WEEK OF FEBRUARY 7 THROUGH FEBRUARY 13

Syria Supplies Hizballah With Dangerous Fateh-110 Missiles

(Gives Hezbollah ability to destroy Israeli cities)

Feb. 8….(DEBKAfile Special Report) The secret transfer of the mobile surface-to-surface Syrian-made Fateh-110 (range 250km) missile to Hizballah sparked the prediction Friday, Feb. 5 from an unnamed US official that cross-border arms smuggling from Syria into Lebanon outside state control was "very dangerous" and "paved the way to war similar to Israel-Hizballah conflict of 2006. Military sources report that Israel warned Syria through at least two diplomatic channels against Hizballah using this lethal weapon, which is capable of reaching almost every Israel city. Our sources disclose: Syria pulled the wool of Israel's eyes for the transfer by openly training Hizballah in the use of SA-2 and SA-6 surface-to-surface missiles. Israel had warned it would deem their passage into Lebanon Syrian casus belli by Syria. The Fateh-110 is still more lethal, accurate and dangerous than the SA-2 and SA-3. It confronts Israel now with a Hizballah armed with a solid-fuel propellant, road-mobile, single-stage, short-range ballistic system weighing three tons with a half-ton warhead and a range of 250 kilometers. It is not deployed in surface batteries but fired from mobile launchers, which the solid propellant renders capable of firing at speed with little advance preparation, before returning to the fortified underground silos Hizballah has sunk in mountain areas across Lebanon. These features make the Fateh-110 a very tough target for Israeli bombers to strike. According to our intelligence sources, Israel posted warnings against Hizballah using the weapon through US Middle East envoy George missile who conveyed the warning to president Bashar Assad in Damascus on January 20 after talks in Jerusalem. The message he carried was that if Hizballah ventured to fire the Fateh-110, Israel was determined to hit back at strategic and military targets inside Syria. This warning instantly prompted the war rhetoric which emanated from Assad and his foreign minister Walid Moallem. Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman, known for his undiplomatic, blunt style, responded by warning Syria that it stood to lose the next war and the Assad family would lose its grip on power in Damascus.

Assad: Syria Will Back Lebanon if Israel Attacks

Feb. 8….(AFP) Syria will support Lebanon in the event of any attack from Israel, President Bashar al-Assad told the speaker of Beirut's parliament on Sunday, the official SANA news agency reported. "Syria will stand alongside the government and people of Lebanon against any possible Israeli aggression launched on Lebanon," the agency quoted Assad as saying to Nabih Berri in Damascus. Assad and Berri discussed "repeated Israeli threats on countries in the region and Israeli extremism which can kill chances for peace and bring war to the region," SANA said.

Israeli officials have warned repeatedly in recent weeks that any attack by Lebanon's Syrian-backed Hezbollah Shiite movement will spark a tough response. Syria and Israel have also been locked in a bitter war of words for several days. Foreign Minister Walid Muallem warned on Wednesday that war against his country would become a wider conflict. "Israelis, do not test the power of Syria since you know the war will move into your cities," he said. His Israeli counterpart Avigdor Lieberman retorted on Thursday that any war would cost Assad his grip on power. "When there is another war, you will not just lose it, but you and your family will lose power," Lieberman said. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sought to ease tensions on Sunday, saying that Israel wants peace with all of its neighbors. "We made peace with Egypt and Jordan and we seek peace with Syria and the Palestinians," he said. On Tuesday Netanyahu had accused Beirut of allowing Hezbollah to smuggle weapons into Lebanon in "blatant violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701" which led to an end to the 34-day conflict. Israel and Hezbollah fought a devastating war in 2006, which killed more than 1,200 Lebanese, most of them civilians, and more than 160 Israelis, mostly soldiers.

Tensions in the Middle East-(Damascus in the Middle of it All)……Surprise!

(Iranian reactions becoming more extreme as sanctions decision nears)

FOJ Note: Bible prophecy clearly forecasts ominous events for Damascus in the latter days, only the timing of that event can be debated. It is highly likely that Iran will push any proxy lever at its terrorist disposal to save its nuclear strategy for the region, even at the expense of Syria!

Feb. 5….(YNET) The repeated Israeli messages in recent weeks meant to lower the level of tension vis-à-vis Syria are falling on deaf ears. The Syrians don’t believe us. Even if the IDF intelligence chief travels to Damascus and personally reads the army’s annual intelligence assessment to Assad, noting that Israel does not predict a confrontation with Syria this year, the Syrian leader will not be persuaded. This is very reminiscent of the period ahead of the Six Day War, when the Russians made sure to fan the flames and feed the Syrians with horror stories. A hint regarding the identity of the war-monger at this time may be found in the words of US National Security Advisor Jim Jones last week. The American general spoke about the planned US sanctions against Iran. In response to the sanctions, he said, there is a possibility that Tehran will encourage its satellites in the region, Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas to attack Israel and set the whole region on fire. Jones’ words indicate that the Syrians are being provoked by the Iranians. Tehran is presenting its own tangible threat in the face of the American threat: If you mess with us, we will set fire to the Middle East. The flames are increasingly being fanned on the northern border as the decision on Iran sanctions approaches. The US Administration has already decided that it would first attempt to impose sanctions via the United Nations Security Council. Should this fail and the Chinese torpedo the move, the US will turn to independent sanctions, in the hopes that other major European countries, including Russia, join it. These are not empty words. The Americans have already started to take some steps on the ground: This week they deployed active anti-missile defense systems in Persian Gulf states. And so, on the one hand the Americans intend to tighten the chokehold on Iran, while at the same time they are preparing for an Iranian military response. The Iranians are well familiar with the American target date. Hence, their reactions are increasingly becoming more extreme. On the one hand they are suddenly conveying a sense of moderation and declaring that they are willing to transfer their uranium for enrichment in another country, yet at the same time they are publicly displaying ballistic missiles and issuing threats in all directions. And what about the Syrians and the Lebanese? They are merely pawns on the Iranian chessboard. About two weeks ago, IDF Northern Command Chief Gadi Eisenkott characterized the tensions on the northern border as “virtual.” There is no real Israeli threat on Syria. The problem is that in our region, virtual tensions that are not handled properly can quickly turn into reality.

