Looking for His glorious appearing! Titus 2:13

Administrative Area

login

password

Time: U.S. to Call Arab Bluff and Force Abbas to Talk
Sep 15th, 2009
Daily NewsArutz Sheva - Tzvi Ben Gadalyahu
Categories: Today's Headlines;Peace Process

 
The Obama administration will use the “Iranian card” to help call the “Arab bluff” and force Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas to resume suspended discussions with Israel towards establishing a new Arab state within Israel’s current borders, TIME magazine predicts.

Abbas has repeatedly stated he will not talk with Israel unless the Jewish State freezes all construction for Jews in eastern Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has taken the almost unprecedented step of agreeing to a partial freeze, a rare move in the history of the modern Jewish State that always has encouraged Jews to develop the country.

However, political pressures from within his own Likud party and from most coalition parties have influenced him to exclude eastern Jerusalem from the freeze and to allow the construction of 2,500 residential units that already have been started.

“If the Obama Administration accepts Israel's partial settlement freeze, it will be hard for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to refuse to talk,” TIME magazine wrote in its current issue.

U.S. Middle East envoy George Mitchell is to sit down with Prime Minister Netanyahu on Tuesday to iron out a path that both sides accept. The Prime Minister told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Security Committee on Monday that the freeze will be temporary, but that the United States and Israel have not reached an agreement on when a thaw can take place.

Even Robert Malley, who was an unofficial campaign advisor to U.S. President Barack Obama last year and in the past has met regularly with Hamas terrorist leaders, said that Abbas will cave in. "This has become a losing game and it's time to move on to final status, the thing that matters most," Malley told TIME.

What matters most to the PA is a new Arab state on its terms, but the Arab world, which vocally backs Abbas, also is concerned with Iran. President Obama’s aides previously toyed with Israel that if did not agree with Washington’s demands on a building freeze, the U.S. would continue to be “soft” on Iran’s growing nuclear threat. That card now has turned in the other direction “because Arab regimes have as much to fear from a nuclear armed Iran as does the U.S.,” the magazine added.

The next step before a formal resumption of talks between Israel and the PA is a proposed meeting between Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Obama and Abbas at the United Nations this month.

Renewed official talks would mark the resumption of a long and drawn out process, but also would be only the first step towards the critical issues of the status of Jerusalem and Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, and the Arab demand that millions of foreign Arabs be allowed to immigrate to Israel.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has said he would not resume negotiations with Abbas unless the PA recognizes Israel as a "Jewish state,” a definition that would effectively preclude the idea of flooding the country with Arabs.

Syria Storing Heavy Weapons Caches Near Border With Israel in Preparation for Future Conflict
Sep 15th, 2009
Daily Newsworldtribune.com
Categories: Commentary;Warning;War

Israel has learned that the Syrian military was preparing massive weapons caches near the border with Israel.

Officials said the Israeli military has detected Syrian deployment of heavy weapons near the southern border with the Jewish state. They said the Syrian Army was using civilian assets to conceal the rearmament operation.
"They are using civilian trucks to bring weapons near the border," Ground Forces Command chief Maj. Gen. Avi Mizrachi said.

In an address to a military conference on Sept. 2, Mizrachi said the Syrian Army was storing massive amounts of weapons in villages near the Israeli border. He said unmarked trucks were transporting a range of weapons to villages in the Golan Heights. 

"This is why we need to split up our capabilities between a conventional war scenario to one that we are fighting against a non-conventional force," Mizrachi said.

Over the last year, Israeli military sources have reported Syrian deployment of troops and heavy weapons in southern Syria near the Israeli border. The sources said Syrian troops, disguised as civilian police, have established positions in dozens of villages as part of an effort to prepare for a future war with Israel.

"The Syrians have learned from [the Iranian-sponsored] Hizbullah on how to use a civilian shield," a senior officer said. "We expect Syria to do the same thing in any next war."

