be enough to stand up to the ensuing nuclearization of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt? Will Dimona address the risk of nuclear terror? Will Israel be able to withstand a situation in which the Iranian nukes put an end to peace or the hope of peace? Will Israel be able to withstand a situation in which a nuclear Iran forces it to live by the sword, day in and day out, with a cruelty it has never known before? Are we prepared to take the one-in-a-hundred chance that a nuclear bomb will explode over Tel Aviv?

The picture looks gloomy indeed. Israel's policy of prevention has gained some time, but has failed. The international policy of appeasement created an illusion and collapsed. The sanctions imposed were too little, too late, and won't likely stop Iran in time.

Nor did the recent meetings in Washington go well. There is no strategic cooperation between Israel and the United States. There is no trust between U.S. President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The U.S. president did not give the Israeli prime minister any guarantees that immediately after the November elections he will stop Iran at any price.

In short, the world that was meant to save the Jewish state from the terrible dilemma it faces, failed to do so. It's true, there could still be a miracle. Maybe Iran will blink at the last minute. Maybe the United States will sober up at the edge of the abyss. But in March 2012 the feeling in Jerusalem is that Israel is utterly alone. And we are getting closer to the moment of truth.

We cannot err. We absolutely, positively cannot make a mistake. There are 10 questions on one side, and 10 questions on the other. The 21st question is: Attack, or don't attack?

When confronting this existential question, there is no right or left, no bad guys or good guys, and no warmongers or pacifists. When facing this existential question, we cannot be critical or sloppy and we cannot think dogmatically. Standing at the last crossroad, the debate we conduct with ourselves has to be deep, wise, responsible, clear, and level-headed.

Because the 21st question is the toughest one we've faced since May 1948. And it's a matter of life and death.
[/size]

=

As stated by the writer, Israel cannot - simply CANNOT - make a mistake on this. If they fail to take out Iran's nuclear ambitions, they face utter destruction. IMHO.

CGTech · Mar 15, 2012

Interesting... was just on this site:

http://gonavy.jp/CVLocation.html

Note that the Enterprise (CVN65) departed Norfolk on March 11th.... now CVN69 Eisenhower departed Norfolk on the 10th.. first time since last fall... and CVN77 George HW Bush departed Norfolk on the 12th....

Not saying it means anything.... but 3 CVN's in 3 days, all departed from the same port..

Like i said.... interesting...

The Flying Dutchman · Mar 15, 2012

CGTech said:
Interesting... was just on this site:

http://gonavy.jp/CVLocation.html

Note that the Enterprise (CVN65) departed Norfolk on March 11th.... now CVN69 Eisenhower departed Norfolk on the 10th.. first time since last fall... and CVN77 George HW Bush departed Norfolk on the 12th....

Not saying it means anything.... but 3 CVN's in 3 days, all departed from the same port..

Like i said.... interesting...

That be part of "The Logistics" I was refering to pard.....(on an earlier post)http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...-quot-LAST-CHANCE!-quot&p=4355561#post4355561

BREWER · Mar 15, 2012

Posted for fair use and discussion.
http://www.debka.com/article/21825/

Iran threatens N. Israel with bombardment from Lebanon
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report March 14, 2012, 10:29 PM (GMT+02:00)
Tags: Iran Hizballah Binyamin Netanyahu Jihad Islami Gaza
Ali Akbar Javanfekr, Ahmadinejad's spokesman

Tehran has begun capitalizing on its allies” two perceived victories: Bashar Assad’s success in seizing Idlib from rebel hands and the Palestinian Jihad Islami’s triumphal missile assault from Gaza.

The Iranians are now moving forward with plans to match the Palestinian assault on southern Israeli with an offensive on the north from Lebanon. This is reported by debkafile’s exclusive sources in the wake of a visit paid by high-ranking Iranian and Hizballah officials Wednesday morning, March 14, to the Lebanese-Israeli border region opposite Metulah, Israel’s northernmost town at the tip of the Galilee Panhandle.

The Iranian group, led by Ali Akbar Javanfekr, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s spokesman, arrived in a heavily guarded convoy at the Fatma outpost opposite Metulah for its rendezvous with Hizballah military intelligence officers.

Once there, they kept moving around near the Lebanese-Israeli border fence. At times, they came up close and examined the Israel Defense Forces’ ongoing work for fortifying the border fence and upgrading it from a boundary marker to a military barrier able to withstand terrorist incursions into the Galilee panhandle.

The Iranian visitor, Javanfekr, commented in the hearing of our sources: “The Zionists can build any wall they like, whether of concrete, iron or plastic, but we and Hizballah will knock it down, like Israel itself.”

He pitched his voice loudly enough to carry across the border.

His words were taken by top Israeli commanders as a blunt threat of a missile offensive on similar lines to the Gaza confrontation – only this time instead of Jihad Islami in Gaza, Hizballah would be entrusted with shooting missiles from Lebanon.

Word of this threat spurred Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to sharpen his tone in his speech to the Knesset later Wednesday and declare, “We shall strike Iran even if our American friends object.”

He was further irked by a decision by US President Barack Obama and visiting British Premier David Cameron, reported by debkafile’s Washington sources, to intensify their efforts for holding Israel back from striking Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Netanyahu therefore stressed once again that Israel would decide for itself the best way to pre-empt a nuclear Iran.

No sooner were his comments broadcast, when Washington announced that Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Andrew Shapiro would be traveling to Israel forthwith. He will no doubt try and clarify how far Netanyahu really means to go.

The Flying Dutchman · Mar 15, 2012

=

18:43 15.03.12

Iran official:
Israel isn't powerful enough to fulfill military threats

Speaking during tour of southern Lebanon, Ahmadinejad's press adviser says
possible Iranian counterstrike would reach beyond 'Zionist regime,' include U.S. bases.

