Iran test firing some of its missiles.

The news media in Israel this evening reports foreign embassies are organizing contingency plans for the evacuation of their nationals and diplomats and are requesting gas masks from the Israeli Foreign Ministry.

Diplomats and their families are worried about a missile strike that may prompt a mass evacuation of Israeli citizens with passports. The European Union does not currently have the resources to undertake an evacuation of its citizens in a short period of time.

Israeli officials have provided embassies with a list of public bomb shelters in the country and an instructional pamphlet produced by the IDF, Ynetnews.com reports.

Earlier on Tuesday, Lebanon’s Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah said Iran will not ask the group to retaliate if Israel strikes Iran. He said by video link to supporters that Hezbollah would make the decision in the event of an Israeli attack.

“There is speculation about what wound happen if Israel bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities,” Nasrallah said. “I tell you that the Iranian leadership will not ask Hezbollah to do anything. On that day, we will sit, think and decide what we will do.”

According to estimates, Hezbollah has more than 40,000 rockets in its arsenal. Most are of the Katyusha variety with a range under 100 kilometers. It also possesses several hundred Iranian Zelzal-2 missiles with a range between 100 and 400 kilometers.

In 2010, the Pentagon reported the Shi’ite group also has 40 to 50 Fatah-110 missiles and 10 Scud-D missiles. The Fatah can be accurately target and reach most of Israel, including Tel Aviv.

In November 2009, it was estimated that if war broke out, Hezbollah would launch 400 to 600 rockets a day and would be able to sustain the attacks for at least two months.

During the 2006 Lebanon War Hezbollah fired about 3,699 rockets into Israel.

Source

Related posts:

• Syria threatens to attack Israel in case of NATO strike
• Israel attacks Southern Lebanon over al-Qaeda rocket attack
• Israel to issue gas masks to entire population
• Netanyah urges Likud ministers to avoid anti-Iran remarks
• Iran has uranium for 4 nukes, builds US-reach missiles – Israel

US President Barack Obama

US President Barack Obama has warned against the serious risks of a military campaign against the Islamic Republic and underlined diplomacy as the favored solution to the impasse over Iran’s nuclear issue.

Speaking in an interview with the NBC television network on Sunday, Obama said he did not believe Tehran had the intentions to attack the United States, dismissing Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Moshe Ya’alon’s earlier claim that Iran is developing an intercontinental ballistic missile with a range of 10,000 kilometers (6,200 miles) that could reach the US East Coast.

“Any kind of additional military activity inside the Persian Gulf is disruptive and has a big effect on us. It could have a big effect on oil prices. We’ve still got troops in Afghanistan, which borders Iran. And so our preferred solution here is diplomatic,” Obama said.

The remarks come as Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu urged Western powers to make greater efforts to negotiate a solution to Iran’s nuclear case, warning that a military strike would result in a “disaster.”

“A military option will create a disaster in our region. So before that disaster, everybody must be serious in negotiations. We hope soon both sides will meet again, but this time there will be a complete result,” Davutoglu said during a speech at the 48 Munich Security Conference in Germany on Sunday.

“If there is strong political will and mutual confidence being established, this issue could be resolved in a few days,” he said, adding that, “The technical disputes are not so big. The problem is mutual confidence and strong political will.”

Qatar’s Foreign Minister Khalid Mohamed al-Attiyah also urged the West to refrain from launching an attack on Iran, stressing that the Iranian nuclear dispute should be settled through dialogue and negotiations.

“[An attack] is not a solution; and tightening the embargo on Iran will make the scenario worse. I believe we should have dialogue,” al-Attiyah said.

“I believe that with our allies and friend in the West we should open a serious dialogue with the Iranians to get out of this dilemma. This is what we feel in our region,” he added.

Despite the widely publicized claims by the US, Israel and some of their European allies that Iran’s nuclear program may include a military aspect, Iran insists on its civilian nature, arguing that as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), it has the right to develop and acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

The IAEA has conducted numerous inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities but has never found any evidence indicating that Tehran’s civilian nuclear program has diverted towards nuclear weapons production.

This is while the Israeli regime is widely known to possess between 200 and 400 nuclear warheads. Furthermore, Tel Aviv refuses to allow its nuclear facilities to come under international regulatory inspectors and rejects any international nuclear regulatory agreements.

Source

Related posts:

• BP exempted from US ban on Iran oil
• Obama tells Venezuela to Cut its Ties with Iran and Cuba
• Obama Asks Iran to Give Back Captured US Spy Drone
• Americans to rally against war with Iran
• Israel ‘master of puppets’ in US Iran onslaught

UK foreign secretary William Hague speaking in Parliament on Monday

The United States has shut down its embassy in Syria. The announcement comes amid mounting reports of lethal government attacks. The UK has followed the suit, summoning their ambassador from Damascus.

UK Foreign Secretary William Hague says the British ambassador has been recalled from Syria for consultations. The Secretary has also summoned Syria’s representative in London to the Foreign Office so that he could express his “abhorrence” at the violence in the Arab country.