On Sept. 9, the Israel Army's Northern Command held a major exercise along the border of Lebanon and Syria that combined air, ground and naval forces. Officials said the exercise sought to determine interoperability amid a range of attack scenarios.

In his address to the Latrun Conference on Maneuver in Complex Terrain, co-sponsored by the U.S. Joint Forces Command, Mizrachi, appointed the next head of Central Command, said Israel faced a more dangerous adversaries, particularly Syria. He said the next war would require massive numbers of ground forces.

"A war cannot be won without moving forces on the ground," Mizrachi said. "Even today there are people who believe that it is sufficient to threaten to use the forces but in the Middle East this is not enough. Only a ground maneuver will end the conflict and win the war."

Revealed: the Ghost Fleet of the Recession
Sep 15th, 2009
Daily NewsMail on line - Simon Parry
Categories: Today's Headlines;Commentary

The biggest and most secretive gathering of ships in maritime history lies at anchor east of Singapore. Never before photographed, it is bigger than the U.S. and British navies combined but has no crew, no cargo and no destination  -  and is why your Christmas stocking may be on the light side this year

The 'ghost fleet' near Singapore. The world's ship owners and government economists would prefer you not to see this symbol of the depths of the plague still crippling the world's economies

The tropical waters that lap the jungle shores of southern Malaysia could not be described as a paradisical shimmering turquoise. They are more of a dark, soupy green. They also carry a suspicious smell. Not that this is of any concern to the lone Indian face that has just peeped anxiously down at me from the rusting deck of a towering container ship; he is more disturbed by the fact that I may be a pirate, which, right now, on top of everything else, is the last thing he needs.

His appearance, in a peaked cap and uniform, seems rather odd; an officer without a crew. But there is something slightly odder about the vast distance between my jolly boat and his lofty position, which I can't immediately put my finger on.

Then I have it - his 750ft-long merchant vessel is standing absurdly high in the water. The low waves don't even bother the lowest mark on its Plimsoll line. It's the same with all the ships parked here, and there are a lot of them. Close to 500. An armada of freighters with no cargo, no crew, and without a destination between them.

My ramshackle wooden fishing boat has floated perilously close to this giant sheet of steel. But the face is clearly more scared of me than I am of him. He shoos me away and scurries back into the vastness of his ship. His footsteps leave an echo behind them.

Navigating a precarious course around the hull of this Panama-registered hulk, I reach its bow and notice something else extraordinary. It is tied side by side to a container ship of almost the same size. The mighty sister ship sits empty, high in the water again, with apparently only the sailor and a few lengths of rope for company.

Nearby, as we meander in searing midday heat and dripping humidity between the hulls of the silent armada, a young European officer peers at us from the bridge of an oil tanker owned by the world's biggest container shipping line, Maersk. We circle and ask to go on board, but are waved away by two Indian crewmen who appear to be the only other people on the ship.

'They are telling us to go away,' the boat driver explains. 'No one is supposed to be here. They are very frightened of pirates.'

Here, on a sleepy stretch of shoreline at the far end of Asia, is surely the biggest and most secretive gathering of ships in maritime history. Their numbers are equivalent to the entire British and American navies combined; their tonnage is far greater. Container ships, bulk carriers, oil tankers - all should be steaming fully laden between China, Britain, Europe and the US, stocking camera shops, PC Worlds and Argos depots ahead of the retail pandemonium of 2009. But their water has been stolen.

They are a powerful and tangible representation of the hurricanes that have been wrought by the global economic crisis; an iron curtain drawn along the coastline of the southern edge of Malaysia's rural Johor state, 50 miles east of Singapore harbour.

It is so far off the beaten track that nobody ever really comes close, which is why these ships are here. The world's ship owners and government economists would prefer you not to see this symbol of the depths of the plague still crippling the world's economies.