By Haaretz
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...l-enough-to-fulfill-military-threats-1.418905

Israel is too weak to fulfill its threats against Iran, an adviser to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said during a visit to southern Lebanon on Wednesday, adding that Iran's counter attack in case of an assault against it would include U.S. targets.

The Iranian official's remarks came after, on Wednesday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in an apparent reference to the possibility of an attack of Iran's nuclear facilities, said that Israel didn't always heed to U.S. warnings against offensive action, citing such examples as the Six-Day War and the 1981 strike against an Iraqi nuclear reactor.

A Yasser missile is displayed during Iranian army parade, marking national Army Day, in front of the mausoleum of the late revolutionary founder Ayatollah Khamenei near Tehran, Iran, April 18, 2011.

Also on Wednesday, U.S. President Barack Obama said thatthe window for a diplomatic solution with Iran over its nuclear program was "shrinking," urging Tehran to seize the opportunity of talks with world leaders to avert "even worse consequences."

Speaking during a tour of the south Lebanon town of Maran al-Ras, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's press advisor Ali Akbar Javanfekr, played down the possibility of an Israelui strike on Iran, saying that the “Zionist regime is weaker than being able to fulfill its threats against Islamic Republic.”

“Iran is not afraid of any enemy, including the occupying force of Zionist regime,” Javanfekr was quoted as saying by the official IRNA news agency.

Ahmadinejad's press adviser also warned of the severity of a potential Iranian counterstrike, saying that the "consequences of any attack on Iran will not be limited to the Zionist regime and its allies, including the U.S. will be the target of Tehran’s reaction; Washington officials are well aware about the devastating answer of Iran to any aggression."

On Thursday, an international network in control of the world's largest financial messaging system announced intended to cut off Iranian banks targeted by European Union sanctions.

The move by SWIFT represents an unprecedented measure that will effectively prevent Iranian institutions from electronically transferring global funds.

=

The Flying Dutchman · Mar 15, 2012

=

Sanctioning India:
‘Strategic suicide’ for US?

Published: 15 March, 2012, 20:38
http://rt.com/news/india-iran-oil-sanctions-us-675/

The United States depends on India to counterbalance China in the Asia-Pacific region, international affairs expert Sreeram Chaulia told RT. And he believes the US will eventually give in to India’s commitment to buying Iranian oil.

*“In the last ten years, if the Unites States has achieved anything of strategic value in Asia, it is the closeness with India,” explained Sreeram Chaulia, a professor at the Jindal School of International Affairs. “And I don’t think it would want to jeopardize all that for the sake of punishing Iran.”

“It would be strategic suicide on the part of the United States to actually go ahead and impose sanctions on Indian companies,” he added.

Iran is indispensable for India’s energy security, and India is not going to give in to any kind of pressure from the United States on the issue, says Chaulia.

“Individual Indian corporations might be worried about facing financial sanctions from the US system, and being shut out of the dollar trade and of the US banking and stock market systems,” he said. “But I think as a state, India is pretty confident that it can continue trading with Iran for its own interests and that it’s not going to give in to any kind of pressure whatsoever.”

Nevertheless, Washington has had some limited success in disrupting India’s business with Iran in the past, financial analyst Siddharth Ramana told RT.

“Indian companies have had to withdraw investment from Iran," he said. "We have seen Indian financial organizations having to reroute their currency dealings with Iran through neutral countries.”

India finds itself in a tricky situation – having to balance energy needs with its strategic partnerships with major Western powers. At the same time, India is opposed to Iran’s nuclear program no less than the West, Ramana says, so it will abide any “international law” passed on the issue.

“If there is a United Nations Security Council resolution which suggests that Iranian oil should be blacklisted, then India will follow suit on that,” he said.

=

The Flying Dutchman · Mar 15, 2012

=

Iranian banks to be cut off from international payment system

Transfer hub will disconnect Iranian banks
that are subject to sanctions imposed by EU

guardian.co.uk, Thursday 15 March 2012 12.31 EDT
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/15/iran-middleeast

The banking transfer system, which is to disconnect Iranian banks subject to sanctions, is crucial to oil and financial transactions. Photograph: Kaveh Kazemi/Corbis

The international banking transfer system Swift is to cut ties with Iranian banks which are subject to EU sanctions.

The Belgium-based banking hub is crucial to oil, financial transactions and other trades. It has faced international pressure, particularly from the US, to prevent Tehran from sending or receiving payments electronically.

Global financial transactions are impossible without using Swift, which stands for Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication.

Swift said on Thursday that it would disconnect sanctioned Iranian financial institutions from its messaging system on Saturday at 4pm GMT.

"Disconnecting banks is an extraordinary and unprecedented step for Swift," the chief executive, Lazaro Campos, told Associated Press. "It is a direct result of international and multilateral action to intensify financial sanctions against Iran."

The EU sanctions are aimed at forcing Iran to demonstrate to the international community that it is not trying to develop nuclear weapons. Iran says that its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes only.

=

The Flying Dutchman · Mar 15, 2012

=

Thursday,March 15 2012, Your time is 5:21:39 PM

Israeli aircraft hit Gaza as Netanyahu blames Iran

JERUSALEM
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/is...-iran.aspx?pageID=238&nid=16126&NewsCatID=352

Israeli aircraft and Gaza rocket squads traded strikes across the border yesterday as the Israeli prime minister blamed Iran for the violence from the Palestinian territory.

Benjamin Netanyahu, going a step further in his warnings to Iran, hinted that Israel didn’t need Washington’s blessing to go ahead and attack Iran’s suspect nuclear program. Yesterday’s cross-border violence tested a shaky truce Israel and Gaza militants reached earlier this week to halt a four-day flare in fighting. Since then, sporadic rocket fire and Israeli airstrikes have persisted. Israeli aircraft struck two militant sites in Gaza before dawn yesterday in response to rocket fire a day earlier. Gaza gunmen retaliated by launching two rockets at Israel by midday, police said. No injuries were reported on either side.In a speech to parliament on Wednesday, Netanyahu accused Iran of arming, financing and training Gaza militants, and giving them their marching orders. “Gaza is Iran,” Netanyahu declared.