Hague accused China and Russia of “betraying the Syrian people,” saying their blocking a UN resolution on Syria was a “grave error.” The UK Foreign Secretary pledged to increase pressure on the Syrian government through the UN and other bodies.

“This is a doomed regime as well as a murdering regime,” Hague told British lawmakers on Monday. “There is no way it can recover its credibility internationally.”

Russia says the West is overreacting to the veto Moscow and Beijing used in the UN to block the resolution on Syria, which the two countries perceive as unbalanced. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called such remarks “almost hysterical.”

Earlier, officials said US Ambassador Robert Ford and other diplomats had left Syria on Monday. However, their departure did not come out of the blue. In January, Washington warned it might close its embassy in Damascus, citing concerns over staff safety.

On Monday, the Syrian opposition reported new assaults from government forces, claiming 50 had been killed in Homs city alone. The government, however, denies the accusations, saying the attacks were staged.

US President Barack Obama has said the ongoing conflict in Syria should be resolved without foreign military interference.

Obama said he believed a solution for Syria could be found through negotiations, adding that not every situation allows for the type of military action taken in Libya.

This weekend an American-backed UN Security Council resolution on Syria was vetoed by Russia and China, with both countries citing its unbalanced approach to the Syrian government and the opposition. Russia’s envoy to the UN also said that the draft did not reflect Russia’s proposals on Syria.

Source

Related posts:

• Armed gangs kill Syrian army general
• Will Russia Stand Up to Syrian Challenge?
• Syria protests: 48-year state of emergency lifted as thousands demand Bashar Assad ousted
• Russian Foreign Minister in Damascus seeking hope for Syria
• UN: Assad must go, no foreign forces in Syria

A Britain Royal Navy submarine

The UK is sending a nuclear submarine to the Falkland Islands (also known as Malvinas Islands) amid growing tensions between Britain and Argentina over the disputed territories.

According to media reports on Saturday, British Prime Minister David Cameron has personally approved the deployment of the Trafalgar-class vessel, believed to be either HMS Tireless or HMS Turbulent, in the South Atlantic.

However, a British Ministry of Defense (MoD) spokeswoman said, “We do not comment on submarine deployments.”

The heavily-armed submarine is set to be in the Malvinas waters in April for the 30th anniversary of the 1982 war which the two countries fought over the islands also known as the Falklands.

The Royal Navy has already revealed it is sending HMS Dauntless, a Type 45 destroyer, to the Falklands.

Britain’s Prince William arrived in the Malvinas on Thursday for a six-week training mission as a search and rescue pilot with the Royal Air Force (RAF).

Buenos Aires has strongly condemned Britain’s “provocative” move to post Prince William, likening it to that of a “conqueror.”

“The Argentinean people regret that the royal heir is coming to the soil of the homeland with the uniform of the conqueror and not with the wisdom of a statesman who works in the service of peace and dialogue between nations,” read an Argentine Foreign Ministry statement.

Situated about 250 nautical miles from Argentina, Malvinas has been a British colony for over 180 years.

Argentina claims sovereignty and the two countries fought a destructive 74-day war over the islands in 1982.

Source

Related posts:

• UK Cannot Confront Argentina
• Britain to send war message to Argentina
• Brazil backs Argentina over Malvinas
• Britain mulls banning social media
• Somalia Next UK’s Oil War Target

Iranian warships in the Saudi port city of Jeddah, Iranian Navy Commander Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari

Two Iranian naval ships have docked in the Saudi port of Jeddah. Iranian officials say the move aims to project the country’s “power on the open seas” and “confront Iranophobia.”

­The supply ship Kharg and destroyer Shaid Qandi docked on Saturday in the Red Sea port in line with orders from the Islamic Republic’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, according to Iran’s news agency, Fars.

“This mission aims to show the power of the Islamic Republic of Iran on the open seas and to confront Iranophobia,” Fars quoted navy commander Admiral Habibollah Sayari as saying.

The commander added that the mission would last between 70 and 80 days, but did not specify its route.

Tehran says boosting its naval presence in international waters is in part motivated by the need to protect Iranian ships from Somali pirates. This is why Iranian vessels were deployed to the Indian Ocean and the Gulf of Aden last year. In February 2011, for the first time ever, it also sent two naval vessels into the Mediterranean through the Suez Canal.

The rise in Iran’s naval activity comes amid a steep deterioration of its relations with the West. Its ties with Saudi Arabia are also in poor health, and have gone downhill fast since America accused Tehran of masterminding a plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington.

As if that weren’t enough, relations between Tehran and Riyadh deteriorated further after EU countries agreed to impose sanctions on Iran’s oil exports over the country’s nuclear program. In return, Tehran assured the European Union that it is not afraid of its sanctions and that the EU would be the one to suffer. However, Saudi Arabia quickly offered to make up for any shortfall in Europe’s oil supplies. Tehran, in response, called on Riyadh to reconsider, saying its move was unfriendly.

