Whether Alex Jones is a Christian or not remains open to debate. However, he is one of the greatest conspiracy theorists out of all of them available on the net. The following article taken from his Prison Planet.com website and may be of some interest to those of us who have been following what is going on the Middle East with the possibility of Iran being attacked by some foreign power. Personally, my belief is that the possibility of Iran ever being attacked seems to be just as remote as ever, as it would be far too dangerous for any power to even contemplate doing so. Russia for example, has warned other foreign powers in quite the harshest of terms that to do so would result in a war of the most serious consequences, and has for some time, so in that sense this is really nothing that there that is out of the ordinary.
Massive joint US-Israeli drill postponed
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, January 16, 2012
The United States has cancelled a joint military exercise with Israel in a move some analysts are saying could represent a reluctance to support an attack on Iran.
“Israel and the United States have postponed a massive joint defense exercise, which was expected to be carried out in the coming weeks, in order to avoid an escalation with Iran,” reports Haaretz.
Although the United States has already sent 9,000 troops to Israel, a move described as a “deployment” rather than an exercise by US Commander Lt.-Gen Frank Gorenc, the Austere Challenge 12 drill, intended to be a wargame response to missiles fired by Iran, has now been postponed until the summer.
The Obama administration cited “budgetary constraints” as the primary reason for delaying the exercise, although observers suggest the move could be explained by a number of different circumstances, including Washington’s anger at how last week’s assassination of Iranian scientist Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, all but admitted to have been the work of the Israeli Mossad, was conducted so brazenly.
The postponement could signal that the US is backing off its support for an attack on Iran, but it could equally mean that the attack plans have already been finalized and that the drill was cancelled because it would have coincided with the actual start of hostilities.
“Did the U.S. cancel them to show displeasure to Israel?” asks Richard Silverstein. “And if so, why? Does Obama know something about Israeli intentions we don’t know? Are plans underway to strike Iran? Is Obama seeking to show his displeasure?
Or is he trying to soothe Iran by not going through with a highly provocative military exercise which would’ve placed thousands of U.S. troops in the heart of Israel as a show of solidarity with Israel in its crusade against Iran?”
The Israeli intelligence outfit DebkaFile speculates that the postponement of the drill is another sign that Washington is concerned about the effect tensions in the region are having on oil prices, which would also explain why the EU embargo on Iranian oil has also been delayed by six months.
Whether or not the Obama administration has cooled its support for an attack on Iran, the US military is undoubtedly preparing for turmoil in the region, with three US aircraft carriers now stationed just outside Iranian waters, in addition to 15,000 troops that were sent to Kuwait at the end of last week.
The naval build-up could also be because “the United States intends to beat Israel to the draw and attack Iran itself,” points out DebkaFile.
Even if the Obama administration does not publicly back a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, it is highly unlikely to stand in the way of Israel. Once Iran retaliates, the US will then claim its interests are threatened and won’t hesitate to become embroiled in the conflict.
In addition, the US has made it clear that should Iran try to block the Strait of Hormuz, a key oil choke point, a “red line” will have been crossed. Iran is currently studying a letter sent by the US concerning the Strait. Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehman-Parast said Iran “will respond if necessary.”
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey is due to arrive in Israel on Thursday for talks with Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and other senior defense and intelligence officials, a meeting at which the US will try to convince Israel to delay any attack until sanctions, which have already crippled the Iranian economy, are allowed to take full effect.
By Philippe Agret
Palestinians wave their national flag in front of the headquarters of UNESCO during a march to mark the 1947 UN partition plan for Palestine, which led to the creation of the state of Israel, on November 29, 2011 during the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. AFP
RAMALLAH, Occupied West Bank: With peace talks in the doldrums, the Palestinians have fixed their sights on global activism and unity between their rival factions in order to advance their cause.
“We are in a ‘hudna’ (truce) until Jan. 26,” senior Palestinian official Nabil Shaath told reporters at a recent briefing. “But this political cease-fire will end on Jan. 26,” he said, referring to a deadline set by the international peacemaking Quartet, giving the parties 90 days to submit comprehensive proposals on territory and security.
“If on the 26th Israel does not come up with a freeze of the settlements and talks based on the 1967 borders, we will continue our international drive,” said Shaath, a senior figure in president Mahmoud Abbas’ ruling Fatah movement. Palestinian negotiators say they have laid out their proposals and suggestions in response to the Quartet’s proposition and they accuse Israel of failing to reciprocate.
However, Israel is reluctant to show its hand except in the framework of direct negotiations, which they say the Palestinians are “boycotting.”
“The Quartet has called for the resumption of direct peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians. In the framework of those direct talks, the Quartet has specific ideas on how to move forward,” said Mark Regev, representative for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
“Israel has accepted the route laid out by Quartet, it is the Palestinian side that refuses to meet with Israel in face-to-face negotiations,” he said.