So they have been quietly retired to this equatorial backwater, to be maintained only by a handful of bored sailors. The skeleton crews are left alone to fend off the ever-present threats of piracy and collisions in the congested waters as the hulls gather rust and seaweed at what should be their busiest time of year.

Local fisherman Ah Wat, 42, who for more than 20 years has made a living fishing for prawns from his home in Sungai Rengit, says: 'Before, there was nothing out there - just sea. Then the big ships just suddenly came one day, and every day there are more of them.

'Some of them stay for a few weeks and then go away. But most of them just stay. You used to look Christmas from here straight over to Indonesia and see nothing but a few passing boats. Now you can no longer see the horizon.'

The size of the idle fleet becomes more palpable when the ships' lights are switched on after sunset. From the small fishing villages that dot the coastline, a seemingly endless blaze of light stretches from one end of the horizon to another. Standing in the darkness among the palm trees and bamboo huts, as calls to prayer ring out from mosques further inland, is a surreal and strangely disorientating experience. It makes you feel as if you are adrift on a dark sea, staring at a city of light.

Ah Wat says: 'We don't understand why they are here. There are so many ships but no one seems to be on board. When we sail past them in our fishing boats we never see anyone. They are like real ghost ships and some people are scared of them. They believe they may bring a curse with them and that there may be bad spirits on the ships.'

Two container ships tied together in southern Malaysia, waiting for the next charter

As daylight creeps across the waters, flags of convenience from destinations such as Panama and the Bahamas become visible. In reality, though, these vessels belong to some of the world's biggest Western shipping companies. And the sickness that has ravaged them began far away - in London, where the industry's heart beats, and where the plummeting profits and hugely reduced cargo prices are most keenly felt.

The Aframax-class oil tanker is the camel of the world's high seas. By definition, it is smaller than 132,000 tons deadweight and with a breadth above 106ft. It is used in the basins of the Black Sea, the North Sea, the Caribbean Sea, the China Sea and the Mediterranean - or anywhere where non-OPEC exporting countries have harbours and canals too small to accommodate very large crude carriers (VLCC) or ultra-large crude carriers (ULCCs). The term is based on the Average Freight Rate Assessment (AFRA) tanker rate system and is an industry standard.

Obama is Pushing Israel Toward War
Sep 15th, 2009
Daily NewsWall Street Journal
Categories: Today's Headlines;Commentary;Warning

President Obama can't outsource matters of war and peace to another state.

Events are fast pushing Israel toward a pre-emptive military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, probably by next spring. That strike could well fail. Or it could succeed at the price of oil at $300 a barrel, a Middle East war, and American servicemen caught in between. So why is the Obama administration doing everything it can to speed the war process along?

At July's G-8 summit in Italy, Iran was given a September deadline to start negotiations over its nuclear programs. Last week, Iran gave its answer: No.

Instead, what Tehran offered was a five-page document that was the diplomatic equivalent of a giant kiss-off. It begins by lamenting the "ungodly ways of thinking prevailing in global relations" and proceeds to offer comprehensive talks on a variety of subjects: democracy, human rights, disarmament, terrorism, "respect for the rights of nations," and other areas where Iran is a paragon. Conspicuously absent from the document is any mention of Iran's nuclear program, now at the so-called breakout point, which both Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his boss Ali Khamenei insist is not up for discussion.

What's an American president to do in the face of this nonstarter of a document? What else, but pretend it isn't a nonstarter. Talks begin Oct. 1.

All this only helps persuade Israel's skittish leadership that when President Obama calls a nuclear-armed Iran "unacceptable," he means it approximately in the same way a parent does when fecklessly reprimanding his misbehaving teenager. That impression is strengthened by Mr. Obama's decision to drop Iran from the agenda when he chairs a meeting of the U.N. Security Council on Sept. 24; by Defense Secretary Robert Gates publicly opposing military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities; and by Russia's announcement that it will not support any further sanctions on Iran.