Hamas thanks Iran

While Netanyahu branding Gaza as an “advance post for Iran,” a senior Hamas figure in Gaza, Mahmud Zahar, is visiting Tehran for meetings with top Iranian officials, media reported yesterday. Zahar, who serves as Hamas’s foreign minister, met his Iranian counterpart, Ali Akbar Salehi, who voiced his country’s support for the Palestinians. Salehi condemned Israeli air strikes on Gaza, the official IRNA news agency reported. “Support for the Palestinian population is part of our principles and religious beliefs and we are certain that the Palestinian people

will triumph,” he said. Zahar, in return, thanked Iran for its “limitless support.”

March/16/2012

=

The Flying Dutchman · Mar 15, 2012

=

Mideast war would go global

Published 30 minutes ago

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters/article/1147011--mideast-war-would-go-global

If Israel has the sole and absolute right to decide how to resolve the threat in Iran, then what was the purpose of Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Canada in an attempt to get Canada’s “blessing”?

Please stop dragging us into your wars, Mr. Netanyahu. We are a peaceful country, serving as peacekeepers and diplomats since our inception — not warmongers, engaging in war at any opportunity.

What’s worse is that if this war starts, it won’t be confined to just two countries. It will turn into a global conflict because Russia and China are already aligned against this and because of the existing tension between many Muslim countries and Israel, these Muslim nations too could easily join the fray.

Canada must actively caution the world, and Israel in particular, about the dangers that lie ahead, because the consequences of the decisions we make today will be felt not just by us, but also by our future generations.

=

The Flying Dutchman · Mar 15, 2012

=

Iron Dome Intercepts Rocket Aimed at Ashdod

No one was hurt. The rocket was the
third Gaza terrorists fired at Israel today.

By Gil Ronen
First Publish: 3/15/2012, 9:23 PM
Reuters
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/153803#.T2JDWcV-XcA

The Iron Dome anti-missile system successfully intercepted a rocket fired by Gaza terrorists at Ashdod Thursday evening.

No one was hurt and no damage was caused. Sirens went off at Ashdod, Ashkelon, Tavneh and northern the Lachish area.

The rocket was the third fired by Gaza terrorists Thursday. A Grad rocket was fired at Be'er Sheva in the morning hours. It was successfully intercepted by Iron Dome, and it caused no injury or damage.

Earlier, another rocket fell in an open space in the Sdot Negev region. No one was hurt and no damage was caused.

=

CGTech · Mar 15, 2012

Most of Israel security cabinet backs Iran strike

by Staff Writers
Jerusalem (AFP) March 15, 2012

A majority of Israel's security cabinet now supports an attack on Iran in a bid to end its nuclear programme, an Israeli newspaper reported on Thursday, citing political sources it did not identify.

Writing in the Maariv daily, influential columnist Ben Caspit said most of the 14-member security cabinet was now leaning in favour of a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, a move which he said was supported by both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak.

"According to the most recent assessments, at this point eight ministers tend to support Netanyahu and Barak's position, while six object to it," Caspit wrote.

"It should be noted that the security cabinet has yet to hold a decisive meeting on the issue and the assessments are based on secret talks being held between the prime minister and his ministers, one at a time."

Caspit noted that Netanyahu has convened neither his security cabinet, nor the more intimate Forum of Eight -- a consultative body of his closest ministers -- since returning from talks about Iran with US President Barack Obama.

"The longer the silence from Netanyahu and Barak's direction continues, the more concerned the opponents of an attack on Iran become," Caspit said.

Ynet news website reported on Thursday that the members of Netanyahu's inner circle had expressed resentment about his lack of consultation with them in recent weeks.

They said they had not been briefed on either Iran or on the recent violence in and around Gaza.

"Some of the ministers feel that they are being used as a rubber stamp," a cabinet member told Ynet.

"We weren't briefed on the situation in Gaza even once. Netanyahu apparently feels confident enough to make all the decisions by himself, or with Barak, without including any of the other ministers."

Sources close to Netanyahu confirmed that neither the security cabinet nor the Forum of Eight had been convened recently, Ynet said, but added that Netanyahu "consults with the relevant people constantly."

In recent months speculation has been rising about the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear programme, which the Jewish state and much of the international community believe masks a weapons drive.

Iran denies the charges, saying the programme is for civil power generation and medical purposes only.

The United States has said it opposes an attack for now, calling for time to allow tough new sanctions against Tehran to bite.

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Most_of_Israel_security_cabinet_backs_Iran_strike_report_999.html

momof23goats · Mar 15, 2012

well it looks like the war has started. O. isn't going to do a thing until after elections, well, then probably not much out side of country.
Looks like he is hanging Israel out to go it alone. IF he turns his back on Israel, that not only is a bad thing, but I don't think the Jewish people here will back him.
thanks Dutch and HouseCarl for all of your work.

almost ready · Mar 15, 2012

Friends no more? Egypt’s MPs declare Israel No. 1 enemy

Edited: 14 March, 2012, 02:14

Egypt calls Israel its number one enemy, saying it will “revise all its relations and agreements” with Tel Aviv. In a protest against Israeli attacks on Gaza, Egyptian MPs have voted to expel Israel's Ambassador in Cairo, and to halt gas exports.

"Egypt will never be the friend, partner or ally of the Zionist entity [Israel] which we consider as the first enemy of Egypt and the Arab nation," reads the text of a report prepared by the Arab Affairs Committee of the People's Assembly, the lower house of Egyptian parliament.

