Militia Groups Across US rising

SOURCE-ABC NEWS
Militia groups with gripes against the government are regrouping across the country and could grow rapidly, according to an organization that tracks such trends.

The stress of a poor economy and a liberal administration led by a black president are among the causes for the recent rise, the report from the Southern Poverty Law Center says. Conspiracy theories about a secret Mexican plan to reclaim the Southwest are also growing amid the public debate about illegal immigration.

Bart McEntire, a special agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, told SPLC researchers that this is the most growth he's seen in more than a decade.

"All it's lacking is a spark," McEntire said in the report.

It's reminiscent of what was seen in the 1990s — right-wing militias, people ideologically against paying taxes and so-called "sovereign citizens" are popping up in large numbers, according to the report to be released Wednesday. The SPLC is a nonprofit civil rights group that, among other activities, investigates hate groups.

Last October, someone from the Ohio Militia posted a recruiting video on YouTube, billed as a "wake-up call" for America. It's been viewed more than 60,000 times.

"Things are bad, things are real bad, and it's going to be a lot worse," said the man on the video, who did not give his name. "Our country is in peril."
The man is holding an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, and he encourages viewers to buy one.( VIDEO IS POTED IN THE END OF THIS POST)

While anti-government sentiment has been on the rise over the last two years, there aren't as many threats and violent acts at this point as there were in the 1990s, according to the report. That movement bore the likes of Timothy McVeigh, who in 1995 blew up a federal building in Oklahoma City and killed 168 people.

But McEntire fears it's only a matter of time.

These militias are concentrated in the Midwest, Pacific Northwest and the Deep South, according to Mark Potok, an SPLC staff director who co-wrote the report. Recruiting videos and other outreach on the Internet are on the rise, he said, and researchers from his center found at least 50 new groups in the last few months.

The militia movement of the 1990s gained traction with growing concerns about gun control, environmental laws and anything perceived as liberal government meddling.

The spark for that movement came in 1992 with an FBI standoff with white separatist Randall Weaver at Ruby Ridge, Idaho. Weaver's wife and son were killed by an FBI sniper. And in 1993, a 52-day standoff between federal agents and the Branch Davidian cult in Waco, Texas, resulted in nearly 80 deaths. These events rallied more people who became convinced that the government would murder its own citizens to promote its liberal agenda.

Now officials are seeing a new generation of activists, according to the report. The law center spotlights Edward Koernke, a Michigan man who hosts an Internet radio show about militias. His father, Mark, was a major figure in the 1990s militia movement and served six years in prison for charges including assaulting police.

Last year, officials warned about an increase in activity from militias in a five-year threat projection by the Homeland Security Department.

"White supremacists and militias are more violent and thus more likely to conduct mass-casualty attacks on the scale of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing," the threat projection said.

A series of domestic terrorism incidents over the past year have not been directly tied to organized militias, but the rhetoric behind some of the crimes are similar with that of the militia movement. For instance, the man charged with the April killings of three Pittsburgh police officers posted some of his views online. Richard Andrew Poplawski wrote that U.S. troops could be used against American citizens, and he thinks a gun ban could be coming.

The FBI's assistant director for counterterrorism, Michael Heimbach, said that law enforcement officials need to identify people who go beyond hateful rhetoric and decide to commit violent acts and crimes. Heimbach said one of the bigger challenges is identifying the lone-wolf offenders.
One alleged example of a lone-wolf offender is the 88-year-old man charged in the June shooting death of a guard at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington

US Secretary of State Clinton hits the roof about comment on her husband

SOURCE-RIA-NOVOSTI
Clinton bristled on Monday when - as she heard it - a Congolese university student asked what her husband thought about an international financial matter.
Clinton arrived in the Congolese capital Kinshasa on part of her 11-day journey through Africa to promote development and good governance and underscore the Obama administration's commitment to the world's poorest continent.
VIDEO BELOW SHOWS WHAT HAPPENED

RUSSIAN MEDIA ACCUSES WESTERN MEDIA OF BIASED REPORTING.

A year ago a story on Georgia’s war against S.Ossetia filmed by a Russian cameraman was silenced on Polish TV because it was out of tune with the politicized official media line in the country
Russian media blamed western media of biasness during the osettian war. here is the report by RUSSIA TODAY a Russian english news chennel.

Chavez Urges Military to Be Prepared for Conflict

SOURCE-TIME
Chavez Urges Military to Be Prepared for Conflict
By AP / CHRISTOPHER TOOTHAKER Monday, Aug. 10, ..
(CARACAS) — President Hugo Chavez told his military to be prepared for a possible confrontation with Colombia, warning that Bogota's plans to increase the U.S. military presence at its bases poses a threat to Venezuela.

"The threat against us is growing," Chavez said Sunday. "I call on the people and the armed forces, let's go, ready for combat!"

The former paratroop commander said Colombian soldiers were recently spotted crossing the porous 1,400-mile (2,300-kilometer) border that separates the two countries and suggested that Colombia may have been trying to provoke Venezuela's military.

"They crossed the Orinoco River in a boat and entered Venezuelan territory," Chavez said. "When our troops arrived, they'd already left."


In Bogota, Colombia's foreign ministry issued a news release denying reports that soldiers crossed into Venezuela, after a revision of troop movements by the Colombian military.