The EU oil embargo has also increased tensions in the Strait of Hormuz – a vital link for oil transit between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. Iran has threatened to block the Strait in the past, and its determination was underlined when a senior official said Iran would “definitely” close the Strait of Hormuz if the EU oil embargo disrupted the export of crude oil.

The situation around the Strait and the Iranian nuclear program – which the country states is purely peaceful – has already prompted Washington to send squadrons of war ships into the area, while Britain and France have expressed willingness to back the US navy in opposing attempts by Iran to block the Strait.

The Israeli Deputy PM added fuel to the fire, claiming that Iran has also succeeded in building a long-range missile capable of putting the US within its reach. These latest statements are very much in line with the position of Israel and its allies who are accusing Iran of using its nuclear industry to mask plans to develop nuclear arms, a charge official Tehran has frequently and vehemently denied.

The gravity of the crisis became particularly apparent when US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Israel could attack Iran in the next few months. The attack would allegedly occur before it enters a so-called “immunity zone”, ie: before Iran has time to fortify its nuclear facilities against attack.

Source

Related posts:

• Saudi Prince: Iran attack spells calamity for world
• War in Iran would mean WWIII
• Iran destroyer ends first global mission
• Iran Fires Back At Clinton, Calls US a Military Dictatorship
• Somalia hails Iran’s Humanitarian Aid

Barely a month after the last US combat troops walked out of Iraq, the Pentagon announced on Wednesday that they would be altering already established plans in Afghanistan and doing the same there in a matter of months.

US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Wednesday announced that American combat troops will plan to vacate the nation of Afghanistan in 2013, a decision that contradicts a long-standing schedule that would have left the US military on an offensive role there through at least 2014.

“Our goal is to complete all of that transition in 2013, and hopefully by mid- to the latter part of 2013, we’ll be able to make a transition from a combat role to a training, advise and assist role,” Secretary Panetta told reporters aboard a plane on Wednesday. Prior to the breaking announcement, US combat troops were expected to stay in Afghanistan until the end of 2014. Although they may stay stationed there for just as long still, Panetta wants offensive operations from American personnel winding down sometime during the next year.

The news of the decision comes almost immediately after a recent report that found US intelligence believes the Taliban will be able to successfully regain control even after American forces leave Afghanistan. The US and Taliban were believed to be initiating peace talks in order to negotiate a safe return of Afghanistan to Taliban rule, but more than ten years into a war that has provided few successes and massive casualties and disappointment, Panetta’s new plan seems to speed up the withdrawal process before matters worsen anymore.

Since entering Afghanistan after the September 11 terrorist attack more than a decade ago, US forces have seen casualties amounting to a total of 1,808, according to the latest statistics from the iCasualties website. Insurgent deaths are estimated to be roughly 40 times that figure.

Combined with the recently ended war in Iraq, American casualties in both operations come to more than 6,000.

Despite such a tremendous number of deaths and ten years of fighting, victories for American forces have been few and far between in Afghanistan. It has been nearly a year since former al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was executed in neighboring Pakistan, and as the Taliban still has a hold in Afghanistan — and is expected to continue it for the unforeseeable future — furthering operations seems futile.

As American deaths continue to pile up while Operating Enduring Freedom fails to secure a win for the US, the losses seem to overpower any successes American troops have had. The Obama administration has called one of its biggest victories in the War on Terror aside from the bin Laden assassination the execution of two men with alleged al-Qaeda ties late last year. Both men, however, were also American citizens that were killed by drone strikes without ever being brought to trial. Instead of being proven to pose a problem for American forces, the White House reported that the two Americans were merely threats. The actions were viewed by some as a victory for the American military, but as the capabilities of the commander-in-chief were made public, many US citizens called it a loss for freedom.

“Can you imagine being put on a list because you’re a threat? What’s going to happen when they come to the media?” Republican presidential candidate and Texas Congressman Ron Paul reacted to the news.

“What if the media becomes a threat? … This is the way this works. It’s incrementalism.”

Although the decision to end the war soon would add to the number of ended offensive operations under President Barack Obama’s belt if he secures a second term in the White House, critics are already attacking the administration for the new plan. Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney wasted no time responding to the news on Wednesday, offering some harsh words for the White House if they seriously want to end attacks on the Taliban ahead of plan.

“The president’s mistakes, some of them are calculated on a philosophy that’s hard to understand and, sometimes, you scratch you head and say: How can he be so misguided and so naive?” Romney asked a room of warehouse workers while campaigning in Las Vegas, Nevada on Wednesday.

“Today, his secretary of defense unleashed such a policy,” added Romney. “The secretary of defense said that on a day certain, the middle of 2013, we’re going to pull out our combat troops from Afghanistan. He announced that. He announced that. So the Taliban hears it, the Pakistanis hear it, the Afghan leaders hear it,” said Romney. “Why in the world do you go to the people that you’re fighting with and tell them the date you’re pulling out your troops? It makes absolutely no sense.”