Syria And The Flames of War

Feb. 5….(Israel Today) The Syrian leadership on Wednesday of pushing the region toward full-scale war, and threatened to devastate Israel's cities if it dares to use military force against terrorist threats such as Lebanon's Hizballah. In a meeting with visiting Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Moratinos, Syrian President Bashar Assad said, "All the facts point that Israel is driving the region toward war, not peace. Israel is not serious about wanting peace." Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem added at a press conference following the meeting that Israel knows "that war at this time will reach your cities. If such a war breaks out, it will indeed be total war, whether it begins in south Lebanon or Syria." Late last month, a pan-Arab newspaper reported that Syria and Hezbollah were mobilizing their forces for war with Israel, while telling the rest of the Arab world that the Jewish state was about to attack. Meanwhile, Israel's defense establishment is actually pushing for a renewal of peace talks with Syria, even if Damascus continues to push hardline preconditions. Addressing senior Israeli army officers on Tuesday, Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned that if peace talks didn't resume soon, war could break out. In the aftermath of such a conflict, the peace talks will be about the same things they are today, insisted Barak, questioning the need for war and hostile rhetoric. But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu remained cool to the idea of restarting talks at this time, noting that Syria continues to place obstacle by demanding preconditions, like a guaranteed full Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights.

Israel Warns Syria It Would Lose Future War

Feb. 5….(Newsmax) Israel's foreign minister harshly warned Syria Thursday against drawing the Jewish state into another war, saying its troops would be trounced and its regime would collapse in a future conflict. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman also advised Syria to abandon its dreams of recovering the Israeli-held Golan Heights in a speech that ratcheted up simmering political tensions between the two foes. The exceptionally harsh words followed Syrian President Bashar Assad's accusation on Wednesday that Israel was the one avoiding peace, and his foreign minister earlier threat that Israel's cities would be attacked in a future conflict. The Syrians "have crossed a red line that cannot be ignored," Lieberman said in a speech at a Tel Aviv-area university. "Our message must be clear to Assad: 'In the next war, not only will you lose but you and your family will lose power,'" he added. Lieberman's bellicose language contrasted sharply with the statement Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued late Wednesday, saying the Jewish state seeks peace. It said Netanyahu "would be willing to go anywhere in the world, and doesn't rule out any assistance by a fair third party, to promote the political process in order to begin peace talks with Syria without any preconditions." Syria demands the return of the Golan Heights, the strategic plateau Israel captured by Israel in the 1967 Mideast war, as the price of any deal. But Lieberman, echoing Netanyahu's position, said there would be no such thing. "We must make Syria recognize that just as it relinquished its dream of a greater Syria that controls Lebanon, it will have to relinquish its ultimate demand regarding the Golan Heights," Lieberman said. There was no immediate comment from Syrian officials to Lieberman's remarks. Several rounds of indirect peace talks between Syria and Israel in 2008 ended without a breakthrough. Damascus has expressed interest in having Turkey resume its mediation role, but Israel and Turkey have clashed diplomatically since Israel's war in Gaza last winter, and Israeli officials have said they no longer consider Turkey to be an honest broker. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned earlier this week that absence of peacemaking with Syria could result in a regional war.

"Any Country Using Nukes Would be Destroyed in 30 Seconds"

Feb. 3….(JPOST) Any country which attacks another with nuclear weapons, will enjoy a grace period of 30 minutes before it is wiped off the map, former chairman of the NATO Military Committee said at the Herzliya Conference Tuesday evening. The history of the Cold War teaches us that the only deterrence against nuclear weapons is nuclear weapons, he said. Naumann was referring to the possibility that Israel might one day come under nuclear attack. He said Iran’s nuclear program has all the characteristics of a military program. A country that spends 10 billion dollars just to enrich uranium to military grade is not a country with a peaceful program, Naumann said. He said public opinion in the West must be prepared for the eventuality that Iran will pass the nuclear threshold and NATO will need to use its deterrence.

CIA: Terror Attack on US 'Coming Soon

Feb. 3….(Washington Times) The five senior leaders of the US intelligence community told a Senate panel Tuesday they are "certain" that terrorists will attempt another attack on the United States in the next three to six months. The warning came during the annual threat briefing to Congress in response to questions from Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat and the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, who asked, "What is the likelihood of another terrorist-attempted attack on the U.S homeland in the next three to six months? High or low?" "An attempted attack, the priority is certain, I would say," said Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair, a retired admiral. Four other intelligence agency leaders who appeared at the hearing with Adm. Blair said they agreed with the assessment. They included CIA Director Leon E. Panetta, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller, Lt. Gen. Ronald L. Burgess Jr., the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, and John Dinger, the acting assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research.