Chavez said Venezuela's foreign ministry would file a formal complaint and warned Colombia that "Venezuela's military will respond if there's an attack against Venezuela."

Chavez said he would attend this week's summit of the Union of South American Nations in Quito, Ecuador, to urge his Latin American allies to pressure Colombian President Alvaro Uribe to reconsider plans to increase the U.S. military presence.

"We cannot ignore this threat," Chavez said during his weekly radio and television program, "Hello President."

Chavez also halted shipments of subsidized fuel to Colombia, saying Venezuela should not be sending cheap gasoline to an antagonistic neighbor.

"Let them buy it at the real price. How are we going to favor Uribe's government in this manner?" he said.

Colombian officials say Venezuela has no reason to be concerned, and that the U.S. forces would help fight drug trafficking. The proposed 10-year agreement, they claim, would not push the number of American troops and civilian military contractors beyond 1,400 — the maximum currently permitted by U.S. law.

Tensions between the neighboring South American nations also have been heightened over Colombia's disclosure that three Swedish-made anti-tank weapons found at a rebel camp last year had been purchased by Venezuela's military.

Chavez has accused Colombia of acting irresponsibly in its accusation that the anti-tank rocket launchers sold to Venezuela in 1988 were obtained by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC. Sweden confirmed the weapons were originally sold to Venezuela's military.

Chavez denies aiding the FARC. He claims the United States is using Colombia as part of a broader plan to portray him as a supporter of terrorist groups to provide justification for U.S. military intervention in Venezuela.

Chavez said Sunday that diplomatic relations with Uribe's government "remain frozen" even though he ordered Venezuela's ambassador to return to Colombia more than a week after he was recalled.

INTERVIEW SHOWS SPLIT IN PAKISTANI TALIBAN-TALIBAN INTERVIEW

SOURCE-CNN
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — The car in front of me is carrying a man at the heart of the Taliban uprising in Pakistan
This has been a carefully orchestrated rendezvous: Secrecy is everything.We arranged for our cars to pass at a designated spot at a turnoff on the outskirts of Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad.We slow down, and the other car positions in front of us.We are led down a narrow alleyway and into a non-descript house for a face-to-face interview.This has all been patiently organized by our intermediary, a man known to the militant and trusted by us.But there are always nagging concerns. Some in our car are a little nervous, and that is perfectly understandable, but I am comfortable we have taken every safeguard.The man I finally meet is tall, probably in his mid-to-late 30’s with a heavy black beard. He is wearing a white shawal kameez (traditional Pakistani dress), and he ties a white turban around his head.He is wanted by Pakistani police for terrorism.This is a man who has fought on the front lines both in Pakistan and Afghanistan. He was a leader of the Red Mosque in Islamabad, the scene of a siege by Pakistan military in 2007 which left more than 100 people dead.We can’t film his face, and we can’t identify him. He tells us we can refer to him only as “Mullah Wajid.”As we begin the interview, at first he won’t meet my eye. When we shake hands he looks slightly away.My cameraman can only film him from behind, and he won’t allow us even to film his hands.Two men stand behind our camera watching every shot. When the interview is over they command us to stop filming immediately.But the interview itself is a surprise. Interviews with Taliban are rare. To have the chance to put questions directly to a man so heavily involved in the insurgency shines a light into a world often closed from us.I expect the usual anti-America diatribe, and there is. He says the U.S and coalition forces must leave Afghanistan, and he wants a return to Taliban rule there.He also criticizes some in Pakistan for being pro-U.S and implementing U.S. foreign policy.

What I wasn’t expecting was his denunciation of other Taliban.He says some in Pakistan have gone too far and are inflicting suffering on ordinary civilians. He says the supreme Taliban leader, Mohammed_Omar" rel=wikipedia>Mullah Omar, has rejected these militants and says they are not “real Taliban.”This is a twist, and it comes after the release of a new Taliban code of conduct. The code says civilian suffering and casualties are to be avoided, urging Taliban to go after “high value” targets like coalition troops and government officials.The Taliban is bogged down in heavy fighting both in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Like any insurgency, if it loses the people, it loses the war.

And now the U.S. and others are seeking out what they call “good Taliban:” moderate militants they can negotiate with.

The Taliban leadership wants to cleanse itself of the rogue elements. It wants to present a disciplined, cohesive force that can’t easily be divided and conquered.

“Mullah Wajid” may be rejecting some hard-liners, but he hasn’t gone soft. He wants nothing less than the U.S. out of all Muslim land.

I ask him if he is prepared to kill and die for his beliefs.“Yes. Inshallah (God willing).”In that he is not so different from other Taliban after all.

Posted by: CNN Correspondent, Stan Grant

US 'biggest' threat say Pakistanis

SOURCE - ALJAZERA
A survey commissioned by Al Jazeera in Pakistan has revealed a widespread disenchantment with the United States for interfering with what most people consider internal Pakistani affairs.

The polling was conducted by Gallup Pakistan - a separate organisation affiliated with the US-based Gallup Inc - and more than 2,600 people took part.

Interviews were conducted across the political spectrum in all four of the country's provinces, and represented men and women of every economic and ethnic background.