The Quartet’s latest attempt to resuscitate talks was announced on Sept. 23, just hours after the Palestinians submitted a formal request for full state membership at the United Nations.
Both sides welcomed the loosely worded proposal, but with completely different interpretations, prompting each camp to blame the other for the failure to resume talks.
Nevertheless, the Palestinians have low expectations of the Quartet, which groups top diplomats from the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations, which they see as dominated by Washington.
And they have little faith in its envoy Tony Blair, who has been accused by Shaath of sometimes talking “like an Israeli diplomat.”
“It’s not a Quartet, it’s a ‘one-tet,’” joked Husam Zomlot, Fatah’s international affairs adviser, slamming Washington’s “total monopoly” on the peace process. “If we don’t snatch it [back] now, the two-state solution is dead,” he told AFP.
“Israel is so keen on sustaining the status quo, in keeping things as they are. For too long, for 20 years, Israel has maintained the status quo.
“This not going anywhere,” he said, referring to peace talks which began in Madrid in 1991 and which led to the Oslo Accords two years later, but which since then, have done little to end the conflict.
It is an assessment shared by many in the Palestinian leadership. “We see the process, but not peace,” say officials at Abbas’s Muqataa presidential headquarters in Ramallah.
“Only the first five years were genuine, until the death of [Prime Minister Yitzhak] Rabin” who was shot dead by a Jewish extremist in 1995, said Shaath. “Since then, the peace process is dead – there has not been any progress. The settlements never stopped, the grabbing of land never stopped,” he said.
“While negotiating, Israel has deepened the colonization of the land,” Shaath said.
Negotiator Mohammad Shtayeh agrees. “We have been taken nowhere,” he said earlier this month. “The political negotiation has been used to maintain the status quo.”
With peace negotiations deadlocked for more than a year and a keen desire to break the status quo, the Palestinians are doing whatever they can to push for implementation of a two-state solution to the conflict, Shaath said.
“We have no alternative but to go to the U.N.,” he said. “It is the only alternative. All the other options are extending the conflict forever.”
A return to violence and conflict was not an option.
“We Palestinians will never let that happen again because we paid the price in blood. We are not going to allow violence to come back.”
The other top priority was to ensure the establishment of unity between the rival Palestinian national factions under the umbrella of the Palestine Liberation Organization.
One of the toughest challenges is bridging the years-long divide between Fatah and Hamas, the Islamist movement which rules Gaza and which could soon join the PLO – the body which is internationally recognized as the only legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.
“The train for reconciliation has left the station,” Shtayeh said. “It’s a bit slow but it will happen. The reconciliation is serious.”
Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2011/Dec-28/158092-peace-on-ice-palestinians-set-sights-on-unity-between-rivals.ashx#ixzz1iO2fwiip
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report December 31, 2011,
By a media trick, Tehran proved its claim that closing the Strait of Hormuz is as "easy as drinking water," debkafile reports.
First thing Saturday morning, Saturday, Dec. 31, Iran's state agencies "reported" long-range and other missiles had been test-fired as part of its ongoing naval drill around the Strait of Hormuz. Ahead of the test, Tehran closed its territorial waters.
For five hours Saturday, not a single warship, merchant vessel or oil tanker ventured into the 30-mile wide Hormuz strait, waiting to hear from Tehran' that the test was over.
Instead, around 0900 local time, a senior Iranian navy commander Mahmoud Moussavi informed Iran's English language Press TV that no missiles had been fired after all. "The exercise of launching missiles will be carried out in the coming days," he said.
For five hours therefore, world shipping obeyed Tehran's warning and gave the narrow waterway through which one-fifth of the world's oil passes, a wide berth. They stayed out of range of a test which, debkafile's military sources report, aimed to demonstrate for the first time that Shahab-3 ballistic missiles which have a range of 1,600 kilometres and other missiles, such as the Nasr1cruise marine missile, are capable of reaching Hormuz from central Iran.
The Moussavi statement was not aired on Iran's Farsi-language media. It was not necessary; Tehran had demonstrated by this ruse that it could close the vital waterway for hours or days at any moment.
Friday night, shortly after Tehran reported the missile-firing test was to take place the next morning, Washington announced the $3.48 billion sale to the United Arab Emirates of 94 advanced THAAD missiles with supporting technology.
Like the $30 billion sale of 84 F-15 fighter jets to the Saudi Arabia announced this week, delivery dates were not specified. The first F-15s for Saudi Arabia are due some time in 2015. It must therefore be said that the announced sophisticated US arms sales to the Persian Gulf nations bear only tangentially on the current state of tension in the region around Iranian threats.