In sum, the conclusion among Israelis is that the Obama administration won't lift a finger to stop Iran, much less will the "international community." So Israel has pursued a different strategy, in effect seeking to goad the U.S. into stopping, or at least delaying, an Israeli attack by imposing stiff sanctions and perhaps even launching military strikes of its own.

Thus, unlike Israel's air strike against Iraq's reactor in 1981 or Syria's in 2007, both of which were planned in the utmost secrecy, the Israelis have gone out of their way to advertise their fears, purposes and capabilities. They have sent warships through the Suez Canal in broad daylight and conducted widely publicized air-combat exercises at long range. They have also been unusually forthcoming in their briefings with reporters, expressing confidence at every turn that Israel can get the job done.

The problem, however, is that the administration isn't taking the bait, and one has to wonder why. Perhaps it thinks its diplomacy will work, or that it has the luxury of time, or that it can talk the Israelis out of attacking. Alternatively, it might actually want Israel to attack without inviting the perception that it has colluded with it. Or maybe it isn't really paying attention.

But Israel is paying attention. And the longer the U.S. delays playing hardball with Iran, the sooner Israel is likely to strike. A report published today by the Bipartisan Policy Center, and signed by Democrat Chuck Robb, Republican Dan Coats, and retired Gen. Charles Ward, notes that by next year Iran will "be able to produce a weapon's worth of highly enriched uranium . . . in less than two months." No less critical in determining Israel's timetable is the anticipated delivery to Iran of Russian S-300 anti-aircraft batteries: Israel will almost certainly strike before those deliveries are made, no matter whether an Iranian bomb is two months or two years away.

Such a strike may well be in Israel's best interests, though that depends entirely on whether the strike succeeds. It is certainly in America's supreme interest that Iran not acquire a genuine nuclear capability, whether of the actual or break-out variety. That goes also for the Middle East generally, which doesn't need the nuclear arms race an Iranian capability would inevitably provoke.

Then again, it is not in the U.S. interest that Israel be the instrument of Iran's disarmament. For starters, its ability to do so is iffy: Israeli strategists are quietly putting it about that even a successful attack may have to be repeated a few years down the road as Iran reconstitutes its capacity. For another thing, Iran could respond to such a strike not only against Israel itself, but also U.S targets in Iraq and the Persian Gulf.

But most importantly, it is an abdication of a superpower's responsibility to outsource matters of war and peace to another state, however closely allied. President Obama has now ceded the driver's seat on Iran policy to Prime Minister Netanyahu. He would do better to take the wheel again, keeping in mind that Iran is beyond the reach of his eloquence, and keeping in mind, too, that very useful Roman adage, Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Netanyahu: Settlement Freeze Does not Include Jerusalem
Sep 15th, 2009
Daily NewsIsrael Today
Categories: Today's Headlines;The Nation Of Israel;Peace Process

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with visiting US envoy George Mitchell on Tuesday in what was described as a "last ditch" effort by the American to convince Israel to implement a full settlement freeze.

The Obama Administration hopes to coordinate a three-way meeting with Netanyahu and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas on the sidelines of next week's UN General Assembly.

But a day earlier, Netanyahu told the Knesset that he will not agree to US and Arab demands for a full settlement freeze. In particular, Netanyahu said that the limited freeze on Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria that he has proposed does not include those parts of Jerusalem claimed by the Palestinians.

Netanyahu reiterated to Mitchell that what he is ready to do is halt approval for all new construction in Judea and Samaria, excluding Jerusalem, for a period of six months. Some 2,500 housing units on which construction has already begun will be completed.

Netanyahu sees the limited freeze as a test case to determine if the Palestinians are finally ready to honor their peace commitments.

But ahead of his own meeting with Mitchell on Tuesday, Abbas declared that he would only meet with Netanyahu if the latter agreed to a total and permanent halt to the building of Jewish homes in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem.