When respondents were asked what they consider to be the biggest threat to the nation of Pakistan, 11 per cent of the population identified the Taliban fighters, who have been blamed for scores of deadly bomb attacks across the country in recent years.

Another 18 per cent said that they believe that the greatest threat came from neighbouring India, which has fought three wars with Pakistan since partition in 1947.

But an overwhelming number, 59 per cent of respondents, said the greatest threat to Pakistan right now is, in fact, the US, a donor of considerable amounts of military and development aid.

Tackling the Taliban

The resentment was made clearer when residents were asked about the Pakistan's military efforts to tackle the Taliban.

Keeping with recent trends a growing number of people, now 41 per cent, supported the campaign.

About 24 per cent of people remained opposed, while another 22 per cent of Pakistanis remained neutral on the question.

A recent offensive against Taliban fighters in the Swat, Lower Dir and Buner districts of North West Frontier Province killed at least 1,400 fighters, according to the military, but also devastated the area and forced two million to leave their homes.

The military has declared the operation a success, however, some analysts have suggested that many Taliban fighters simply slipped away to other areas, surviving to fight another day.

When people were asked if they would support government-sanctioned dialogue with Taliban fighters if it were a viable option the numbers change significantly.

Although the same 41 per cent said they would still support the military offensive, the number of those supporting dialogue leaps up to 43 per cent.

So clearly, Pakistanis are, right now, fairly evenly split on how to deal with the Taliban threat.

Drone anger

However, when asked if they support or oppose the US military's drone attacks against what Washington claims are Taliban and al-Qaeda targets, only nine per cent of respondents reacted favourably.

A massive 67 per cent say they oppose US military operations on Pakistani soil.



Forty-one per cent of Pakistanis say they support the offensive against the Taliban


"This is a fact that the hatred against the US is growing very quickly, mainly because of these drone attacks," Makhdoom Babar, the editor-in-chief of Pakistan's The Daily Mail newspaper, said.

"Maybe the intelligence channels, the military channels consider it productive, but for the general public it is controversial ... the drone attacks are causing collateral damage," he told Al Jazeera.

Nearly 500 people, mostly suspected Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters, are believed to have been killed in about 50 US drone attacks since August last year, according to intelligence agents, local government officials and witnesses.

Washington refuses to confirm the raids, but the US military in neighbouring Afghanistan and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) are the only forces operating in the area that are known to have the technology.

The government in Islamabad formally opposes the attacks saying that they violate Pakistani sovereignty and cause civilian casualties which turn public opinion against efforts to battle the Taliban.

The consensus of opinion in opposition to US military involvement in Pakistan is notable given the fact that on a raft of internal issues there is a clear level of disagreement, something which would be expected in a country of this size.

Pakistani leadership

When asked for their opinions on Asif Ali Zardari, the Pakistani president, 42 per cent of respondents said they believed he was doing a bad job. Around 11 per cent approved of his leadership, and another 34 per cent had no strong opinion either way.

That pattern was reflected in a question about Zardari's Pakistan People's Party (PPP).

Respondents were asked if they thought the PPP was good or bad for the country.

About 38 per cent said the PPP was bad for the country, 20 per cent believed it was good for the country and another 30 per cent said they had no strong opinion.

Respondents were even more fractured when asked for their views on how the country should be led.

By far, the largest percentage would opt for Nawaz Sharif, a former prime minister and leader of the Pakistan Muslim League-N (PML-N) party, as leader. At least 38 per cent backed him to run Pakistan.

Last month, the Pakistani supreme court quashed Sharif's conviction on charges of hijacking, opening the way for him to run for political office again.

Zardari 'unpopular'

Zardari, the widower of assassinated former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, received only nine per cent support, while Reza Gilani, Pakistan's prime minister, had the backing of 13 per cent.



The survey suggests Sharif is Pakistan's most popular politician by some distance [AFP]
But from there, opinions vary greatly. Eight per cent of the population would support a military government, 11 per cent back a political coalition of the PPP and the PML-N party.

Another six per cent throw their support behind religious parties and the remaining 15 per cent would either back smaller groups or simply do not have an opinion.

Babar told Al Jazeera that Zardari's unpopularity was understandable given the challenges that the country had faced since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US.

"Any president in Pakistan would be having the same popularity that President Zardari is having, because under this situation the president of Pakistan has to take a lot of unpopular decisions," he said.

"He is in no position to not take unpopular decisions that are actually in the wider interests of the country, but for common people these are very unpopular decisions."

FOR COMPLETE POLL RESULTS http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2009/08/2009888238994769.html

HOW A SON OF PESH-IMAM BECAME PAKISTANS MOST WANTED MAN-STORY OF BAITULLAH

SOURCE-DAWN.COM
Born in 1972, Baitullah Mehsud had to suffer an early childhood dislocation when he moved, along with his father, from his Nargosha village to Landi Dhok in Bannu, close to the South Waziristan tribal region.

His father served as a Pesh-Imam (prayer leader) in a mosque in Landi Dhok before moving to Miramshah in North Waziristan and there also he led prayers in a mosque. Baitullah got a little religious education in Miramshah’s Pepal Madressah.

And it was in Miramshah where Baitullah is believed to have come into contact with Taliban militants who persuaded him to join them in the fight against the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan.He fought well in Afghanistan and established himself as a fighter, a senior security officer, who himself belongs to the Mehsud tribe, recalled.