The resolution was passed on Monday night with the majority of the country's Islamist-dominated 508-seat chamber voting in favor of halting of gas exports in protest against Israel’s attacks on Gaza.

Egyptian MPs also called on the government “to revise all its relations and agreements with that enemy,” referring to Israel.

According to the approved text, MPs suggest the expulsion of Israel's Ambassador to Egypt and a recall of the Egyptian Ambassador from Tel Aviv.

Monday’s vote is said to serve as an indication of how relations between two countries may wrap up next.

There has been no official comment from Israel on the vote so far.

The vote is seen as largely symbolic as only the ruling Military Council, the country’s current government, can make such decisions.

Egypt became the first Arab nation to sign a peace treaty with Israel in 1979, after intense negotiation. However, since Hosni Mubarak was ousted last year and the new government came to power, the treaty became one of its concerns. Egypt’s new parliament, in which half of the seats are controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood, has several times threatened to cancel the agreement.

Former Israeli Ambassador to Egypt Zvi Mazel has told RT that something is wrong in the parliament, if MPs from “a great country like Egypt” approve such statements.

“Israel is a friend of Egypt. We did nothing wrong to Egypt since the peace treaty was signed,” Mazel said.

The only reason for such statements, Mazel says, is “fanaticism and hatred.”“There is no other explanation to such a statement,” he said. “It is nonsense.”

Meanwhile, Egypt has brokered a ceasefire between Israel and the insurgent groups based in Gaza. It went into effect during the early hours on Tuesday.

But despite that, there were reports of continued shelling of Israel and retaliatory air strikes on the Gaza Strip.

During four days of violence, 25 Palestinians were killed and 200 rockets were fired at Israel. Twenty of those killed were militants and the other five civilians, according to medical officials. At least 80 Palestinians, mostly civilians, were reported wounded.

Egypt had earlier condemned Israel's attacks.

"We are against the Israeli attacks on Gaza, as they violate the settled cease-fire between the parties," said Egyptian Ambassador to the Palestinian Authority Yasser Othman on March 10.
‘Two-faced Egypt’

Yaakov Lappin, a journalist for the Jerusalem Post, believes the vote is a road sign for future relations between Israel and Egypt.

“The more Islamists take power in Egypt, the worse relations will get between the two countries because Islamists have never had an interest in peace and fruitful cooperation with Israel,” he noted in an interview with RT. “They’ve only been interested in damaging Israel, and actually seeking its destruction in their overall ideology.”

Lappin also sees the vote as an indicator of the political situation in Egypt itself.

“Egypt is speaking to us with two faces right now,” he said. “On the one hand, you have this growing Islamist political representation, which is causing relations to deteriorate, but on the other hand, you have the old guard, the military, the ruling Military Council, which still has control of all the important political decisions.”

The fact that the reins of power are still in the hands of the military means that the vote is symbolic – nothing practical is will probably come out of it, Lappin noted.

“This Military Council is interested in keeping relations with Israel as they are: good, fruitful relations,” he said. “These are the people who helped broker the ceasefire between Islamic Jihad and other terrorist organizations in Israel. These are the people interested in keeping the region on a footpath to stability.”

Lappin recalled that Israel was always against an abrupt transition from a dictatorial system to democracy, as it saw that as a path strewn with danger, and instead preferred a gradual process.

“And now we’ve seen that if you suddenly lift the lid in a country in which Islamists have been operating for decades, the Islamists are going to come to power,” he noted, speaking of Egypt. “It doesn’t spell good news for the short term.”

http://rt.com/news/egypt-israel-enemy-gaza-485/

The Flying Dutchman · Mar 15, 2012

momof23goats said:
well it looks like the war has started. O. isn't going to do a thing until after elections, well, then probably not much out side of country.
Looks like he is hanging Israel out to go it alone. IF he turns his back on Israel, that not only is a bad thing, but I don't think the Jewish people here will back him.
thanks Dutch and HouseCarl for all of your work.

Contrair Lady Mof23G;

The Israelis must, if they are going to attack Iran; they must do so before the Nov 6th elections.

OBO will have to militarially support Israel - or he will loose all chance of being re-elected!

*If Israel waits untill after the national election, "The Great O" will leave Israel hanging in the wind (so to speak).

TFD

=

The Flying Dutchman · Mar 15, 2012

=

Iran Drumbeat Watch:
Really Getting Ready for War?

By James Fallows
Mar 15 2012, 9:37 PM ET
http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...at-watch-really-getting-ready-for-war/254595/

A few days ago I argued that a U.S. strike against Iran would be a more reckless step than any modern President has taken, and therefore is unlikely -- and that the threatened Israeli strike would be so self-destructive of Israel's long-term interests that "even" PM Netanyahu was likely to hold back. One reader replied that a "psychological inversion" may have already occurred within the Israeli government, biasing policy toward attack; and the veteran war-gamer Sam Gardiner likened the situation to the irrational-but-nearly-irresistible drift toward disaster before World War I.

Now, readers on the evidence pro and con. First, a reader who studies the naval deployments:

It smells like rain to me. The Enterprise Strike Group has sailed, which will make 3 carrier groups on station with the 5th Fleet. Back in 2006-2007, Col. Gardiner repeatedly said that 3 carriers meant war... These deployments speak more loudly to me than anything else.

When the 3rd Army HQ deployed to Kuwait in early 2002, I knew war with Iraq was coming, as an Army HQ would only forward deploy if a big troop movement was planned. Carriers are more ambiguous but right now it looks like the Vinson, Lincoln, and Enterprise will be on station together from early April till mid to late June. Could be insurance against an Israeli strike but if so there's more in motion than is visible....

While I hope you're right, my gut says no. Hope it's wrong.

This reader also points to a Maariv report saying that a majority of the Netanyahu cabinet is now in favor of a strike -- and another analysis of naval deployments:

For years I've dismissed the topic of war with Iran. I just never thought it would happen....