“His naiveté is putting in jeopardy the mission of the United States of America and our commitments to freedom,” he said. “He is wrong. We need new leadership in Washington.”

The US is expected under Secretary Panetta to have only 68,000 troops remaining in Afghanistan by this autumn. A poll conducted by the Pew Research Center published in October revealed that a third of American veterans who have served since 9/11 agreed that the Afghan and Iraq wars were “not worth it.”

Source

Related posts:

• US holds Iraq withdrawal ceremony
• Obama Marks the End of the 9 year Iraq War
• Barack Obama: All US troops to leave Iraq in 2011
• Israel ‘master of puppets’ in US Iran onslaught
• Pentagon seeks new superbomb for Iran

An image grab taken from footage broadcast by Iran's state-run Arabic-language Al-Alam TV on August 20, 2010, shows an image from an undisclosed location of what Defence Minister Ahmad Vahidi said was the test firing of the Iranian surface-to-surface missile Qiam, entirely designed and built domestically and powered by liquid fuel, a day before Iran was due to launch its Russian-built first nuclear power plant

Iranian scientists have already managed to enrich enough radioactive material to successfully produce not just one, but four nuclear bombs, Israel’s military intelligence chief has announced.

General Aviv Kochavi broke the news at a security conference on Thursday. The intelligence chief says he believes Iran would need a year from the word go to actually producing a crude device, and another year or two to manufacture a nuclear warhead that can be installed on a ballistic missile.

Kochavi also claimed that “Iran is very actively pursuing its efforts to develop its nuclear capacities, and we have evidence that they are seeking nuclear weapons. “However, no actual evidence was produced or even referred to at the conference.

The Israeli Deputy PM added fuel to the fire, claiming that Iran has also succeeded in building a long-range missile capable of putting the US within its reach. Moshe Ya’alon, who had just returned from Washington where he discussed the Iran situation with President Obama’s administration, chose to echo Kochavi’s words of warning, saying “The Israeli government will stop Iran one way or another.”

These latest statements are very much in line with the position of Israel and its allies who are accusing Iran of using its nuclear industry to mask plans to develop nuclear arms, a charge official Tehran has frequently and vehemently denied.

Israel, backed by its key ally the United States, has long pushed for tougher sanctions against Iran. Top level officials in both Tel Aviv and Washington DC have recently said they do not rule out a military attack against the Islamic Republic.

As sparks continue to fly around the powder keg of Iran’s supposed nuclear ambitions, the Middle Eastern state is not playing dead either. A defiant President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced on Thursday that the country is planning to double its military spending over the next year; a sign that is being interpreted by many as “taking a stand” against pressure from the West.

The United States and their NATO allies are also flexing their muscles, with recent transfers of US fighter jets and other military planes to the region. Troops have also been reportedly arriving at various American military bases in the Persian Gulf, with another ten thousand soldiers recently transferred to Israel – allegedly to test the US anti-ballistic missile defense system.

On top of that, two US Navy aircraft carriers – the USS Abraham Lincoln and Carl Vinson – are on patrol in the Persian Gulf and are expected to be joined by the USS Enterprise in March. The USS Annapolis, a nuclear submarine, was earlier reported to have entered the Red Sea and is rumored to be heading towards the Gulf as well.

Together with the US military bases already established in the region – for example, the 5th Fleet, stationed in Bahrain – all of this is interpreted by many as nothing shy of intimidation, and some experts believe the US is trying to provoke Iran into making the first move.

Source

Related posts:

• Israel ‘master of puppets’ in US Iran onslaught
• US and Israel revive largest joint anti-missile drills
• Israel ready to strike Iran without Washington’s approval?
• Israeli agents posed as CIA to recruit terrorists
• Pentagon seeks new superbomb for Iran

US Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul making a speech during one of his campaign stops for the US presidential race, Tuesday 31 Jan. 2012.

US Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul has criticized America’s ‘unwinnable, undeclared’ wars overseas, which have led to the nation’s ‘bankruptcy.’

“In the last 10 years fighting these unwinnable, undeclared wars we have spent over 4 trillion dollars,” said Paul on Tuesday in a speech during one of his campaign stops for the US presidential race.

“There is a cost of life and limb, but there is an economic cost as well and the American people are tired of it because they know this country is bankrupt. All great nations go down because they overextend themselves overseas,” the Texas Congressman said.

“I would say it’s time for us to wake up, not wait for an economic crisis to hit… We ought to just wise up, spend our money wisely, defend this country and don’t pretend that we can tell other people how to live,” the presidential candidate said to a cheering crowd.

Paul also said the US cannot be the policeman of the world, adding that American governments should protect the individual liberties of US citizens.

The American politician called for revoking the Patriot Act, which restricts civil liberties of the American citizens and was signed into law by former President George W. Bush.

Paul, who spent much of the speech emphasizing a non-interventionist foreign policy, which he believes can be done by ending wars, has strongly criticized his country’s politics during his campaign for candidacy in the US presidential election this year.