Adm. Blair outlined the major threats facing the United States in addition to a possible terrorist attack. They include:

-- The threat of major attacks on US computer networks and infrastructure.

-- The increasingly dangerous Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan.

-- Instability in nuclear-armed Pakistan.

-- Iranian and North Korean missile and nuclear programs.

-- China's military buildup.

-- Efforts by the anti-US government of Venezuela to develop closer ties with Iran, China and Russia.

The warning about the threat of another attempted attack, like the failed Christmas Day bombing of a Northwest Airlines jet, was in keeping with the sober public assessment of threats outlined last year by Adm. Blair. "In our judgment, al Qaeda also retains the capability to recruit, train and deploy operatives to mount some kind of an attack against the homeland," according to his written testimony. The recent arrests of an al Qaeda cell led by Najibullah Zazi, the attempted bombing of the Northwest Airlines jet en route from Amsterdam to Detroit, and the Fort Hood, Texas, shooting rampage, allegedly by Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, all suggest al Qaeda has come close to pulling off mayhem inside the United States. Adm. Blair's message was sobering: "Counter-terrorism efforts against al Qaeda have put the organization in one of its most difficult positions since the early days of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan in late 2001," he said. "However, while these efforts have slowed the pace of anti-US planning and hindered progress on new external operations, they have not been sufficient to stop them." The testimony specifically warned that al Qaeda is capable of another attack on the United States, marking a change from the 2009 assessment that emphasized the group's intentions to attack US soil but said their capabilities to launch an attack on the homeland were limited. Meanwhile, Metro Transit Police on Tuesday conducted an anti-terrorist exercise at a busy underground Metro station in Washington, DC, Adm. Blair testified that al Qaeda is eyeing targets the group in the past attempted to attack, including commercial jets and financial institutions in New York City, and the Washington Metro system. Blair's testimony also focused on al Qaeda's continuing efforts to obtain biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, but he said he would only discuss details in a closed session. Following Blair's testimony, CIA Director Panetta pointed out that the biggest problem for America's spies is tracking the "lone wolf" operative who has no background in terrorism. Mr. Blair said part of the problem is that al Qaeda has switched tactics from spectacular "multiple-cell-based attacks" to harder to detect smaller-scale operations. "The recent successful and attempted attacks represent an evolving threat in which it is even more difficult to identify and track small numbers of terrorists recently recruited and trained and short-term plots than to find and follow terrorist cells engaged in plots that have been ongoing for years," Mr. Blair said. Mr. Blair's written testimony touched on a wide range of topics, from Latin America to the effects of global climate change on US strategic interests in the world. He began his testimony with a stark warning to Congress about the capability of hackers to launch devastating attacks on US computer networks. "Malicious cyber-activity is occurring on an unprecedented scale with extraordinary sophistication," he said. The director added that the technology today favors hackers and other criminals and not nations looking to protect their networks. On Iran, Mr. Blair said the intelligence community believed that Iran was preparing the groundwork for building nuclear weapons, but that Tehran had made no political decision to build the arms. Despite political turmoil that has brought hundreds of thousands of protesters into the streets since the June 12 presidential elections, Iran's decision-making process would remain the same, he said. Overall, Mr. Blair said he gave he protesters little chance for success. "Strengthened conservative control will limit opportunities for reformers to participate in politics or organize opposition," he stated. "The regime will work to marginalize opposition elites, disrupt or intimidate efforts to organize dissent and use force to put down unrest." The US intelligence community in the past failed to predict political events in Iran. For example, a noted CIA assessment of Iran in the fall of 1978 predicted there was no prospect for an Islamic revolution, a prediction that proved wrong within five months.

Seven Myths About Iran and its Nukes

We have been trying to negotiate [with the Iranians] for five, six years. We’ve tried everything. We have met every Iranian. We have tried to open every possible channel. We’ve had new ideas and the result is this: nothing.”

Feb. 3….(In The Days) Thus did a senior Western diplomat recently describe to me his country’s efforts to reach a negotiated settlement with Tehran over its nuclear programs. In doing so, he also finally disposed of the myth, nearly a decade in the making, that Iran was ready to abandon those programs in exchange for a “grand bargain” with the West. Let’s dispose of a few other myths, and hope it doesn’t take years for the lesson to stick:

(1) Military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities would accomplish nothing.

That’s the argument made by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who last year told a Senate Committee that “a military attack will only buy us time and send the program deeper and more covert.” Maybe so, but what’s wrong with buying time? Israel’s 1981 attack on Iraq’s Osirak reactor also bought time while driving Saddam’s nuclear programs underground. But it ensured that it was a non-nuclear Iraq that invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia nine years later, a point recognized by then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney when he thanked the Israeli commander of the Osirak operation for making “our job much easier in Desert Storm.”

(2) A strike would rally Iranians to the side of the regime.

The case would be more persuasive if the regime had any remaining claims on Iranian patriotism. It no longer does, if it ever did. It also would be more persuasive if the nuclear program were as broadly popular as some of the regime’s apologists claim. On the contrary, one of the more popular chants of the demonstrators goes, “Iran is green and fertile, it doesn’t need nukes.” Yet even if the nuclear program enjoyed widespread support, it isn’t clear how Iranians would react in the event of military strikes. Argentine dictator Leopoldo Galtieri whooped up a nationalist fervor when he invaded the Falklands in 1982, but was ousted from office just a week after Port Stanley fell to the British. When a regime gambles its prestige on a single controversial enterprise, it cannot afford to lose it.