Baitullah returned to his native South Waziristan after the United States invaded Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban regime in November 2001.

He shot to prominence after the notorious Taliban commander in South Waziristan, Nek Mohammad, was killed in a missile attack in Wana in June 2004. But he keep a low profile when the one-legged former Guantanamo detainee, Abdullah Mehsud, reined supreme in the Mehsud territory.

His real chance to claim leadership came soon after Abdullah kidnapped two Chinese engineers in October 2004. Miffed that the fiery militant commander had picked up an unnecessary fight with Pakistan’s security forces, a shura of the local Taliban removed Abdullah Mehsud and handed over the command of the Taliban in South Waziristan to Baitullah.

Known for his cool-headedness, the military hailed Baitullah’s ascension, called him a soldier of peace and signed the Sara Rogha agreement with him in February 2005.

The peace agreement collapsed in a matter of months, with both sides accusing each other of violating its terms, leading to the beginning of hostilities that took a huge toll.

Baitullah proved himself a tough warrior, taking due advantage of a territory that was native and treacherous, by defeating two successive military operations.

He catapulted to the limelight when he took hundreds of Pakistani soldiers hostage in August 2007. It was perhaps because of this singular feat that militants in the length and breadth of Fata at a 20-member shura meeting chose him as leader of the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan in December 2007.

Baitullah unleashed a wave of suicide bombings in Pakistan. Army Chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani once told journalists that the TTP leader was behind almost all attacks inside Pakistan.

According to a UN report, Baitullah was behind 80 per cent of the suicide bombings in Afghanistan.

He gained in stature to the extent that The Time magazine rated him as one of the 100 most influential people in the world. Not to be left behind, The Newsweek described him as more dangerous than Osama bin Laden.

Accounts vary about the actual strength of his force, but intelligence agencies put the number of his fighting force at 20,000 to 30,000, including 2,000 to 3,000 foreign militants, mostly of Central Asian origin – Uzbeks and Chechens.

He ran a number of training camps, including those indoctrinating suicide bombers – a weapon – he once called his own atom bombs.

A short-stocky man, Baitullah suffered from diabetes that once prompted reports of serious illness and then death in late 2008. Much to the disappointment of many, the man bounced back to host a big feast of lamb and rice to celebrate his second marriage to a daughter of the local influential tribal leader, Malik Ikramuddin. He, however, remained issueless.

According to one account, he was also the ghost writer of a book in Urdu, Carvan-i-Baitullah Mehsud, using the pen-name of Abu Munib. In the book, he described his ideology, war strategy and details pertaining to his movement.

The United States had announced a $5 million bounty on Baitullah’s head in March this year. But it took Pakistan several months before making up its mind to declare him as Pakistan’s enemy number one and announce a reward of Rs50 million for his capture, dead or alive, in June.

Trouble began to emerge for the TTP leader when the government announced the launching of a military operation against him in June. No ground offensive was launched and the government changed its tactics to use air strikes and artillery, besides imposing an effective economic blockade to stop fuel and food supply to the area. Thousands of Mehsuds fled the area.

He was under pressure both from within his own Mehsud clan, which wanted him to ease it off with the government, and his commanders who egged him on to fight off the military. For the first time, his decision and thought-making process was shaky, an official familiar with the situation in the area said.

He wouldn’t stay in one place for two months and would constantly change places. His nerves were on edge, he remarked.

It is useless to run away. I know some day, one day they will come and get me, one senior official quoted Baitullah as telling a fellow Mehsud tribesman.

Little did the man, described by a senior security official as someone with fox-like instincts to sense danger, suspect that he was exposing himself to a missile target by relaxing with his younger wife on a roof in Zanghara, South Waziristan

Iran in arms race with Israel

SOURE:ALJAZERA
By Paul Beaver
Iran is one of the world's most significant nations in terms of history, culture and intellectual capacity, and is matched in the Middle East perhaps only by Israel.

It is a small wonder, then, that when Iran's hard-line and irascible president talks of building military capability and destroying Israel, Tel Aviv feels its survival is menaced and that Tehran's regime is its nemesis.

For all of its 61 years in existence, Israel has considered itself in a permanent war of survival. It has developed a national system which places great emphasis on its military and intelligence capabilities.Starting from scratch, Israel has developed technologies which are truly world-leading, especially in the delivery of shock and awe on any potential enemy.

For the early part of its statehood, Israel had shared the support of the United States, as its protector and military hardware supplier, with the Shah's Iran.

When a belligerent Saddam Hussein took power in Iraq, both the Shah and Israel were uneasy and often co-operated in exploiting technology, both US and home-grown in Israel.There is documented evidence that Israel supplied Iran with communications equipment and the supporting paraphernalia needed to allow both countries (and probably the US Central Intelligence Agency) to eavesdrop on Iraq.

The great divide

The Iranian Revolution changed all that and since 1980, Israel and Iran have grown apart. So far apart, in fact, that there is a real risk of armed conflict between the two states.What makes the world sit up and take note is that Israel is a nuclear power with delivery systems which can reach Iran – and Iran is, according to US experts, just two years away from creating a nuclear strike capability of its own.

US experts believe Iran will be able to produce nuclear weapons material in the next few months.