Jewish worshippers celebrate the anniversary of creation as they countdown to the new year
Sep 15th, 2009
News UpdateJimmy DeYoung
Categories: Jimmy DeYoung News

Thousands of Jews gathered at the Western Wall in Jerusalem in the wee hours of the morning to pray for peace and to mark the anniversary of the first day of creation 5770 years ago as they also prepare to mark the Jewish new year on Rosh Hashana later this week. The Jewish holy day of Rosh Hashana, the Jewish new year, is actually celebrated on the 6th day of creation when God created man and woman, Adam and Eve, and it is from that point that the Jewish calendar begins its countdown to the time of the Jewish messiah when peace will reign throughout the world.

The events that took place on the 25th day of the Hebrew month of Elul, its Jewish date, the creation of existence, time, matter, darkness, and light are recounted for the generations in the very first chapter of the Bible in the book of Genesis.

Jimmy's Prophetic Prospective on the News

As religious Jews celebrate the creation account in their countdown to the Jewish new year, a student of the Bible can learn much about the past and the future - according to Bible prophecy.

On the Jewish feast day of Rosh Hashana Jews not only celebrate the the first of the Fall feast days, but they mark the day God created man and woman, Adam and Eve. This Jewish new year will be 5770 meaning that God created man less than 6000 years ago, not billions of years ago as so-called modern-day science tells us. This Jewish celebration is in the face of secular humanists as well as some Christians that want to place creation millions of years ago.

The apostle Peter wrote just before his death that in the last days there would be those who denied the truth found in Genesis 1 of the account of creation (II Peter 3:5). The student of the Bible cannot deny the young Earth creation account in Genesis 1 as literal if they are ready to accept the literal account of the prophetic events found in the Bible. Peter wrote that Christians and non-Christians will deny the Lord's soon return and the creation account because they are walking after their own lusts (II Peter 3:3-5).

As the Jews celebrate the six day creation account in Genesis 1, it should remind us that Bible prophecy will be fulfilled.

Israeli Police Minister Wants to Tighten Grip on Jerusalem
Sep 15th, 2009
Daily NewsIsrael Today
Categories: Today's Headlines;The Nation Of Israel

In his ministerial policy statement for the 2009, Israeli Public Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch called for police to increase their presence in and service to the eastern neighborhoods of Jerusalem in order to solidify Israel's sovereignty over its capital.

Aharonovitch wrote that he wanted to boost law enforcement in Arab parts of Jerusalem in order to "to increase the feeling of identification with the state and its symbols of authority, and to increase state sovereignty in those areas."

He urged police to improve relationships with community leaders in Arab neighborhoods, and to even encourage more local Arab residents to join the civil guard.

Arab public figures regularly complain that Israel does not provide enough law enforcement and other services in Arab areas, but then cry foul when Israel does impose its authority.

Is Another 9/11 Set to Unfold? No, Something Much Worse Say Experts
Sep 15th, 2009
Commentarydeseretnews.com
Categories: Commentary;Warning

Earlier this year, quite by happenstance, I read a book written by Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter James B. Stewart.

"Heart of a Soldier" tells the story of two men who, well before it happened, foretold not only of the terrorist attack of 9/11 but also the 1993 bombing in the World Trade Center parking garage that preceded it.

One of the men, Rick Rescorla, was chief of security for Morgan Stanley with an office in the World Trade Center. He died on 9/11, but not before he shepherded all but six of Morgan Stanley's 2,700 employees to safety because of a well-prepared and well-executed evacuation plan. He'd have made it out, too, had he not gone back in the building looking for those six.

The other man, Daniel J. Hill, is still alive.

With another Sept. 11 approaching I wanted to talk to The Man Who Predicted 9/11.

Although the primary focus in Stewart's book is on Rescorla — a bona fide hero for his actions on 9/11 — I found Hill to be an even more fascinating character.