(3) Sanctions don’t work, and usually wind up strengthening the regime at the expense of its own people. That’s only true when the sanctioned regimes have strong internal controls, relatively pliant populations, and zero interest in international respectability. It’s also true that sanctions alone are never a silver bullet. But as Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies points out, they can be “silver shrapnel,” particularly when the target country is as politically vulnerable as Iran is now, and when it is also critically reliant on the consumption of imported gasoline. That’s why the House was right when it overwhelmingly approved the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act in December, and when the Senate unanimously passed a similar bill last Thursday. Over time, the regime will surely find ways to skirt the sanctions, which prohibit companies that do business in Iran’s energy sector from also doing business in the US But in the critical short term, these sanctions might provoke the kind of mass unrest that could tip the scales against the regime.

(4) The world can live with a nuclear Iran, just as we live with other nasty nuclear powers. Assume that’s true. (I don’t.) Can we also live with nuclear Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey? The problem with the “realist” view is that it fails to take account of the fears a nuclear Iran inspires among the status quo regimes in its neighborhood. Containment was complicated enough during the Cold War. Now imagine a four-or five-way standoff among Arabs, Persians, Turks and Israelis, some religiously fanatic, in the world’s most volatile neighborhood.

(5) The Iranian regime is headed for the ash heap of history. The best policy is to do as little as possible until it crumbles from within. Communist regimes were also destined for the ash heap. Unfortunately, it took them decades to get there, during which they murdered tens of millions of people. It matters a great deal to Iran’s people, and its neighbors, that the regime go quietly. But it also matters that it go quickly, and waiting on events is not a policy.

(6) The more support we show Iran’s demonstrators, the more we hurt their cause.

This was the administration’s view after the June 12 election, as it walked on tiptoes to avoid the perception of “meddling.” The regime accused the US of meddling all the same. But protest movements like Iran’s (or Poland’s, or South Africa’s) are sustained by a sense of moral legitimacy that global support uniquely conveys. When will American liberals get behind Iranian rights, as they have, say, Tibetan ones? Maybe when President Obama tells them to.

(7) Israel will ultimately dispose of Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The more policy makers fall for the first six myths, the less mythical the seventh one becomes.

Italy/Berlusconi: Bring Israel into the EU

Feb. 3….(AP) Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said Monday he hopes to bring Israel into the European Union, at the start of a three-day visit to the Jewish state. Berlusconi brought eight top ministers for a joint Cabinet meeting with their Israeli counterparts. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Cabinet ministers and a military honor guard welcomed the Italian delegation. Under Berlusconi's leadership, Italy has become one of Israel's strongest allies in Europe. Berlusconi's efforts to strengthen ties with Israel followed decades of a pro-Arab tilt by previous Italian governments. At the same time, Italy also remains Iran's largest trading partner within the EU. Israel considers Iran to be its greatest threat, accusing it of trying to develop a nuclear weapon. Iran insists that its nuclear program is peaceful, but its president has repeatedly referred to Israel's eventual destruction. Italy says it will act responsibly if new sanctions are imposed on Iran despite the vast interests of Italian companies there. Italy has indicated that halting Iranian nuclear ambitions will take precedence over commercial considerations. Speaking on arrival in Israel, Berlusconi told Netanyahu that "my greatest desire, as long as I am a protagonist in politics, is to bring Israel into membership of the European Union." Israel has close trade ties with the EU but is not pressing to join the bloc. The European Commission was unavailable for comment about Israel's possible inclusion into union. The EU has had a tricky relationship with prospective members around the Mediterranean in the past. It turned down Morocco as a candidate in 1987, saying it was not European, and has stalled negotiations with Turkey for 23 years. Some EU nations, such as France, firmly oppose Turkey's membership on the grounds that it is also "not European." Netanyahu embraced his guest warmly, calling his arrival a "historic visit." "Not every day do we get the privilege to host one of Israel's greatest friends, a brave leader who is a great fighter for freedom and an enthusiastic supporter of peace," Netanyahu said of Berlusconi. Netanyahu said the sides expected to sign a series of agreements during the visit, on subjects including energy, the environment and health. He also spoke of the historic common bond between the two nations. "I can think of very few nations who have made such a contribution to Western culture as our two nations. In Rome and Jerusalem, the foundations for Western culture were laid," he said. Berlusconi echoed the same theme, expressing his "pride of the Judeo-Christian culture that formed the base of Western civilization."

'Iran Will Deliver Blow to Global Powers on Feb. 11'

Feb. 2….(Press TV) Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says the nation will deliver a harsh blow to the "global arrogance" on this year's anniversary of the Islamic Revolution. "The Islamic Revolution opened a window to liberty for the human race, which was trapped in the dead ends of materialism," Ahmadinejad said during a cabinet meeting on Sunday. "If the Islamic Revolution had not occurred, liberalism and Marxism would have crushed all human dignity in their power-seeking and money-grubbing claws. Nothing would have remained of human and spiritual principles," he added. Ahmadinejad said that in the three decades of its history, the Islamic Revolution had inspired some great developments in the world. The Iranian president made the remarks as the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution approaches. Iranians are expected to pour into the streets on February 11 to celebrate the occasion in public rallies across the country, as they have done annually over the past three decades.