For Jordan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia – and even the Gulf states - this is particularly worrying as any nuclear-tipped missiles would fly overhead no matter who launches them.In addition, Israel has a sophisticated - and tested - anti-missile system called Arrow, which could knock out a potential Iranian first strike. The problem for Israel's neighbours is not the technology but where the debris might fall if the Arrow were ever to be used.

Israel has watched with growing horror as the rhetoric from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, stokes tensions and as Tehran appears to be determined to create a full nuclear weapon capability.Israel has taken steps to improve its nation's defences and its long-range strike capability. There is no doubt that the Israeli military could mount a successful air strike against targets in Iran and certainly that the Jericho series of ballistic missiles could hit targets with great accuracy.

Unwanted scenarios


Ballistic arsenals:
Iran vs Israel
Short range ballistic missiles <1000km
Israel:
Jericho I - 500 km
Iran:
Mushak 120- 130km
Mushak 160- 160km
Mushak 200- 200km
Shahab 1- 300km
Shahab 2- 500km



Medium range ballistic missiles 1000 - 3000km
Israel:
Jericho II: 1500km
Iran:
Shahab3: 1300km
Shahab4: 3000km
Ghadr 101: 2500km
Ghadr 110: 3000km
IRIS: 3000km
KH-55: 2900-3000km

Intermediate-range Ballistic missiles 3000-5500km
Iran:
Shahab: 5500km

Intercontinental-range ballistic missiles > 5500km
Israel:
Jericho III: 4800-6500km
Iran:
Shahab 6: 10,000km

Source: Center for Strategic & International Studies

But it is also clear that any such first strike would provoke clear and rapid hostile reactions around the world, especially from moderate Arab nations with whom Israel seeks accord and co-operation against Iran, as well as by the European Union and others opposed to first strike operations – in favour of a self-defence option.
The Middle East peace process would be indirectly destroyed and Iran's proxies in Lebanon and Gaza would probably enter the fray against Israel.

Israeli interests worldwide could also be threatened.

Iran is not yet in a position to launch a first strike against Israel. This is perhaps a key concern because Israel has a reputation for not allowing a first strike capability to develop.It has a record of destroying the Egyptian ballistic missile industry under Gamal Abdel Nasser, the late Egyptian president; destroying French-built Iraqi nuclear reactors outside Baghdad at Osirak in 1981, and interdicting the supply of arms moving through Sudan as recently as January this year.

Nevertheless, Iran has had a series of short-range ballistic missiles for three decades, having developed them for the 'War of the Cities' during the war with Iraq. Much of the technology was originally bought from Pakistan and later North Korea.There is Russian and Chinese technology extant as well – even technology bought commercially in electronics supermarkets in Japan as a report in Jane's Defence Weekly revealed 15 years ago.

But creating a weapon in sufficient numbers and capability to destroy key targets in Israel is a different matter.Even if Iran had a nuclear device now, it would take some time to 'weaponise' it to create a first strike capability. North Korea is struggling with same problems which leads many to believe there is a union of need between the two otherwise unlikely bedfellows.

Black market technologies



An Israeli strike against Iran could drag in proxies into a wider Middle East conflict [EPA]
Iran's defence industries have created good technologies of their own since the US-inspired arms embargo which followed the cessation of hostilities with Iraq in 1988. Battlefield weapon systems were developed from black market Russian missiles and by some clever adaptations of US technology.For example, Iran's military took medium-range air-to-air missiles (originally exported to Iran in the time of the Shah for the F-14 Tomcat and F-4 Phantom fleets) and reconfigured the guidance systems from air-to-air to air-to-ground.

Israel has also seen Iran, under Ahmadinejad, support both Hezbollah and Hamas. Recent military operations in South Lebanon in 2006 and against Hamas in Gaza in 2009 have witnessed a haul of Iranian-supplied systems.Israel has put extreme diplomatic pressure on Russia about the extent of weapons sales to Iran. The unlikely alliance between Iran and Syria has also contributed to Israel's unease and feeling that it is - like in the early 1960s - surrounded by potential aggressors.Washington's anti-Iran stance under George Bush, the former US president, led to speculation that the US would provide the technology for Israel to launch a conventional bombing raid – or rather series of raids – against Iranian nuclear facilities in known locations near Shiraz and Isfahan.

What to bomb?

The problem for Israel in mounting such operations would not be the technology of reaching the target areas, nor destroying those seen, or even the opposition of neighbours, but actually detecting the right facilities.

Iran, using North Korean advisers, has managed to bury and hide its main facilities. This makes a first strike difficult in military terms while the risk of collateral damage makes it impossible in political terms.Israel has been trying a charm offensive with some moderate Arab states. It has highlighted that the physical and political fallout stemming from Ahmadinejad's more aggressive posture would be damaging for all.Israel's case has not been helped by Operation Cast Lead, the name it gave its offensive against Hamas in Gaza last January.

Ahmadinejad's inauguration for a second term after the disputed elections is another factor. Traditionally, leaders under pressure in hard-line states have used military adventures to divert public opinion.One only has to remember the actions of the Argentine Junta in 1982 when it invaded the Falkland Islands or actions in Northeast Africa over several decades.Military and intelligence organisations look at a nation's potential threat by examining key attributes.These are 'military capability' – could a nation actually carry out a military strike; "political will" – does a nation actually want to expend that much treasure and 'blood'; "an understanding of the consequence" – does the nation's leadership understand where the ripple caused by its casting of a stone into the pool of peace would stop?