Source

Related posts:

• Ron Paul starts campaign to end the TSA
• Huntsman drops out of GOP race, Ron Paul surges in South Carolina
• US Nationwide Poll: Ron Paul Surges Into Second
• Ron Paul was right about CIA drug deal
• Poll puts Ron Paul neck-and-neck with Obama

Two ships of the US Navy, the nuclear submarine USS Annapolis and the destroyer USS Momsen have passed through the Suez Canal into the Red Sea. Although their destination is confidential, they are now getting dangerously close to the Persian Gulf.

­The ships’ passage was a major operation for the Suez administration as due to safety reasons they had to close off the canal to all other traffic and even shut down the bridge, disrupting the link between the banks for some four hours. The traffic on the roadways alongside the canal was also restricted, Interfax news agency reports.

There are no reports regarding the destination of the vessels, but the news come amid the ongoing crisis in the relationship between the US and Iran. There is mounting speculation that the Annapolis and the Momsen are heading to the Persian Gulf to reinforce the US naval forces already present in the region.

Currently the US has two aircraft carrier groups in the region headed by USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Carl Vinson. It is expected that another aircraft carrier, USS Enterprise, will join the strike force in March.

Since the EU placed a new round of sanctions on Iran by putting an embargo on Iranian oil, Iran is once again threatening to use military force to close the Strait of Hormuz.

Meanwhile, a Kuwaiti maritime official said on Monday that the Gulf Cooperation Council group of Arab countries have contingency plans for coastguards and naval forces should there be an attempt by Iran to shut down the Strait of Hormuz.

­‘US imperial agenda is now concentrating on Iran’

­Tehran has offered IAEA officials the chance to extend their mission and says it is ready to prove its atomic ambitions are peaceful. But Ralph Sсhoenman, the host of radio program ‘Taking Aim,’ told RT that IAEA’s quest in Iran is hopeless.

“I say hopeless because the United States and the European capitalist spouse will always up the ante,” Sсhoenman explained. “You can be absolutely sure that the reports back from one or more of these inspectors functioning as intelligence operatives will say: ‘Well, there is evidence that they may be doing this and they may be doing that.’”

Sсhoenman believes that the US “imperial agenda, which makes countries their targets in sequence, is now concentrating on Iran.”

“The very idea that Iran is somehow obliged to open its frontiers to inspectors who are essentially penetrated and permeated by the Central Intelligence Agency and Mossad expresses what I am attempting to say to you,” he explained. “This is outrageous, this has no legitimacy and it should be repudiated and exposed for what it is.”

Journalist and author Afshin Rattansi says that there are no reasons why Iran would need another visit from such a biased organization as the IAEA.

“There are cameras, surveillance equipment over all the different sites,” he said. “The IAEA inspection regime, I think most analysts would say, is a front for a WMD [weapons of mass destruction] inspection that we have seen previously in that region.”

Source

Related posts:

• Largest fleet in decades Of American and Israeli warships enter the Red Sea
• US begins Massive Military build up Around Iran preparing for War
• US stations 15,000 troops in Kuwait
• More US battle ships head to Persian Gulf
• Iran’s New Naval Exercise to Coincide With US-Israeli Drill

In a bid to secure its last outpost in South America, the British government is to deploy its most sophisticated warship to the occupied Falkland Islands to give a clear war message to Argentina.

The Ministry of Defense revealed that destroyer HMS Dauntless will sail to the South Atlantic in order to substitute frigate HMS Montrose in the coming weeks. It was claimed that the deployment was long planned but the decision is evidently put in practice when a war of words between Argentina and Britain over the disputed Falkland islands (known as Las Malvinas to Argentina) has intensified.

Tory MP Julian Brazier, who is also a defense select committee’s member, stressed that Britain’s move will send a “powerful and timely message” to the Argentina government that UK “means business when it comes to defending the Falklands.”

While repeating UK government’s colonial policy, Brazier said, “These islanders want to remain British and any oil or gas found in its waters will be British.”

The islands, located about 250 nautical miles from Argentina, have been a British colony for over 180 years. However, Argentina also claimed sovereignty as it controlled the islands before, and the two countries fought a destructive 74-day war over the islands in 1982.

As 30th anniversary of the Argentina-Britain war nears, the dispute over the territory is heating up once again. The British government is attempting to prevent any counter-move taken by Argentina to reclaim its occupied islands.

Jeremy Browne, Foreign Office minister in charge of Latin America, will travel to the islands in June to attend the anniversary of capturing the islands from Argentina. It was formerly announced that the Duke of Cambridge Prince William will also be posted to spend six weeks on the islands as an RAF search-and-rescue pilot next month. Buenos Aires described the move as being “provocative.”

The destroyer is a £1billion warship equipped with supersonic Sea Viper missiles, radar and an air defense system, being able of shooting a cricket ball moving at three times the speed of sound out of the sky.