Today [March 15], mentioned in passing in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee - without a word or question on the topic from any supposedly well informed Senators - Chief of Naval Operations Jonathan Greenert told the Senate committee that the US Navy is going to deploy 4 minesweepers to the Persian Gulf (which will double the number of US Navy Minesweepers in the Persian Gulf) and also send additional mine hunting helicopters to the region....

In other words, the Chief of Naval Operations announced to the Senate Armed Services Committee this morning specific details about preparations for war with Iran, and in response the Senators drooled on themselves in silent capitulation. The only thing missing from that scene from this mornings Twilight Zone moment in the Senate was the CNO knocking on the microphone asking "is this thing on" for dramatic effect.

Emphasis in original. For the record, one comment on that site offers another explanation:

This may not be a 'prelude to war' per se, but perhaps a response to a (perceived) Iranian mine threat; it's too easy for Iran to just claim it laid mines to rattle merchants and the (oil) market. Remember that it's election time in Iran.

We have to look for more signs besides those minesweepers if a strike (against nuclear facilities?) is on the horizon; additional USN escorts for protection against small boats and of course Iranian (midget) subs. Never mind additional (carrier) aviation assets to - if needed - destroy shore based anti-ship missiles.
Another reader cites this Haaretz report on Netanyahu's attempts to mobilize the Israeli public in support of an attack: "What looks like a preparation for war, acts like a preparation for war, and quacks like a preparation for war, is a preparation for war."

On the other hand, a reader in North Carolina returns to the central question of deterrence. The claim by Netanyahu et al that Israel faces a unique "existential" threat in the nuclear age -- different from the threat South Korea faces from the nuclear-armed North, Pakistan from India, the Soviet Union from the United States through the cold war, etc -- rests on the idea that Iran, uniquely, could not be deterred from a strike. The reader disagrees:

Here's what I can't help thinking about the whole issue of Israel and "existential threats" from Iran or other countries...

Israel has nuclear weapons, and is well aware that the surrounding Islamic countries would prefer that Israel did not exist.

Geography is of particular importance to Islamic faith--with a primary focus on Mecca of course.

It seems trivially obvious to me that if Israel is driven to the point of destruction by its Islamic neighbors, its final act will be a nuclear strike on the Islamic holy sites. And it seems likely that Israeli weapons are configured and located such that this final strike will be made no matter how quickly or thoroughly Israel is overwhelmed and destroyed by an attack.

If I can figure out this Israeli deterrence strategy from my armchair, I think it highly likely that the leadership of Iran, Syria, and every other country in that region has figured it out as well. It is hard for me to believe any of these countries would actually be willing to push Israel to the point of destruction knowing what that would entail.
After the jump, an academic argument that we may be examining the signs of war in the wrong way.

Ido Oren, of the University of Florida, says we should be paying attention to bureaucratic politics in the United States, Israel, and presumably also Iran:

While I fully agree that attacking Iran's nuclear facilities is a bad idea for both the United States and Israel, I wonder if the analytical perspective implicit in your analysis--portraying the United States (or Israel) as what International Relations scholars dub a "unitary rational actor"--is adequate to the task of determining the likelihood of a US military action.

I would argue that it is more useful to analyze US policy toward Iran as the result of a struggle within the US political system and federal bureaucracy between actors pulling for an active consideration of military strikes against Iran and actors pushing back against such action...

Why hasn't the US attacked Iran yet even as, since at least 2006, American officials have repeatedly portrayed the Iranian threat in all but apocalyptic terms and even as a chorus of pundits ranging from neocon Norman Podhoretz, through centrist David Broder, to liberal Amitai Etzioni have been openly calling on the US government to bomb Iran? The answer is that the political forces pulling for an aggressive stance toward Iran--VP Cheney's camp in the Bush White House, Congress, and AIPAC--have been outmaneuvered by the bureaucratic forces who opposed attacking Iran: the Department of State, the intelligence community and, most important, the Pentagon and the military's top brass.

The person who probably deserves most credit for preventing a military strike against Iran is former defense secretary Robert Gates, who ably led the loose bureaucratic coalition that pushed back against the military option. I offer a more detailed analysis of the matter here and here....

Notwithstanding Gates' departure, the lineup of the political-bureaucratic forces remains more or less the same. Pressures for an aggressive posture toward Iran continue to be channeled primarily through Capitol Hill, with AIPAC playing a key role in keeping the issue on the front burner, and with no significant organized pressure groups counteracting AIPAC's efforts (it is not accidental that the war drumbeat reached such fever pitch precisely at the time of AIPAC's recent annual conference--spikes in "bomb Iran" rhetoric similarly occurred in past springs around the time of that conference). And, as far as I can tell, the military brass, the intelligence community, and the diplomats remain opposed to military action. So long as these bureaucratic groups, especially the defense establishment, continue to push back against military responses to the Iranian nuclear program, the probability of an overt military strike remains low, if by no means zero...

[In Israel] the most vocal, persistent hawks have clearly been PM Netanyahu and defense minister Ehud Barak.... It seems that the Israeli intelligence community and top brass, like their US counterparts, have hardly embraced the military option. Meir Dagan, who stepped down from the leadership of the Mossad more than a year ago, pushed back against military strikes while in office, and he has been repeatedly speaking out against bombing Iran since leaving his post (including a recent appearance on 60 Minutes). The former chief of staff, Lt. General Gaby Ashkenazi, too, is widely believed to have been dovish on the Iranian issue, and there are indications that his successor, Lt. General Benny Gantz, is equally dovish....

To which I say: Good job, Robert Gates.

The Flying Dutchman · Mar 15, 2012

=

Thursday, March 15, 2012

Preparing for War

http://www.informationdissemination.net/2012/03/preparing-for-war.html

In chess, to achieve checkmate you must first position your pieces properly.