Hard-line versus unpredictable



Hard-line and unpredictable stances in Iran and Israel could lead to war, analyst says [EPA]
Taking each nation in turn – Israel has the military capability of a nuclear or non-nuclear strike against Iran and hence the war experience of 1967, 1973 and 1982 to fall back upon.The current government in Tel Aviv is hard-line enough to both take the action and to ride out the political storm.But it is also pragmatic and - despite its inability to understand the West's clear opposition to its housing policies in Jerusalem and the West Bank - guarded in its use of military force on a regional scale.US posture is also a determining factor in any decision to strike. The fate of three US tourists apparently being held by Iran could further bolster the position of US hawks on Iran in the Obama administration.

Iran, on the other hand, is completely unpredictable, especially given the competing power structures within the country.It has a recent history of meddling in the affairs of its neighbours, like the fledgling Iraq, and launched a million men and young boys in human waves against Saddam Hussein's armies dug in along the border in the 1980s.The religious leaders of the time seemed quite happy to allow this wholesale slaughter without any sign of remorse. So the question remains, would Iran's leadership launch a nuclear strike against Israel?Today, it cannot because the technology is not there. Will it at some time in the future if Iran were to ever develop such means?

The rest of the world can only hope that sense prevails in Tehran and the internal situation is resolved in a way that does not 'force' Ahmadinejad to take the 'nuclear option' – not literally, but by creating the conditions for war in order to reinforce his own embattled and increasingly fragile position as leader.

Paul Beaver is an independent defence and security analyst based in London. In his 30 years of commenting on strategic matters he has held senior positions in several organisations, including Jane's Information Group

1,000 US Marine to be deployed at American Embassy in Islamabad

US Marines numbering 1,000 will be deployed at American Embassy in Islamabad under massive expansion work which is nearing completion.Pakistan’s Foreign Office Spokesman Abdul Basit Khan has said that 1,000 US Marines will be coming to Pakistan to be deployed at US Mission.He said that there was no restriction on the number of personnel that a foreign mission could station at its mission but it is done through mutual understanding.
The FO Spokesman stated on Wednesday while replying to a query relating to increase in the strength of the US personnel at Islamabad’s mission, The Nation reported.
A former Pakistan diplomat had objected to the US plans to have a bigger presence in Pakistan in the pursuit of its strategic interests in the region.
Former Foreign Secretary Shamshad Ahmed Khan said that it is evident that America wants to remote control the region from Islamabad. According to an estimate, Washington is planning to spend a whopping one billion dollars for revamping its main embassy building in Islamabad and increase the strength of its staff.
The Obama Administration is about to spend 405 million dollars for the reconstruction and refurbishment of the main embassy building and 111 million dollars for constructing a new complex for 330 personnel. A further 197 million dollars would be spent for construction of a housing unit for about 250 personnel.

Not only this, the United States is also planning to give its consular buildings in Lahore and Peshawar a new look.Experts believe that this is a clear cut strategy of the US to augment its presence and establish control over the region

Artillery Arrives in Afghanistan To Aid French

Paris – A first batch of three Caesar 155mm cannons arrived at Kabul airport Aug. 1, marking a first operational deployment of the truck-mounted artillery, according to the Web site of the French chief of the Defense Staff.

“These artillery pieces are intended to deliver fire support from forward operating bases during operations undertaken by the joint tactical battalion at Kapisa and the French battalion at Surobi,” the Web site posting said
The guns are part of the French Army’s drive to boost firepower in the Afghan theater, as the insurgency has intensified and claimed more lives
A video clip on the Web site showed the Caesar cannons being driven down the ramp of an Antonov 124 transporter and out of the airport to Camp Warehouse, the main NATO base in the capital, where they will be dispatched into the field after a few days. The video was produced by the ECPAD, the Defense Ministry’s audiovisual production A video clip on the Web site showed the Caesar cannons being driven down the ramp of an Antonov 124 transporter and out of the airport to Camp Warehouse, the main NATO base in the capital, where they will be dispatched into the field after a few days. The video was produced by the ECPAD, the Defense Ministry’s audiovisual production arm.
The guns are operated by the 3rd marine artillery regiment, based in Canjuers, southern France. A total eight Caesar 155mm 52-caliber guns, built by Nexter Systems, will be deployed in Afghanistan, boosting the firepower of the French Army, which up to now has had 120mm mortars as its heaviest pieces
On Aug. 1, a French soldier died in an insurgent ambush, bringing the total of French Army fatalities to 29 since deployment in 2001 as part of the NATO-led multinational operation.

Three French Army Tiger attack helicopters arrived in Kabul July 26, also flown in by Antonov, as part the effort to support ground troops.

PAKISTANS MOST WANTED MAN WANTED NO MORE...

Pakistan's Taliban chief Baitullah Mehsud, who led a violent campaign of suicide attacks and assassinations against the Pakistani government, was killed in a US missile strike and his body has been buried, three Pakistani intelligence officials said Friday.

But one of the three said no intelligence agent had actually seen Baitullah Mehsud's body.

Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said intelligence sources have confirmed Baitullah’s death.

A senior US intelligence official had earlier said there were strong indications that Mehsud was among those killed in Wednesday's attack, but he would not elaborate.

Mehsud had al-Qaeda connections and was suspected in the killing of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Pakistan viewed him as its top internal threat and had been preparing an offensive against him.

For years, the US has considered Mehsud a lesser threat to its interests than some of the other Pakistani Taliban, their Afghan counterparts and al-Qaeda, because most of his attacks were focused inside Pakistan, not against US and Nato troops in Afghanistan.

That view appeared to change in recent months as Mehsud's power grew and concerns mounted that increasing violence in Pakistan could destabilise the country and threaten the entire region.But while Mehsud's death would be a big blow to the Taliban in Pakistan, he has deputies who could take his place. Whether a new leader could wreak as much havoc as Mehsud depends largely on how much pressure the Pakistani military continues to put on the network, especially in the tribal area of South Waziristan.Intelligence officials said Mehsud was killed in a missile strike Wednesday on the home of his father-in-law and that his body was buried in the village of Nardusai in South Waziristan, not far from the site of the strike.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorised to speak publicly.One official said he had seen a classified intelligence report stating Mehsud was dead and buried, but that agents had not seen the body as the area was under Taliban control.

Interior Minister Rehman Malik earlier said he could confirm the death of Mehsud's wife but not of the Taliban leader himself, although information pointed in that direction.‘I can confirm to the extent that his wife is dead, and probably one of his brothers, but we do not have any...evidence that he's dead,’ Malik told reporters outside Parliament. But he added: ‘Yes, lot of information is pouring in from that area that he's dead, but I'm unable to confirm unless I have solid evidence.’

A security official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said ‘about 70 per cent’ of the information pointed to Mehsud's being dead, but authorities had not yet been able to confirm this. He said authorities had not recovered a body.

Another senior Pakistani intelligence official said phone and other communications intercepts — he would not be more specific — had led authorities to suspect Mehsud was dead, but he also stressed there was no definitive evidence yet.

An American counterterrorism official said the US government was also looking into the reports. The official indicated the United States did not yet have physical evidence — remains — that would prove who died. But he said there are other ways of determining who was killed in the strike. He declined to describe them.

Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorised to speak on the matter publicly.

A local tribesman, who also spoke on condition his name not be used, said Mehsud had been at his father-in-law's house being treated for kidney pain, and had been put on a drip by a doctor, when the missile struck. The tribesman claimed he attended the Taliban chief's funeral.

Last year, a doctor for Mehsud announced the militant leader had died of kidney failure, but the reports turned out to be false.In March, the State Department authorized a reward of up to $5 million for the militant chief. And increasingly, American missiles fired by unmanned drones have focused on Mehsud-related targets.

Chavez criticizes Colombia over weapons claims

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Wednesday blasted accusations that his government supplied Colombian guerrillas with shoulder-fired anti-tank weapons and accused the neighboring country of blackmail.Mr Chavez said he would halt the import of 10,000 cars from Colombia and ban a Colombian energy firm from exploring Venezuela's oil-rich Orinoco region.
Last week, Mr Chavez recalled his envoy from Bogota over accusations Venezuela had provided arms to Colombian rebels.
He is also angry at plans to allow US troops to use Colombian military bases.
The remarks follow a freezing of diplomatic relations between the countries over the weapons issue and over negotiations that could lead to American military bases in Colombia.
Colombia announced last week that three anti-tank weapons seized from the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, had been traced to Venezuela.
"What a coincidence that this information comes from Colombia one day after we started to raise our voice against the installation of Yankee bases in Colombian territory," Chavez said at a televised news conference."Of course this is not a coincidence," he said. "This is the government of Colombia trying to blackmail us."
Chavez said that Venezuela feels threatened by the possibility of the United States having military bases in Colombia and that the accusations were designed to discredit him.
"It was a dirty move," he said.
The Venezuelan president said he doubted the authenticity of the weapons that Colombia recovered but left open the possibility that they had been stolen by Colombian guerrillas during an attack on a Venezuela naval outpost in 1995.
Both the Venezuelan and Colombian governments had lists of the weapons reported missing after that attack, which included the same model of anti-tank AT4 weapons now in question, he said.
Colombian President Alvaro Uribe has also said that the guerrillas were trying to buy anti-aircraft missiles.
Chavez responded last week by recalling Venezuela's ambassador to Colombia, as well as most of the embassy's staff.
Tensions between the two countries have been high since March 2008, when Chavez ordered tanks to the border in response to a Colombian attack on FARC bases in Ecuador. More recently, Chavez has severely criticized Uribe for entering into negotiations to allow the United States to open military bases in Colombia.
The United States says it needs the bases because Ecuador has ordered the closing of a U.S. installation there. Chavez accuses the United States of wanting the bases so it can attack Venezuela.
This is not the first time Venezuela has been tied to the FARC, which has been fighting the Colombian government for more than 45 years.
Last fall, the U.S. Treasury Department accused two senior Venezuelan intelligence officials and a former official of providing weapons to the FARC and assisting the rebels with narcotics trafficking.
The United States identified one of the individuals as Hugo Armando Carvajal Barrios, director of Venezuela's Military Intelligence Directorate.
Another individual was identified as Ramon Emilio Rodriguez Chacin, who was Venezuela's minister of interior and justice until September.