It was Hill who converted to Islam as a young U.S. Army paratrooper stationed in Beirut in 1958. It was Hill who learned fluent Arabic. It was Hill who joined the Mujahedeen Freedom Fighters in Afghanistan and fought the Soviet invasion there in the 1980s. It was Hill who personally met Osama bin Laden. It was Hill who used information from Islamic extremists to warn Rescorla that terrorists would use the underground parking garage for a car bomb attack on the World Trade Center. It was Hill who asked the U.S. government to assist him in an assassination attempt on bin Laden in 1998 (the request was rejected). And it was Hill who warned the FBI just weeks before Sept. 11, 2001, that his Mideast contacts told him "something big" was about to happen in the United States, in New York, Washington, D.C., or Philadelphia — maybe all three.

Through the Internet I managed to contact Hill at his home in Florida. He's 71 now. I asked him if his reputation as a terrorism prognosticator without parallel has changed his life much.

"Oh, that blew over pretty fast," he said. "Most of the people even in my hometown don't know any of that stuff."

He didn't want to talk about the past. He wanted to talk about the future.

The very near future.

The man who predicted 9/11 is worried that its sequel is imminent.

"Muslims that I talk to say things like, 'America thinks they're safe now. They've forgotten about 9/11. But watch, Daniel. Stay near your TV. It's going to be bigger than 9/11,'" he said.

Hill said the next terrorist attack will involve suitcase nuclear bombs that will be detonated in small, low-flying two-seater private airplanes manned by men hanging onto the belief that, like the 9/11 hijackers, they are about to die as martyrs and enter paradise.

He is not alone in suggesting such a scenario. A 2007 book, "The Day of Islam," spells out the details, as do any number of Internet sites about a plot called "American Hiroshima."

The nukes, he said, will be detonated over New York, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Miami, Houston, Las Vegas and Los Angeles.

I asked Hill, "Why now?"

"Eight years from 1993 to 2001, eight years from that 9/11 to this 9/11," he said. "Symbolism. They're big on symbolism."

"Ramadan started two weeks ago Saturday," he said, referring to the Muslim holy month of fasting. "It always hits around Ramadan."

Eight years ago, Hill predicted the attack would come on Oct. 16 — almost in the middle of that year's Ramadan (the timing of Ramadan varies from year to year). He was about a month off.

"I don't know the second, hour or day. I just know they have the means, will, motivation and desire to do it," he said, noting that it's believed that years ago the suitcase nukes, acquired from former USSR operatives, were smuggled into America across the Mexican border.

Hill said he has warned the FBI, the CIA and others in government. For the past two years, he's sent out proposals for a book on the subject. All he's gotten back are rejections.

"To most people, I am a deviant personality," he said.

But there's no arguing his credentials.

"I'm a Muslim," he says. "I'm a special ops expert, I'm a terrorist and I've lived among Muslims. I fought the Russians with the same guys we're now fighting in Afghanistan. I met Osama. I volunteered to assassinate him. I know (the enemy) so well because I've worked, slept and prayed alongside them for years. I've become one of them. I know their nature, I know their culture, I know how they think. I can quote the Koran like a Southern Baptist minister can quote the New Testament. I know these are people who do not tire, who do not quit. There are odds this won't happen, but they aren't big odds."

"I hope you're wrong," I told him.

"Yeah. I hope so, too," he said.

Clock is Ticking for Iran As Israel Appears Ready for Strike
Sep 15th, 2009
Daily Newshaaretz.com
Categories: Commentary;Warning

In the rare moments when it's not preoccupied with the decline of U.S. President Barack Obama in the polls and with the debate over its government's proposed health-care reforms, the American press continues to deal almost obsessively with another pressing issue: the deadlock in efforts to stop Iran's nuclear program and the growing likelihood that the endgame will be an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. 

In the past few weeks alone, an editorial in The Wall Street Journal warned the president that the United States must put a quick halt to the Iranian nuclear program, because otherwise Israel will bomb the facilities. 

"An Israeli strike on Iran would be the most dangerous foreign policy issue President Obama could face," the paper wrote. 