A Navy source said that the warship could “shoot down Argentine fighters as soon as they take off from their bases,” insisting the deployment would give the Argentina government “serious pause” for thinking about their claims.

Meanwhile, Foreign Secretary William Hague underplayed the deployment of the warship, claiming they were routine moves, but warning “the Royal Navy packs a considerable punch.”

Source

Related posts:

• UK Cannot Confront Argentina
• UK Sends Nuclear Submarine to Falkland Islands
• Brazil backs Argentina over Malvinas
• £250m bill to fund college places in UK for foreign students
• UK Education Guidelines: Do not use ‘Mum’ and ‘Dad’

Iranian Troops

Depending on how soon military contractors can get to work on a massive US Navy “mother ship,” a colossal sea vessel could be stationed outside of Iran as early as this May.

At a Department of Defense briefing at the Pentagon this weekend, authorities confirmed that the USS Ponce, a massive marine carrier currently docked off the Atlantic coast of Virginia, will undergo work to be ready for deployment towards Iran. The US military intended for the Ponce to be decommissioned in this past December, but the Navy has since announced that it is accepting applications from contractors that can help outfit the ship from an upcoming operation in the Strait of Hormuz.

In a major change of pace, the USS Ponce will not be docked for much longer. Previously the boat had been stationed outside of Libya, acting as a crucial carrier used by the US Navy in the campaign against Muammar Gaddafi. But now the military is taking offers through February 3 and wants the winning bid to begin converting the carrier within 10 days. Israeli news outlet Debka reports that the US hopes to have Ponce ready for deployment by May, adding an incredibly large American presence in the Middle East where the US has upped the ante more and more as of late.

As tensions have worsened between the US and Iran during the last few weeks, authorities in Tehran threatened to shut-down the adjacent Strait of Hormuz, a crucial route for oil exports. The United States responded by mobilizing troops throughout the area, including stationing 15,000 troops in the neighboring nation of Kuwait, outfitting the United Arab Emirates with heavy weaponry and vowing to continue a drone surveillance program over Iran.

Also on the agenda for American authorities is a massive missile exercise to be conducted in cooperation with Israel. The drill was mysteriously cancelled earlier this month, but has since been put back in motion. Now the American and Israeli missile programs will conduct a joint test in October, which some say will only turn the heat up on Tehran.

When plans for the missile test — the largest ever of its kind — were revamped, critics considered it all but confirmation that an Iran-America war would be on the horizon come October. If the USS Ponce is outfitted as soon as the military hopes, however, it could be a lot sooner when a America begins its net official war: the US Navy published a no-big contract for work on outfitting the ship and called any delays on the procedure a “national security risk.”

Once outfitted, the USS Ponce will be prepared to support ships that will scour the Strait of Hormuz for mines placed by Iranian fleets and also assist with US Navy SEAL operations.

Source

Related posts:

• US begins Massive Military build up Around Iran preparing for War
• US nuclear submarine and destroyer enter Red Sea
• Merkel to sway China against Iran
• Pentagon seeks new superbomb for Iran
• India to buy Iran oil in Gold not Dollars

A huge picture of Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is erected between a Sajjil (R) and Qadr-F (L) missiles

The military build-up and economic sanctions against Iran are designed to unleash a global war from the Mediterranean to China with unpredictable consequences, warns Michel Chossudovsky, Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

­Tensions between Iran and the West are close to crisis level. With massive help from the western media, Iran has firmly become embedded as the root of all evil in the minds of many westerners.

The author of the book Towards a World War Three Scenario, The Dangers of Nuclear War told RT that “The issue of Iran’s nuclear weapons is a red herring, but this red herring could lead us to a WWIII scenario.” He also recalled all the American military bases with nuclear weapons close to Iran’s borders.

Michel Chossudovsky recalled that a couple of weeks ago, America’s Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta quite categorically stated to CBS that Iran neither possesses, nor is developing nuclear weapons. Panetta did not rule out that there are still diplomatic means to cut Iran’s Gordian knot.

But considering the US military preparations around Iran, this statement rather looks like a deceptive maneuver.

Last week, EU nations adopted an unprecedented set of sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

These include a complete embargo on oil supplies from Iran, and are expected to come into force in July.

“What we are witnessing here is a build-up towards a military confrontation. These sanctions constitute the staging of a military agenda,” feels Michel Chossudovsky. “In turn, we have massive deployment of US military hardware, troops going to Israel to be stationed in Israel, more troops go to Kuwait, [American] naval forces are entering the Persian Gulf.”

Michel Chossudovsky believes that “What the United States wants now, including its allies, is some kind of a green light which will give a human face to a war.”

On Monday, the UN nuclear inspectors started a three-day mission to examine Iran’s atomic activities.

Tehran says the talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the first in more than three years, will prove its nuclear program is purely peaceful.

With the visit of the IAEA inspectors, Iran is playing a diplomatic card, believes Chossudovsky. The IAEA is not politically controlled, so once it confirms Iran’s nuclear program has peaceful purposes, this should undermine the aggressive intentions of the West.