US Sends Battleships and Missiles to Oppose Iran

Feb. 2….(Guardian) Tension between the US and Iran heightened dramatically today with the disclosure that Barack Obama is deploying a missile shield to protect American allies in the Gulf from attack by Tehran. The US is dispatching Patriot defensive missiles to four countries, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, and Kuwait, and keeping two ships in the Gulf capable of shooting down Iranian missiles. Washington is also helping Saudi Arabia develop a force to protect its oil installations. American officials said the move is aimed at deterring an attack by Iran and reassuring Gulf states fearful that Tehran might react to sanctions by striking at US allies in the region. Washington is also seeking to discourage Israel from a strike against Iran by demonstrating that the US is prepared to contain any threat. Chris McGreal: 'The US is prepared to move decisively against any threat from Iran'. The deployment comes after Obama's attempts to emphasize diplomacy over confrontation in dealing with Iran, a contrast to the Bush administration's approach, have failed to persuade Tehran to open its nuclear installations to international controls. The White House is now trying to engineer agreement for sanctions focused on Iran's Revolutionary Guard, believed to be in charge of the atomic program. Washington has not formally announced the deployment of the Patriots and other anti-missile systems, but by leaking it to American newspapers the administration is evidently seeking to alert Tehran to a hardening of its position. The administration is deploying two Patriot batteries, capable of shooting down incoming missiles, in each of the four Gulf countries. Kuwait already has an older version of the missile, deployed after Iraq's invasion. Saudi Arabia has long had the missiles, as has Israel. An unnamed senior administration official told the New York Times: "Our first goal is to deter the Iranians. A second is to reassure the Arab states, so they don't feel they have to go nuclear themselves. But there is certainly an element of calming the Israelis as well." The chief of the US central command, General David Petraeus, said in a speech 10 days ago that countries in the region are concerned about Tehran's military ambitions and the prospect of it becoming a dominant power in the Gulf: "Iran is clearly seen as a very serious threat by those on the other side of the Gulf front." Petraeus said the US is keeping cruisers equipped with advanced anti-missile systems in the Gulf at all times to act as a buffer between Iran and the Gulf states. Washington is also concerned at the threat of action by Israel, which is predicting that Iran will be able to build a nuclear missile within a year, a much faster timetable than assessed by the US, and is warning that it will not let Tehran come close to completion if diplomacy fails. The director of the CIA, Leon Panetta, met the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, and other senior officials in Jerusalem last week to discuss Iran. Pro-Israel lobby groups in the US have joined Republican party leaders in trying to build public pressure on the administration to take a tougher line with Iran. One group, the Israel Project, has been running a TV campaign warning that Iran might supply nuclear weapons to terrorists. "Imagine Washington DC under missile attack from nearby Baltimore," it says. "A nuclear Iran is a threat to peace, emboldens extremists, and could give nuclear materials to terrorists with the ability to strike anywhere." Washington is also concerned that if Iran is able to build nuclear weapons, other states in the region will feel the need to follow. Israel is the only country in the Middle East to already have atomic bombs, although it does not officially acknowledge it. The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, said in London last week that the US will press for additional sanctions against Iran if it fails to curb its nuclear program. Europe's foreign affairs minister, Catherine Ashton, today said the UN Security Council should now take up the issue. "We are worried about what's happening in Iran. I'm disappointed at the failure of Iran to accept the dialogue and we now need to look again at what needs to happen there," she told Sky News. "The next step for us is to take our discussions into the security council. When I was meeting with Hillary Clinton last week we talked about Iran and we were very clear this is a problem we will have to deal with." However, China and Russia are still pressing for a diplomatic solution. Tony Blair, Middle East envoy on behalf of the US, Russia, the UN and the EU, continually referred to what he described as the Iranian threat during his evidence at the Chilcot inquiry last Friday. Textual analysis now shows that he mentioned Iran 58 times. Besides the new missile deployment, Washington is also helping Saudi Arabia to create a 30,000-strong force to protect oil installations and other infrastructure, as well as expanded joint exercises between the US and military forces in the region. The move is a continuation of the military build-up begun under former president George W Bush. In the past two years, Abu Dhabi has bought $17bn (£11bn) worth of weapons from the US, including the Patriot anti-missile batteries and an advanced anti-missile system. UAE recently bought 80 US-made fighter jets. It is also buying fighters from France. Petraeus said in a speech in Bahrain last year the UAE air force "could take out the entire Iranian air force, I believe". Patriot missiles are designed to intercept enemy missiles before they reach their target. Since production began in 1980, 9,000 missiles have been delivered to countries including Germany, Greece, Taiwan and Japan. During the first Gulf war Patriot success was 70% in Saudi Arabia and 40% in Israel. Since then the US has spent more than $10bn (£6.3bn) improving, among other aspects, the system's radar and computer compatibility for joint forces action. Once in position, the system requires a crew of only three people to operate. Each missile weighs 700kg and has a range of about 100 miles.

The Chinese Game at Gwadar

 “And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared.” (Revelation 16:12)