Former vice president Dick Cheney revealed that while in office he supported an American strike against Iran, but was compelled to accept the approach of president George W. Bush, who preferred the diplomatic route. 

Another Republican ultra-hawk, former ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, maintains that additional sanctions alone will not be enough to make the Iranians abandon their nuclear ambitions. William Cohen, who served as secretary of defense during Bill Clinton's second presidential term (1997-2001), says that "there is a countdown taking place" and that Israel "is not going to sit indifferently on the sidelines and watch Iran continue on its way toward a nuclear-weapons capability." 

The chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, explains that "a very narrow window" exists between the possibility of resolving the issue and an attack on Iran. 

An op-ed in The Los Angeles Times states (with some justification) that if Iran does not respond in September to the demands made of it, the world should brace itself for an Israeli attack. However, the author adds (mistakenly) that in the event of an Israeli strike, Obama "will probably learn of the operation from CNN rather than the CIA." 

This month will mark a critical juncture in Iran's race for nuclear capability. The timetable is getting ever shorter: Most Western intelligence services share the assessment that over the course of 2010, Iran will accumulate sufficient fissionable material to produce two or three nuclear bombs. If the Iranians succeed in dispersing this material among a large number of secret sites, it will reduce the likelihood that the project can be stopped. 

Even though Obama has now been in office for seven and a half months, Tehran has not responded to his offer to engage in direct dialogue about the nuclear issue. 

At first the talks were deferred in anticipation of the Iranian presidential elections in June, then because of the internal crisis that erupted there in their wake, and now the regime is engaging in additional - and typical - delay tactics. Last week, for the first time, Tehran announced readiness in principle to conduct negotiations with the international community. 

Peaceful enrichment 

The European Union appears to want to reach a decision on the subject ahead of the authorization of a fourth round of international sanctions against Iran, in the context of the G-20 conference to be held in Pittsburgh in about two weeks. Israel is apprehensive that the Americans may delay a final decision until December. 

The impression gained by Israelis who have visited Washington lately is that Obama is gradually backing away from the Bush administration's fundamental demand that Iran cease to enrich uranium as a precondition for beginning a dialogue. 

Subsequently, they believe, the United States will offer Iran the following compromise: The Iranians will be allowed to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes (under tight international supervision), the previous sanctions imposed on Iran will be lifted and the two sides will reach understandings concerning Iran's interests in a number of arenas, notably Iraq, ahead of the planned withdrawal of U.S. troops from there. 

Obama would be able to present such an arrangement as an accomplishment. After all, before the election in November he promised to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb, not to force it to stop enriching uranium. From Israel's point of view, however, this will probably not be enough. 

According to Maj. Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland, former head of Israel's National Security Council, "The United States was ready to sign an agreement to that effect Thursday. The prospect that Iran will agree, despite the temptation of gaining international recognition for its right to enrich uranium, remains small." 

In his view, "For its strategy to succeed, America needs a broad and binding international coalition. I still don't see them getting Russia and China to back such a move, and their support is essential." 

Despite its fear that Iran will use the peaceful enrichment go-ahead to continue advancing secretly toward a bomb, Israel might, as a fallback position, accept such a compromise as long as it is clear that the international supervision is strong enough and that, in anticipation of the likely eventuality Iran will be found cheating, a broad coalition to toughen the sanctions is put together in advance. 

If the dialogue fails, or never begins, more severe sanctions might be put into place: a ban on the purchase of oil from Iran and on the export of petroleum distillates to it, or even a maritime embargo. But the potential effectiveness of these moves, with Tehran already well past the halfway mark toward achieving its goal, is in doubt. 

Looking the other way 

So, the moment of truth will arrive at some point between the end of 2009 and the middle of 2010: Should Iran be attacked? American experts agree that this would involve an Israeli strike. It is very unlikely that Obama will be the one dispatching American planes to Natanz. 