For years I've dismissed the topic of war with Iran. I just never thought it would happen, or at least knew we would see it coming so have repeatedly dismissed claims that war is near. We'll, this is the kind of movement I've been waiting to see happen before taking this too seriously as a legitimate possibility, rather than an implied one.

Today, mentioned in passing in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee - without a word or question on the topic from any supposedly well informed Senators - Chief of Naval Operations Jonathan Greenert told the Senate committee that the US Navy is going to deploy 4 minesweepers to the Persian Gulf (which will double the number of US Navy Minesweepers in the Persian Gulf) and also send additional mine hunting helicopters to the region. This comes following news earlier this year that the US Navy is working on the USS Ponce to deploy to the Persian Gulf to be a full time Mine Warfare Command Ship.

In other words, the Chief of Naval Operations announced to the Senate Armed Services Committee this morning specific details about preparations for war with Iran, and in response the Senators drooled on themselves in silent capitulation. The only thing missing from that scene from this mornings Twilight Zone moment in the Senate was the CNO knocking on the microphone asking "is this thing on" for dramatic effect.

When the CNO tells Senators in a public hearing that the Navy is deploying four little 1300 ton minesweepers to the other side of the world, in any context that can be described as the US Navy preparing for war with Iran. Deploying minesweepers to the Persian Gulf isn't like a typical 6 month deployment of a Navy warship, because some big commercial vessel will almost certainly be chartered to carry the ships across the ocean. This is a big deal.

This is also what a naval buildup for war against Iran looks like.

=

The Flying Dutchman · Mar 15, 2012

=

Iranians offer gloomy outlook of nuclear talks

By Thomas Erdbrink and Joby Warrick
Thursday, March 15, 8:22 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...2/03/09/gIQAiIMGFS_story.html?wprss=rss_world

TEHRAN — Prominent Iranian politicians and analysts are offering a gloomy assessment of upcoming nuclear talks with the United States and other world powers, insisting that Iran will not agree to any significant cuts to its nuclear program.

The elected officials and analysts — many of them close to Iran’s hard-line leadership — say it is highly unlikely that Iran would accept even a temporary halt in its production of enriched uranium, a key demand by Western countries during previous negotiations with the Islamic republic.

Some said recent economic sanctions and military threats have made Iranian leaders even more determined to continue enriching uranium, despite the worsening toll on Iran’s currency and oil industry.

“There will be no retreat whatsoever on our rights,” said Hossein Sheikholeslami, a former Iranian ambassador to Syria and once a leader of the student movement that took 52 U.S. Embassy workers hostage in 1979. “They impose unlawful sanctions on us, and now they want us to retreat. No way.”

It was not clear whether the assessments — made in interviews with a wide range of current and former politicians, diplomats and analysts — reflect the official view of Iranian leaders preparing to meet with negotiators from the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany. The six-country bloc agreed last month to an Iranian request to resume nuclear talks after a lull of 14 months.

Western officials also have played down expectations for the talks, which are not yet scheduled, although some suggested that the pessimism in Tehran could be a bargaining tactic. On Wednesday, Iranian officials dispatched a letter to the European Union reiterating the government’s desire for a diplomatic solution and asking that a date and a venue for the negotiations be set.

U.S. and European diplomats have been characterizing the talks as a modest first step that will mostly serve to demonstrate whether Iranian intentions are sincere.

“Maybe miracles happen,” a European diplomat said, insisting on anonymity in discussing his country’s position going into the talks, “but mostly we have to see if there is willingness by Iran to have a serious discussion of nuclear issues.”

Since agreeing to talks, Iranian leaders have publicly adopted a tough line on the subject of uranium enrichment. In a televised address last month, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, declared that possessing nuclear weapons was “a sin,” but he also vowed that Iran would not be forced to waive its legal right to a civilian nuclear energy program.

“Pressures, sanctions and assassinations will bear no fruit,” Khamenei said. “No obstacles can stop Iran’s nuclear work.”

The rhetoric adds to the predicament facing the Obama administration. In the past, the administration has backed compromises intended to effectively end Iran’s ability to convert uranium into weapons fuel while allowing Iran to save face by claiming that it reserves the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. A compromise in 2009, for example, called on Iran to surrender nearly its entire stockpile of low-enriched uranium in exchange for nuclear fuel rods for Iran’s aging medical research reactor.

The White House has not yet staked out a position for the upcoming talks with Iran. Dennis Ross, who until last year was one of the administration’s top advisers on Iran, said any long-term deal with Iran would almost certainly need to include a suspension of uranium enrichment. But he also held out the possibility of short-term “confidence-building” measures that would effectively freeze Iran’s progress toward a nuclear-weapons capability.

One such measure, Ross said, might be an Iranian agreement to immediately halt production of a purer form of enriched uranium that can be quickly converted to weapons-grade. U.N. inspectors last month confirmed that Iran had recently tripled its production of “20 percent-enriched” uranium, a purer form of nuclear fuel than the 3.5 percent-enriched uranium generally used in nuclear power plants.

“One thing you try to do is stop the clock,” Ross said. “Getting a whole deal would be best, but if you can’t get the whole deal, you might at least get something that builds confidence and stops the clock.”

But even such interim measures can pose risks for a White House that is trying to delay a threatened Israeli military attack on Iran’s nuclear sites while fending off criticism from Republican presidential candidates who accuse the administration of being soft on Iran.

President Obama has sought to use a combination of diplomacy and economic and political pressure to force Iran to accept negotiated limits to its nuclear program. Obama has said he will never allow Iran to become a nuclear power, and he has left open the possibility of a military strike if other approaches fail.

On Thursday, European officials took a new step to isolate Iran economically, announcing that Iranian banks were being excluded from the international financial messaging network known as SWIFT. The Belgium-based electronic-payment system confirmed in a statement that Iranian institutions would be shut out of the system beginning Saturday.