Feb. 2….(In The Days) At present Chinese warships operating over 4,500 nautical miles (nm) from their home bases are deployed for four to six months in the Gulf of Aden, without access to ports. Given the international concern about China seeking bases in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR), the Chinese government distanced itself from the retired admiral’s proposal. However, the fact is that the farsighted Chinese already have a suitable base available (Gwadar, a  port they built in Pakistan), and will soon have another one in Sri Lanka (Hambantota port, which they are building), even as media reports hint at another Chinese-built port that is to come up in Burma. The Chinese, as part of their “string of pearls” policy of having suitable bases in the IOR, not only helped Pakistan to build the Gwadar port, but practically provided all the funding. This strategically-located port on the Balochistan coast, near the Iranian border, some 180 nm from the exit of the strategic Straits of Hormuz, will enable Chinese oil tanker ships to offload crude oil from West Asia at this port. From Gwadar, a proposed rail, road and pipeline will transport oil and other goods to China, thus avoiding the Malacca and Singapore straits which can be closed during wartime or are vulnerable to piracy. This port also provides another option to Pakistan for ensuring oil imports, should Karachi get blocked during wartime. Work on Phase 1 of Gwadar port commenced in March 2002 and was formally completed in March 2005, though ships had started using it by 2003. The total project cost of this phase was $248 million (of which the Chinese contributed $198 million). The Gwadar port has a 4.5 km approach channel of 11.5m depth, and three multipurpose berths. Pakistan’s former President Pervez Musharraf is reported to have stated that “in the event of war with India, Pakistan will not hesitate to invite the Chinese Navy to Gwadar”. Phase 2 (adjacent to Phase 1), was completed in January 2006, with nine additional berths and the approach channel was deepened to 14.5 m, thus permitting larger ships of about 50,000 DWT (deadweight tonnes) to enter and leave the port. The port was formally inaugurated in March 2007, and Pakistan Navy was reported to have set up a base at the port. It may be noted that all oil tankers from the Gulf bound for India’s Vadinar Oil Terminal in the Gulf of Kutch generally pass about 40 nm south of Gwadar Port and would be vulnerable to interdiction by Pakistani or Chinese units based in Gwadar. Some unconfirmed media reports indicate the possible presence of a Chinese electronic “listening post” at Gwadar. To fully understand the serious strategic implications for India, we need to note that 70 per cent of India’s oil imports come by sea, from the Gulf (with tankers exiting through the Strait of Hormuz). Seventy per cent of our imported oil arrives at ports in the Gulf of Kutch, the Gulf of Cambay and the Mumbai port. Indeed, in 2007, the Gulf of Kutch received 1,100 oil tankers (passing some 40 nm from Gwadar), and this number will grow to 2,100 by 2012 and over 4,000 tanker ships by 2025, when India’s oil imports would have quadrupled to 320 million tonnes (China’s imports would also rise to over 600 million tonnes and hence the possibility of conflict of interests between these two largest consumers of oil). Similarly, the ships carrying imported oil from the Gulf to Mumbai Port and ports in the Gulf of Cambay, would increase manifold, with some shipping being diverted to other Indian ports. The global strategic implications are also serious since the Gulf region has 75 per cent of the world’s proven oil reserves and 50 per cent of the world’s proven gas reserves. About 16 million barrels of oil pass through the Strait of Hormuz daily on tanker ships (worth over $200 billion annually). This amounts to over 90 per cent of the oil exported by the Gulf region and over 40 per cent of the entire world’s oil trade. All this oil passes in vicinity of Gwadar port whose facilities can be assumed to be made available to the Chinese Navy in an emergent situation. Notwithstanding the facts, to allay fears of neighbouring countries regarding Chinese intentions in the region, the Pakistani government signed an agreement with Singapore’s PSA Corporation in March 2007 to operate Gwadar port under a 40-year agreement. PSA’s concession holding company (CHC), a subsidiary that operates 22 ports in 11 countries, will invest $550 million in the next five years in the port. While India’s security and intelligence agencies deserve a pat on the back for ensuring that 2009 and Republic Day 2010 were largely terror free, we cannot be complacent. The present peace may be the proverbial lull before the storm, given the fact that Pakistan is continuously receiving arms from the Chinese at “friendship prices” and from the Americans as “gifts”, with the recent gift of F-16 (Block 52) fighter jets and a dozen UAVs. The Chinese Navy’s activities in the IOR need to be monitored as closely as we monitor Pakistani-based terrorist moves.

US Intelligence: Hizballah Training to Seize Galilee 

Feb. 2….(DEBKAfile Special Expose) Jones was not talking out of the top of his head, but on the strength of solid US intelligence gathered over months on detailed war plans Iran, Syria, Hizballah and Hamas have drawn up to send five Hizballah brigades sweeping across the border to seize five sectors of Galilee, while also organizing a massive Israeli-Arab uprising against the Jewish state. Hamas would open a second front in the south and in the east. Syria is expected to step in at some stage. This plan with attached special map was first published exclusively by DEBKA-Net-Weekly 430 on Jan. 22, 2010. Key excerpts appear here. Iran's Revolutionary Guards instructors at especially established training facilities near Tehran are already well advanced in training a cadre of 5,000 Hizballah fighters in special operations and urban combat tactics to standards equivalent to those current in similar US and Israeli military forces. At the outset of the course, the group was split up into five battalions, each given a specific northern Israeli sector for capture with details of its topography and population for close study.

  1st Battalion-This unit will break through the Naqura-Rosh Haniqra border pass and sweep south along seven kilometers to seize Nahariya, the Israeli Mediterranean city of 55,000, or parts thereof. UN peacekeepers have their headquarters at Naqura, the other side of Rosh Haniqra, and Israel defenses there are lax, so no military or geographic obstacles to this Hizballah drive are anticipated. This battalion will capture a large number of Israeli hostages for use as live shields against an Israeli counter-attack. A small group of 150 fighters, trained by Revolutionary Guards marines, will also try and reach the coast by swift boats. They are already standing by in Lebanon.

  2nd Battalion-This unit is assigned to capture the northern Israeli town of Shlomi, 300 meters southeast of the Naqura border pass and home to 6,500 inhabitants. Holding this town and its environs will give Hizballah control of a key road hub and stand in the path of Israeli reinforcements heading for Nahariya through routes 89 and 899 from key Israeli bases in the Galilee and Upper Galilee regions to the east.