During the past year, military experts and commentators are increasingly coming around to the view that the Israel Air Force is capable of executing the mission. The Israel Defense Forces was significantly upgraded during the tenure of Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi. The goal, it is argued, is not to liquidate the Iranian project but to set it back. According to this line of thought, if an attack, American or Israeli, causes a couple of years' delay in the project it will have achieved its aim. Similarly, before launching the attack on the Iraqi reactor in 1981, Israel did not foresee the chain of events that finally forced Saddam Hussein to forgo his nuclear ambitions. 

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak take a similar view of the Iranian threat. At least, that is what both their public statements and their comments in closed meetings suggest. 

For an Israeli attack to be considered, Israel would need the tacit approval of the Obama administration, if only in the sense that it looks the other way. This is due above all to the necessity of passing through the Iraqi air corridor, as American soldiers will still be in Iraq in 2011. No less important is strategic coordination for the day after: How will the United States react to a prolonged aerial attack by Israel on the nuclear sites and to the regional flare-up that might follow? 

These are matters that would have to be agreed on directly between Obama and Netanyahu. The disparity in their policy stances, together with the total lack of personal chemistry between them, is liable to prove a hindrance. 

Iran is likely to respond to an Israeli attack by opening fronts nearby, via Hezbollah from Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Three years after the Second Lebanon War and at the end of a broad process of learning lessons from that conflict, the IDF is quite confident of its ability to deal with Hezbollah. At the same time, it's clear that Israel will be subjected to extensive rocket attacks that can be expected to cover most of the country. 

A key question would be Syria's behavior. Israel has a salient interest in having Damascus be no more than a spectator in a confrontation. If the attack on Iran is perceived to have been successful, that is probably how the Syrians will respond. 

But an attack on Iran will reopen a decades-old blood feud - and the Iranians have both a long memory and a great deal of patience. With decisions like this looming within a year, it's no wonder that Netanyahu wants to get the Gilad Shalit affair wrapped up. 

A decision to attack Iran would mean that the IDF bears central responsibility for resolving the nuclear threat. In the years when Mossad director Meir Dagan held prime minister Ariel Sharon in his thrall (and even more so his successor, Ehud Olmert), the general belief was that the espionage agency could, together with political efforts, contain the Iranian nuclear project. And, indeed, if Western intelligence services had to push back their forecasts repeatedly over the past decade regarding when the project would be completed, it's a safe bet that not all of Iran's delays were due to divine providence. At present, however, no action looms - other than an attack - that is capable of preventing Iran from achieving its goal.

A Year After Financial Crisis, a New World Order Emerges
Sep 15th, 2009
Daily NewsThe Bellingham Herald - KEVIN G. HALL - MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS
Categories: Today's Headlines;World Government

WASHINGTON - One year after the near collapse of the global financial system, this much is clear: The financial world as we knew it is over, and something new is rising from its ashes.

Historians will look at September 2008 as a watershed for the U.S. economy.

On Sept. 7, the government seized mortgage titans Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Eight days later, investment bank Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy, sparking a global financial panic that threatened to topple blue-chip financial institutions around the world. In the several months that followed, governments from Washington to Beijing responded with unprecedented intervention into financial markets and across their economies, seeking to stop the wreckage and stem the damage.

One year later, the easy-money system that financed the boom era from the 1980s until a year ago is smashed. Once-ravenous U.S. consumers are saving money and paying down debt. Banks are building reserves and hoarding cash. And governments are fashioning a new global financial order.

Congress and the Obama administration have lost faith in self-regulated markets. Together, they're writing the most sweeping new regulations over finance since the Great Depression. And in this ever-more-connected global economy, Washington is working with its partners through the G-20 group of nations to develop worldwide rules to govern finance.

"Our objective is to design an economic framework where we're going to have a more balanced pattern of growth globally, less reliant on a buildup of unsustainable borrowing ... and not just here, but around the world," said Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.