The move adds to pressure from multiple rounds of sanctions and a European oil embargo set to begin in July. Iranian politicians have acknowledged the impact of the measures as Iranian companies are increasingly limited in what they can buy and sell on the international market. Yet, in the face of the collapse of Iran’s currency and increased fears of war, Iran’s top leaders have sought to rally the nation.

“We should not give in but resist sanctions and pressure by the enemies over the nuclear program,” President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said during a meeting with visiting Zimbabwean Defense Minister Emmerson Mnangagwa. “We will not only prevail but eventually turn these pressures into new opportunities for further development and progress.”

=

The Flying Dutchman · Mar 15, 2012

=

22:03 15.03.12

Top Iran official:
All options on the table if nuclear facilities attacked

In interview to CNN, top advisor to Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei plays down Ahmadinejad's
remark on wiping Israel 'off the map,' saying the Iranian President did not mean it in a military sense.

By Haaretz
http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-...table-if-nuclear-facilities-attacked-1.418936

All options are on the table in regards to an Iranian response to a possible attack on its nuclear facilities, a top advisor to Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said in a interview published on Thursday, adding that Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does not want to "wipe Israel off the map" in a military sense.

Speaking to CNN's Christiane Amanpour, Mohammad Javad Larijani indicated that Iran does not exclude the possibility of blocking the Strait of Hormuz in response to an attack, nor would it exclude a missile strike on Israel.

"Here I want to copy the wording of [U.S.] President [Barack] Obama," Larijani said, adding: "Every possibility is on the table."

The top Iranian official also referred to the recently cited comment by Ahmadinejad, in which he stated Israel must be "wiped off the map," saying that the remark was "definitely not" meant in a military sense and that such a move was not "a policy of Iran."

Larijani criticized the West for what he said were sanctions "beyond being unfair," adding that they could not stop Iran's nuclear progress. "Does it stop Iran's capability for developing its nuclear facilities for peaceful means?" the Iranian official asked. "Definitely not. So it is a failure."

In his interview to CNN, Larijani also referred to the attempts to restart nuclear talks between Iran and the West concerning the country's contentious nuclear program, offering to be more transparent regarding Tehran's nuclear activities in exchange for what he called "cooperation" from western states.

"If the western community is asking us for more transparency, then we should expect more cooperation," Khamenei's adviser said, adding that the "equation is simple. The Western community can ask us for more transparency. What we want in place of that is cooperation."

Speaking of the Parchin military base near Tehran, which diplomatic sources indicated could be the site of suspicious nuclear tests, Larijani said that the "Parchin issue is a recurring issue."

"Once it has been discussed, a lot of evidence was given to the agency, but still with the new request Iran did not reject it," the Iranian official said. "Iran asked elucidation on what basis, what kind of test they want to do, where they want to look and what will be the end result."

Ultimately, Iran is willing to allow "full transparency" of its nuclear program with "permanent human monitoring," he said, conditioning such a move on the West allowing Iran all the rights accorded to it under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which it is signatory.

=

Be Well · Mar 15, 2012

A thought occurred to me today. Perhaps when Netanyahu met with 0bastard recently (and the Ulsterman Wall Street Insider interview talked about this meeting and did not divulge something that he considered very important), Netanyahu told 0bastard what they know of his real identity and background. There is no doubt in my mind that Israeli intel knows a great deal about who 0bastard really is (as do the intel of many countries, no doubt).

Just a thought...

The Flying Dutchman · Mar 15, 2012

=

Salehi:
If Israel strikes Iran, it will meet its end

By JPOST.COM STAFF
03/15/2012 20:42

Iran's foreign minister stresses that an Israeli military
strike on nuclear sites in Iran would elicit a "full force" response.

By REUTERS
http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=262062

If Israel decides to conduct a military strike on nuclear sites in Iran, it will be the end of the Jewish state, said Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbhar Salehi on Thursday.

“If Israel ever, ever makes this mistake, that will set the time for the end of Israel. The Israelis are well aware of this,” said Salehi, during an interview with Danish television TV2.

The Iranian foreign minister stressed that in the case of an Israeli attack on Iran, the Islamic Republic "will be responding very forcefully."

Earlier Thursday, the Iranian foreign minister met with Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar in Iran, who expressed his full support for the Palestinian cause and condemned the "dastard atrocities of the Zionist regime, " Iranian state-run news agency IRNA reported. Zahar was in Iran, meeting with leaders to gather support following a weekend of military exchanges with Israel, according to the report.

Salehi told Zahar that the recent Israeli air strikes in Gaza were a sign of Israel's weakness.

“We are quite confident that the Palestinians will win the struggle,” Salehi said.

According to IRNA, Zahar praised and thanked Iran for its support.

On Wednesday, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said Iran is the primary actor responsible for escalations in the Gaza Strip. "Gaza is Iran," the prime minister told a special Knesset session in which he was obligated to speak.

Connecting the recent round of violence in Gaza and the Iranian nuclear threat, Netanyahu said he is not prepared to accept a situation in which the country, which backs terrorist groups, becomes a nuclear power.

Rocket attacks on Israel renewed on Thursday after IAF warplanes targeted a rocket launching site and a smuggling tunnel in the southern Gaza Strip overnight Wednesday. Palestinians did not report casualties in those strikes.

The IAF attacks were in response to two Grad-model Katyusha rockets that terrorists in Gaza fired towards Beersheba.

=

The Flying Dutchman · Mar 15, 2012

=

US Navy "Setting The Theater" For Iran War

http://agonist.org/steve_hynd/20120315/us_navy_setting_the_theater_for_iran_war

Galrhan at Information Dissemination has the details of a
worrisome move in the midst of escalating tensions in the Gulf.