  3rd Battalion-Driving further south than any other Hizballah unit, this battalion must reach the three Israeli-Arab villages of B'ina, Deir al-Asad and Majd el-Krum, which are located north of the town of Carmiel and alongside Israel's Route 85 which connects Acre on the Mediterranean with Safad in the central Galilee mountains. Iranian war planners want Hizballah to control the three Israeli-Arab locations for two advantages: One: As a commanding position for stirring up the disaffected Israeli-Arab villages and towns of Lower Galilee and Wadi Ara to the south into a full-blown uprising. The incoming combat force will be backed up by clandestine Hizballah cells which for some years have established, armed and funded the underground "Galilee Liberation Battalions” in Sakhnin, Araba and Deir Hana, by means of drug smugglers. Hizballah's West Bank cells have been active for some time in the Wadi Ara region, through which National Route 65 connects central Israel to the North. Two: To gain fire control of Acre-Safed Route 85 from positions in occupied Arab villages and so have a shield ready for the Hizballah units holding Nahariya and Shlomi, and seriously impede the passage of Israeli forces from bases in the center of the country to relieve these northern towns. The Israeli Air Force will be constrained from attacking the areas held by Hizballah by the presence of large civilian populations.

  4th Battalion-This battalion will push southeast into the Kadesh Valley, on the rim of which the Makia and Yiftah kibbutzim and Makia moshav are clustered. Capture of these locations would afford Hizballah fire coverage of Israel's northernmost Galilee Panhandle.

  5th Battalion: Hizballah's Strategic Reserve-Rocket attacks from Lebanon will focus on disabling Israel's strategic military sites, such as air force bases, missile bases, its nuclear facilities and naval bases. Targeting Israeli population centers is a lower Iranian priority.

   Syria's initial involvement will be limited to cover by artillery or air for Hizballah operations. But if the fighting escalates or drags on, Hizballah will invite Syrian back-up forces to go into Lebanon; Damascus will open Front No. 4 against Israel from the Syrian side of the Golan Heights. The Tehran-Hizballah war strategy is all but ready for any contingency. The obvious trigger would be an Israeli military operation against Iran's nuclear facilities, but once all the elements are in place, they could be activated by any other pretext conjured up in Tehran or Damascus. In recent weeks, both Hizballah and its Syrian allies have mobilized their forces while telling the Arab world that the Jewish state is about to attack Lebanon. Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah is straining at the leash to attack Israel however the crisis over Iran's nuclear program turns out. Sunday, January 17, he said: "I promise you, in view of all the threats you hear today, that should a new war with the Zionists erupt, we will crush the enemy, come out victorious, and change the face of the region. "God willing, Israel, the occupation, hegemony, and arrogance are in the process of disappearing!" Nasrallah was not alone in anticipating a troubled year for the Middle East.

US Gearing Up For Gulf Clash with Iran

Feb. 2….(DEBKAfile Special Report) The Obama administration took the unusual step Saturday night, Jan. 30, of leaking word to major US media that the United States, Saudi Arabia and Gulf allies - the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Bahrain, have accelerated the deployment of new defenses against possible Iranian missile attacks. They are preparing for Iran, or its surrogate Hizballah, to hit back for a possible US or strikes on Tehran's nuclear facilities. debkafile's US military sources confirm that Washington plans to treble the 10,000-strong US troop contingent, already present in Saudi Arabia for guarding its oil fields and port facilities against medium or short-range Iranian missile attack, or sabotage by Hizballah marine units trained for their mission by Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps. Additional US Aegis missile interceptor cruisers with advanced radar and anti-missile systems were also reported to be heading for round-the-clock patrol around Iranian shores, with more Patriot anti-missile missiles to reinforce the eight batteries already deployed in the four emirates. The Obama administration set these exceptional steps in motion, debkafile reports, in anticipation of nuclear provocations from Tehran while the regime celebrates the 31st anniversary of the Islamic revolution from Feb.1-11. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has promised to announce Iran's attainment of a 20 percent uranium enrichment capability, a short step to weapons grade material. Some high-ranking Revolutionary Guards officers have also said that Iran will parade a new type of surface missile during the celebrations, without revealing its features, while Iranian space scientists predicted the launch of a new spy satellite of the Toloo series. All this was taken in Washington as a challenge that could not be left without an appropriate response. Administration officials also feared that Israel might be goaded into going forward with a military operation against Iran's nuclear facilities. The Gulf Arab states were in need of reassurance too. The White House's decision to deploy additional defenses in the Gulf came only a day after National Security Adviser James Jones warned that Iran was liable to react to pressure by having its proxies Hizballah and Hamas attack Israel. The abruptness of this step pointed to the administration having woken up to the realization that its diplomatic and military position in the region was in grave jeopardy and in dire need of shoring up without delay.