The US needs a contrary statement from the IAEA to use this for transition to a new – military – stage in the Iran drama.

“This war has already started. There are drone attacks, there are special [American] forces inside Iran and there is financial warfare,” considers Michel Chossudovsky.

Plans to invade Iran emerged immediately after the invasion of Iraq, Chossudovsky informs, with military preparations begun around 2005, so by now everything should be ready and in place for a full-scale military conflict.

“The WWIII scenario is unthinkable. This war would extend from the Meditarranean to the Chinese border. It could possibly include Russia and China,” Michel Chossudovsky concluded. “We could find ourselves at a very critical crossroads.”

Source

Related posts:

• Chinese General Threatens US with World War 3 over Iran
• Iran’s warships arrive in Saudi Arabia
• Merkel to sway China against Iran
• India to buy Iran oil in Gold not Dollars
• China, India brush aside Iran oil ban

Flag-draped family at a rally at the Capitol in Washington, May 22, 2011

America’s frenzy over “diabolic” Iran has its roots not on the Potomac riverside, but rather on the banks of Tel Aviv’s Yarkon River: appeasing the US Jewish community has become an inevitable idiosyncrasy of the US presidential campaign.

­When America beats the drums of war over Iran, it may not always be driven by the Islamic state’s alleged nuclear intentions.

Would-be US presidential candidates aren’t shy when it comes to voicing their anti-Iran rhetoric in front of America’s influential Jewish community.

And America almost never misses an opportunity to praise its best ally.

“Our iron-clad commitment, and I mean iron-clad, to Israel’s security has meant the closest military cooperation between our two countries, in history,” announced US President Barack Obama from a rostrum in Washington.

And the American President did not forget to point a proverbial punch at Israel’s greatest adversary.

“Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal,” Barack Obama insisted.

However, for many American Jews and Israeli supporters, Obama’s war of words against Tehran doesn’t go far enough.

The President of the Zionist Organization of America Morton A. Klein shared with RT that “It’s not enough to simply state you’re committed to Israel’s security. You have to promote policies that show that you’re serious about the security of Israel.”

“Israel, through his actions, feels that Obama is not committed to doing everything in his power to stop Iran from having nuclear weapons. Iran is an existential threat to Israel, and Obama should be saying so publicly, that he will support Israel in any military action necessary,” laid down Klein.

Klein says an unprecedented number of American Jews and Israelis share his animosity, a feeling arguably underscored by the Israeli government. According to published reports, Tel Aviv would only give Washington 12-hours’ notice if deciding to strike Iran.

“I believe his [Barack Obama’s] policies are among the most hostile Israel has ever experienced out of any [American] president in my lifetime,” Morton A. Klein confessed.

Recently, it was the life of President Obama itself being threatened in a column written by the owner of the Atlanta Jewish Times.

In an article titled ‘What would you do?’ the newspaper’s publisher Andrew Adler listed the assassination of President Obama as one way to ensure Israel’s security.

“Give the go-ahead for US-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States’ policy includes helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies,” he writes.

Mark Glenn, journalist of Theuglytruth.com shared with RT: “I think the threat made to Obama, either play along with us, or we are going to kill you politically or literally, I think that it is a serious threat we have to take seriously.”

“The American president depends on money in order to get re-elected along with all other members of Congress and AIPAC [The American Israel Public Affairs Committee] is the largest lobbying group in the United States. It is the king maker and the king breaker,” Glenn concludes.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee declined RT’s request for an interview. In the meantime, Obama finds himself facing another election and a slew of Republican opponents banging war drums against Iran – much louder than he does.

“With regards to Iran, which perhaps represents the greatest existential threat to Israel, we have to make it abundantly clear, it is unacceptable for Iran to become a nuclear nation,” proclaims Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

“If we re-elect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon,” declared Romney. “And if you elect Mitt Romney, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon.”

“When Rick Santorum is president, Iran will not get a nuclear weapon because the world as we know it will be no more,” promises another Republican candidate, Rick Santorum.

The third Republican presidential aspirant, Newt Gingrich, said to CNN “I am a clear ally of Israel. I am very close to [Israeli President Benjamin] Netanyahu. I’ve said publicly, I would rather plan a joint operation conventionally, than push the Israelis to a point where they go nuclear.”

At a time when the US bears the burden of a broken economy, growing social unrest and ongoing military conflicts, many experts insist starting a war with Iran would not be in America’s best interest. But in order to keep a best friend, many believe President Obama will be forced to put Israel’s national security first.

Source

Related posts:

• Israel ready to strike Iran without Washington’s approval?
• Iran has uranium for 4 nukes, builds US-reach missiles – Israel
• US and Israel revive largest joint anti-missile drills
• Israeli agents posed as CIA to recruit terrorists
• US, Israel in open rift over Iran

Having considered the toughness of the rock-hidden Iranian nuclear facilities, America’s Nutcracker military command has decided to save jaw and develop a new conventional superbomb, since the US still plans to do the job in Iran without nukes.