Today, mentioned in passing in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee - without a word or question on the topic from any supposedly well informed Senators - Chief of Naval Operations Jonathan Greenert told the Senate committee that the US Navy is going to deploy 4 minesweepers to the Persian Gulf (which will double the number of US Navy Minesweepers in the Persian Gulf) and also send additional mine hunting helicopters to the region. This comes following news earlier this year that the US Navy is working on the USS Ponce to deploy to the Persian Gulf to be a full time Mine Warfare Command Ship.

In other words, the Chief of Naval Operations announced to the Senate Armed Services Committee this morning specific details about preparations for war with Iran, and in response the Senators drooled on themselves in silent capitulation. The only thing missing from that scene from this mornings Twilight Zone moment in the Senate was the CNO knocking on the microphone asking "is this thing on" for dramatic effect.

When the CNO tells Senators in a public hearing that the Navy is deploying four little 1300 ton minesweepers to the other side of the world, in any context that can be described as the US Navy preparing for war with Iran. Deploying minesweepers to the Persian Gulf isn't like a typical 6 month deployment of a Navy warship, because some big commercial vessel will almost certainly be chartered to carry the ships across the ocean. This is a big deal.

This is also what a naval buildup for war against Iran looks like.

Admiral Greenert actually calls it a way of "setting the theater" to better counter the threat posed by Iran. Given that the WSJ reports today that there are 42 US Navy vessels already in the Gulf and the Enterprise carrier group is on its way, while the Sixth Fleet is off the Syrian coast, that's a lot of setting.

=

The Flying Dutchman · Mar 15, 2012

=

Netanyahu's speech to MPs prepares for attack on Iran

Catrina Stewart Friday 16 March 2012
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-mps-prepares-for-attack-on-iran-7574469.html

Israeli commentators speculated yesterday that the country's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is preparing the public for war against Iran after he delivered his most decisive speech yet on the nuclear threat posed by its arch foe.

Just over a week after returning apparently empty-handed from Washington, where he tried to enlist US support for a pre-emptive strike, Mr Netanyahu appeared to hint that he might strike Iran's nuclear facilities even without backing from the US, potentially signalling a decision to attack within weeks or months.

"Israel has never left its fate to others, not even the best of its friends," Mr Netanyahu told Israel's parliament, the Knesset, citing occasions when Israel acted against US wishes. Israeli newspaper Maariv reported that Cabinet ministers said privately that the address "sounded like a preparatory speech for an attack".

The speech coincided with reports that Israel's Cabinet is arranged eight to six in favour of a pre-emptive strike on Iran, even without Washington's open support. It is a shift that could prove decisive in swaying Mr Netanyahu's decision on whether to defy international calls for restraint to allow time for sanctions to work.

Linking recent rocket attacks on Israel by Gaza-based militants, Mr Netanyahu said he could not tolerate a situation where terrorist groups are backed by a nuclear power.

"I hope that the whole world today understands that the terrorist organisations in Gaza – Hamas and Islamic Jihad – and also Hezbollah in Lebanon, are sheltered by the Iranian umbrella," he said. "Can you imagine what would happen if that umbrella was nuclear?"

=

almost ready · Mar 15, 2012

Thank you again, Dutch, for doing this difficult job of being historian of this period. Nobody has a better collection of pertinent facts that are public knowledge than TB2K.

The Flying Dutchman · Mar 15, 2012

=

Ladies and Gentlemen;

I have sometimes wonder what I would say, and yes. How I would say it, when "THe Rubicon" was crossed. And that the point, from which there is no going back would have been reached.

Alas! From the 'new tenor' of this night's hard news articles. I must say that I can come no closer,time-wise, then I am at this hour tonight, to saying that "folks! The excretment is going to hit the fan!"

The Rubicon has been crossed! And with out the Lord's help and guidance; there will be another war in the Middle East. But this time,I fear, it will affect us all here at home.

The time it will begin? in reality that war has already begun; we will 'see' the main event unexpectantly for no man knows the day nor hour. But we 'do now' that the season has arrived upon us...

The Flying Dutchman

=

Michael111 · Mar 15, 2012

Dutch, I fear you are correct my friend!!! G-d bless you for your work here!!!

G-d bless us and watch over all of us!!!

Ladies and Gentlemen;

I have sometimes wonder what I would say, and yes. How I would say it, when "THe Rubicon" was crossed. And that the point, from which there is no going back would have been reached.

Alas! From the 'new tenor' of this night's hard news articles. I must say that I can come no closer,time-wise, then I am at this hour tonight, to saying that "folks! The excretment is going to hit the fan!"

The Rubicon has been crossed! And with out the Lord's help and guidance; there will be another war in the Middle East. But this time,I fear, it will affect us all here at home.

The time it will begin? in reality that war has already begun; we will 'see' the main event unexpectantly for no man knows the day nor hour. But we 'do now' that the season has arrived upon us...

The Flying Dutchman

=[/QUOTE]

Be Well · Mar 15, 2012

Thank you for your vigilance, and to Housecarl and all others as well.

Sure seems that any morning we'll wake up, check TB2, and It will have started in earnest.

WAR 03/15 to 03/21 ***The***Winds***of***WAR***

Deceased

Deceased

Deceased

Deceased

Deceased

Deceased

Deceased

Deceased

Deceased

Deceased

Deceased

Deceased

Deceased

Deceased

Has No Life - Lives on TB

Has No Life - Lives on TB

Deceased

Veteran Member

Deceased

Deceased

Deceased

Deceased

Deceased

Deceased

Has No Life - Lives on TB

Deceased

Inactive

Deceased

Deceased

Deceased

Deceased

Deceased

may all be well

Deceased

Deceased

Deceased

Inactive

Deceased

Membership Revoked

may all be well

WAR 03/15 to 03/21 TheWindsofWAR***