WEEK OF FEBRUARY 1 THROUGH FEBRUARY 6

Clinton: China Risks Isolation Over Iran

(US secretary of state warns Beijing it risks disruption to its energy supplies unless it helps keep Islamic Republic from developing nuclear weapons)

Feb. 1….(AP) US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned China on Friday it risks diplomatic isolation and disruption to its energy supplies unless it helps keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Speaking in Paris, Clinton said she and others who support additional sanctions on Iran for refusing to prove it has peaceful nuclear intentions are lobbying China to back new UN penalties on the Iranian government. She said she understood China's reluctance to impose new penalties on Iran, its third-largest supplier of oil. But she stressed that a nuclear-armed Iran would destabilize the Persian Gulf and imperil oil shipments China gets from other Arab states in the region. There is a new push for sanctions at the UN because of Iran's continued refusal to engage on the matter with the five permanent members of the Security Council, Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States, and Germany. Administration officials have invited new talks with Iran, but with no sign that Iran wants to do business, the focus has turned to penalties. "As we move away from the engagement track, which has not produced the result that some had hoped for, and move forward on the pressure and sanctions track, China will be under a lot of pressure to recognize the destabilizing impact that a nuclear-armed Iran would have in the Gulf, from which they receive a significant percentage of their oil supplies," Clinton said. The United States is the most visible leader in the new push for UN Security Council sanctions, and Clinton spent much of her time in Europe this week lobbying major powers whose support she needs to pass and enforce new economic penalties. Some of the additional measures that will be proposed target elements of Iran's powerful militia structure, US officials said.

'Risks of Iranian bomb are manifold'

The Obama administration has said Iran appears bent on developing nuclear weapons, although Iran claims its nuclear work is peaceful. Iran is thought to have stockpiled more than enough nuclear material to manufacture a single bomb, and more is being made daily. The risks of an Iranian bomb are manifold, Clinton said. "It will produce an arms race," in the Persian Gulf, and Israel will feel its very existence threatened, Clinton said in response to a question from an audience member during a speech at a French military academy. "All of that is incredibly dangerous." The United States has cautioned Israel publicly against a pre-emptive strike on Iran's known nuclear facilities, arguing that such an attack would invite an arms race and retaliation. China has traditionally resisted UN Security Council sanctions, saying they are counterproductive and harm efforts to persuade Iran to prove its claim that the nuclear program is peaceful. Clinton met Thursday in London with Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi to make the case to move ahead with sanctions at the United Nations. US officials said Yang's response was noncommittal. In Paris, Clinton said her message to the Chinese had been this: "We understand that right now it seems counterproductive to you to sanction a country from which you get so much of the natural resources your growing economy needs. But think about the longer-term implications."

China Protests US Arms Sales to Taiwan, Warns of 'Serious' Impact

(China has announced a series of moves against the US in retaliation for a proposed weapons sale to Taiwan worth $6.4bn (£4bn))

Feb. 1….(Beitbart) Beijing said it would suspend military exchanges with the US, review co-operation on major issues and impose sanctions on companies selling arms. Ties are already strained by rows over trade and internet censorship. Taiwan's president welcomed the sale, saying it would make his country "more confident and secure". The US State Department also defended the move on Saturday, saying the arms sales contributed to security and stability between Taiwan and China, Reuters reported. Beijing has hundreds of missiles pointed at the island and has threatened to use force to bring it under its control if Taiwan moved towards formal independence. Taiwan and China have been ruled by separate governments since the end of a civil war in 1949. China's Xinhua state news agency quoted the defense ministry as saying: "Considering the severe harm and odious effect of US arms sales to Taiwan, the Chinese side has decided to suspend planned mutual military visits." "We strongly demand that the US respect the Chinese side's interests", it added, calling for the sale to be stopped. The foreign ministry, meanwhile, said it would impose sanctions on US companies selling weapons to Taiwan, and that co-operation on major international issues would be affected. But the US, like the EU, has banned its companies selling arms to China since the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, so it was not clear what effect the Chinese move would have. Xinhua also said the US defence attache had been summoned. Defense ties between the two countries have been difficult for several years because of differences over Taiwan, but the two countries' leaders pledged to improve them in 2009. The moves came after Mr He said the arms deal would have "repercussions that neither side wishes to see". "The United States' announcement of the planned weapons sales to Taiwan will have a seriously negative impact on many important areas of exchanges and co-operation between the two countries," Mr He said in a statement published on the foreign ministry website. Earlier China summoned US Ambassador Jon Huntsman to give a warning about the consequences of the deal and to urge its immediate cancellation. Taiwan, meanwhile, welcomed the US move. "It will let Taiwan feel more confident and secure so we can have more interactions with China," the Central News Agency quoted President Ma Ying-jeou as saying. The Pentagon earlier notified the US Congress of the proposed arms sale, which forms part of a package first pledged by the Bush administration. Friday's notification to Congress by the Defense Security Co-operation Agency (DSCA) was required by law. It does not mean the sale has been concluded. US lawmakers have 30 days to comment on the proposed sale, Associated Press reported. If there are no objections, it would proceed. The arms package includes 114 Patriot missiles, 60 Black Hawk helicopters and communications equipment for Taiwan's F-16 fleet, the agency said in a statement. It does not include F-16 fighter jets, which Taiwan's military has been seeking. Our correspondent says the deal has been in the pipeline for a long time and is nearing its conclusion, but China does want to stop it. Beijing has previously warned the US not to go ahead with arms sales to Taiwan. Last week US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton angered Beijing with a call to China to investigate cyber attacks on search giant Google, after the company said email accounts of human rights activists had been hacked. The DSCA said the proposed sale would support Taiwan's "continuing efforts to modernise its armed forces and enhance its defensive capability." It added: "The proposed sale will help improve the security of the recipient and assist in maintaining political stability, military balance, and economic progress in the region." The US is the leading arms supplier to Taiwan, despite switching diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing in 1979. Washington regards it as an obligation to provide Taiwan with defensive arms.