­Washington has once again reminded Tehran that it has the military capability to crack Iranian hard-target nuclear sites with conventional weapons, leaking to the Wall Street Journal plans to develop an even more effective bunker-buster bomb.

The American military is no longer in love with the most powerful non-nuclear weapon it possesses, the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), a 13,600-kilogram mammoth capable of penetrating deep underground facilities.

The Pentagon paid around $330 million to Boeing to develop and produce 20 MOP bombs, specially developed to destroy bunkers in countries like Iran and North Korea.

Now, the Defense Department intends to spend another $82 million, to make those bombs even more effective.

An MOP is capable of penetrating 60 meters of reinforced concrete or 38 meters of hard rock, delivering 2,700 kg of explosives deep down, to reliably demolish anything manmade. Yet, in the case of Iran’s Persian mountains, even this doesn’t seem enough.

In hiding its nuclear work, Tehran clearly considered the experience of Saddam Hussein and Bashar Assad, who lost their research nuclear reactors in 1981 and 2007 respectively.

Iranians really had to turn into fairytale dwarves, digging deep into the mountains but with a very un-fairytale intention: not to find something precious, but to safely hide their nuclear program.

In our times, when bombing a sovereign state into Stone Age is an easy walk, as we see from Libya’s example, such a precautionary measure does not appear superfluous.

But this is exactly what makes American generals nervous – they need 100% guarantees that the targets they cannot destroy do not exist, particularly in Iran.

For example, military experts are not sure an MOP can get to Iran’s Fordo enrichment plant facility that has 60 meters of hard rock mountain above it.

At the moment, only a tactical nuclear weapon of several dozen kilotons could guarantee the site’s elimination.

“Once things go into the mountain, then really you have to have something that takes the mountain off,” an unnamed US military official is reported to have said.

But no, using nukes would set a precedent for all the other proud owners of atomic arms worldwide. Countries like China, North Korea and – God forbid – Russia would get a free hand to blindside America with nukes at the breath of suspicion.

The last time the US used nuclear weapons against a civilian population was in Japan in 1945, and that fact is still well-remembered, and not just in Japan.

That is why today, the American military lays its hopes on conventional explosives with expanded capabilities, putting tactical nukes by for a rainy day.

And just in case you were wondering, none of the abovementioned has anything to do with Israel. Though Tel-Aviv has never tried out its almost proven nuclear arsenal on anybody, they rather like saber-rattling, saying they would protect the Jewish state at any cost – and preemptively.

Their fingers are apparently itching on the trigger switch, in forgetfulness that the country starting a war is not necessarily the one that finishes it.

Source

Related posts:

• Iran has uranium for 4 nukes, builds US-reach missiles – Israel
• More US battle ships head to Persian Gulf
• Israel ‘master of puppets’ in US Iran onslaught
• US and Israel revive largest joint anti-missile drills
• Israel ready to strike Iran without Washington’s approval?

A British senior military figure says Britain would not be able to confront Argentina over Las Malvinas, sending a clear signal to British officials to stop boasting of UK’s military capability.

Former head of the British army General Sir Michael Jackson said that it would be impossible for the British military to confront Argentina in case a military confrontation takes place over the sovereignty of the Malvinas islands.

“What if an Argentinean force was able to secure the Mount Pleasant airfield? Then our ability to recover the islands now would be just about impossible,” said Jackson in an interview with the Sunday Telegraph.

Jackson’s comments came after Britain’s Minister for International Security Strategy Gerald Howarth accused Argentina of “sabre-rattling” threatening Buenos Aires with a military response.

The comments were a response to Argentinean President Christina Fernandez who hit out at British Prime Minister David Cameron for accusing her country of colonialism.

“In this upside down world, in my absence I’ve heard they were calling us colonialists,” said Fernandez.

However, Fernandez underlined the importance of diplomacy and negotiations over the disputed islands as she promised the Argentinean people to rigorously work and have Britain sit at the table of negotiation.

“We will continue claiming our Islands with far more political, juridical, and diplomatic rigour and with the so many supports that we are receiving. But it’s good to remember that this is not an overnight achievement, it has taken years,” said Fernandez.

Proud of their victory in the 74-day war in 1982, British officials have been provocative as the country’s Ministry of Defence announced a contingency plan to increase their military presence on the island.

Moreover, Duke of Cambridge Prince William is supposed to spend six weeks on the islands as a search-and-rescue co-pilot.

Despite the provocative line taken up by Britain, its military capability has been seriously questioned as the Harrier fleet, Britain’s aircraft carriers that secured her victory in 1982, is sold to the US Marine Corps.

Source

Related posts:

• UK Sends Nuclear Submarine to Falkland Islands
• Britain to send war message to Argentina
• Brazil backs Argentina over Malvinas
• Men who Smoke More Likely to Suffer Dementia in Later Life
• Sarkozy attacks UK in fresh outburst