Israeli strike on Iran just a matter of time?

RT....Despite all diplomatic efforts the US has undertaken to dissuade Israel from striking Iranian nuclear facilities, the attack now seems virtually inevitable.
In light of Israel’s recent military preparations, it can only be a matter of when.
The recent visit of Defense Secretary Robert Gates to Jerusalem only proved Israel is determined to act, taking “no option” off the table regarding Iran’s nuclear program.


“This is our position. We mean it,” Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said, pointing out at the same time that the current priority should be diplomacy.
When it comes to the US mediating role, diplomats appear to have used up their tools.
“Mr. Obama has no new strategic thinking on Iran. He vaguely promises to offer the country the carrot of diplomacy – followed by an empty threat of sanctions down the road if Iran does not comply with US requests. This is precisely the European Union’s approach, which has failed for over six years,” American diplomat John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the UN, wrote in the aftermath of the meeting in The Wall Street Journal. “There is no reason Iran would suddenly now bow to Mr. Obama’s diplomatic efforts, especially after its embarrassing election in June.”
Calling the outcome of Gates’ visit to Israel “polite but inconclusive”, Bolton says, “It will be no surprise if Israel strikes by the year’s end.”
Indeed, recent actions from the Jewish state – including long-range air force maneuvers and the recent movement of Israeli warships and submarines through the Suez Canal – are eloquent enough.
As for Iran, it shows no sign of halting its nuclear ambitions. Rejecting calls to curb its uranium enrichment, it continues to insist the program is for legitimate energy needs. This makes Israel believe that, in just a few months, Tehran will produce enough uranium for a warhead. However, Western intelligence has put that capability several years away.
Meanwhile, Hezbollah has put up to 40,000 rockets on the Israeli-Lebanese border and is training its forces to use ground-to-ground missiles capable of hitting Tel Aviv, The Times reports.
“Hezbollah’s rearming is in the name of resistance against Israel. The real reason, however, probably has more to do with its ally Iran. If Israel carries out its threat to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, the main retaliation is likely to come from Hezbollah in Lebanon,” the British newspaper writes in its online edition.
However, Amos Harel from the Israeli online edition of Haaretz.com does not deem a military conflict with Lebanon possible under the current circumstances:
“It will be exceedingly difficult to rally international support for a Third Lebanon War, particularly if it were to erupt over surface-to-air missiles, which are already today deployed in Syria. And if a confrontation erupts between Israel and Iran, Israel is unlikely to ignite a secondary front that would divert resources from the main theater,” Harel believes.
Whether or not Tel Aviv considers the Lebanese option “it could be that Israel is indeed accelerating its preparations for a strike, out of a circumspect reading of the situation and a growing belief that Washington will not come to its aid,” concludes Amos Harel

U.S. eyes Russian submarines off East Coast

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Two Russian attack submarines have been cruising in the Atlantic off the East Coast of the United States, a senior defense official said Wednesday.

Russian attack submarines such as this one have been spotted in the Atlantic Ocean.
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said their presence is not causing alarms to go off.
"So long as they are operating in international waters, as, frankly, we do around the world, and are behaving in a responsible way, they are certainly free to do so, and it doesn't cause any alarm within this building," he said.
It has been years since Russia operated near the U.S. seaboard, thousands of miles from home ports.
"What's interesting is, they haven't been able to do this in some time, and now they are. It indicates a return to their ability to do this," the senior defense official said.
He viewed the patrol as an example of Russia showing the United States and the world its expeditionary forces, part of a continuing trend. He said the Russians have recently been a partner in anti-piracy operations around the world. And last year the Russian Navy conducted a "tour around the world," pulling into ports throughout Latin America.
In December, a Russian spokesman said that tour demonstrated "Russia's ability to fly its naval flag and ensure protection of its national interests in the world theater."
The Akula-class nuclear-powered submarines, which are normally equipped with surface-loaded cruise missiles and surface-to-air missiles, have stayed in international waters, the source said. These are not the class of submarines that can launch intercontinental nuclear missiles.
The U.S. Navy has the capability to locate, identify and track submarine activity through satellites, ships, aircraft and classified systems.
"NORAD and U.S. Northern Command are aware of Russian submarine activity off the East Coast operating in international waters. We have been monitoring them during transit and recognize the right of all nations to exercise freedom of navigation in international waters according to international law," said Lt. Desmond James of the North American Aerospace Defense Command.
A Russian military spokesman said at a news conference in Moscow that the submarines' activities were "part of the normal process."
Defense officials told The New York Times that one of the Russian submarines was in international waters Tuesday about 200 miles off the coast of the United States. The location of the second was unclear.
U.S. officials downplayed the significance of the submarines operating off the U.S. coast.
"There is no need to overreact," the senior defense official said.
"This is not an issue of concern. It is all consistent with the internationally-recognized principle of freedom of navigation. As long as the vessels do not cross into territorial waters, they are free to navigate any open waters," another official said.
Officials have said this is the naval equivalent to Russian bomber missions close to U.S. and other countries' borders.
"It is Russia again trying to assert its influence and trying to show they have a relevant military," a third defense official sai