The Hormuz missile stratagem has given Tehran three advantages in its face-off with Washington and the Gulf Arab governments:
1. It gave credibility to the threats issued by Iranian military chiefs last week regarding free passage in the Strait of Hormuz and Western sanctions:
On Dec. 29, Navy commander Adm. Habibollah Sayari said it was "really easy" for Iran's armed forces to shut the strait, adding "But today, we don't need [to shut] the strait because we have the Sea of Oman under control and can control the transit."
The next day, Deputy Commander of the Revolutionary Guards Gen. Hossein Salami said the United States was not in a position to tell Tehran "what to do in the Strait of Hormuz. Any threat will be responded to by threat… We will not relinquish our strategic moves if Iran's vital interests are undermined by any means."
2. For Tehran, closing the vital waterway to international traffic without firing a shot – even for a few hours – served to rebut the warning given by US Fifth Fleet spokeswoman Lt. Rebecca Rebarich on Dec. 29. She said: "Anyone who threatens to disrupt freedom of navigation in an international strait is clearly outside the community of nations: any disruption will not be tolerated."
It also addressed the dispatch of the USS John C. Stennis aircraft carrier through the strait into the Sea of Oman in proximity to Iran's ten-day Velayati 90 naval drill. The Stennis, accompanied only by a single destroyer, demonstrated US confidence in its military muscle against any Iranian threat.
As the Stennis passed through the big US air base at al-Udeid, Qatar, went on high alert.
3. Tehran did not explain why its war game, designated in advance a display of Iranian naval and air control of the Strait of Hormuz and the Sea of Oman, suddenly morphed into a ballistic missile test; nor its postponement.
debkafile's military sources report that the Iranians were in fact sending a message to the Gulf rulers and the US bases on their soil that they would not escape missile retaliation for a possible US or Israel attack on the Islamic Republic's nuclear facilities or harsh sanctions.
Cynthia E Ayers
On the 15th of December, the English version of the Russian newspaper Pravda published a stunningly accurate portrayal of the results of an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack and included a frightening warning: “Does that [an EMP attack] seem like science fiction? It's not. In fact, it may be right around the corner.”
The article proceeded to explain who the target would most likely be:
“. . . it's almost a given that some power or group might get put out with the behavior of the U.S.A. and decide to go this route. . . . If Americans knew about this very real possibility, they might utterly panic. It is up to them to make their government stop angering others, tell the government to mind their own business, take care of the home front and stop interfering all over the globe. . . . Perhaps they ought to close the bases, dismantle NATO and bring the troops home where they belong before they have nothing to come home to and no way to get there.”
In other words, if the U.S. continues in its attempts to fight terrorists and provide support to our NATO partners, we will "provoke" an EMP attack that will kill many millions, potentially end civilization as we know it, and ultimately result in the loss of our sovereignty. This warning is not the first to have emanated from Russia. One of the most notable was described in testimony before a House Armed Services Committee Hearing held on July 22, 2004—a high-level Russian official (Chairman of the International Affairs Committee) had issued a similar threat to two sitting Congressmen while discussing U.S. involvement in the former Yugoslavia.
The Russians are not alone. An EMP attack against the United States has been written about and discussed openly within China, North Korea, and Iran, as well as Russia, and is contained within the military doctrine of all four countries. Iran has even practiced launching a missile from a ship in the Caspian Sea, and detonated Shahab-III MRBMs at high-altitude.
These are real threats, from entities who know exactly what our country’s vulnerabilities are. Indeed, the members of our House of Representatives know exactly how destructive an EMP attack on our country would be, as evidenced by the unanimous passage of the Grid Reliability and Infrastructure Defense (GRID) Act in 2010, the establishment of a bipartisan Congressional EMP Caucus, the proceedings of the Congressional EMP Commission (2004 and 2008), and the report of the Congressional Strategic Posture Commission. The National Academy of Sciences, the Department of Energy, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have additionally released reports warning of the need to protect our electric grid. Most recently, the FY12 National Defense Authorization Bill noted a “continued vulnerability of the United States homeland to electromagnetic pulse (EMP) events, both man-made and naturally occurring.”
It is therefore baffling that the New York Times would take an obviously partisan stance to a major threat which has been readily acknowledged as such by both parties. Nevertheless, after a recent Republican Primary debate in which former Speaker Newt Gingrich stated that an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack against the United States was one of the three national security threats that concerned him most, the New York Times ran a highly biased front page story about EMP, authored by William Broad.
After claiming that “a number of scientists” believe Speaker Gingrich's warnings to be “far-fetched” (without naming any, other than Yousaf Butt, who is not an expert on EMP issues, intelligence matters, or terrorism, and whose views were thoroughly rebutted in Space Review [August 2010]), Mr. Broad proceeded to portray Gingrich as pandering to “hawkish audiences.” The unsubstantiated allegations by Mr. Broad’s mostly unnamed “experts” remained unchallenged within the article by facts or evidence—any efforts to locate and consult source material (such as the aforementioned Commission reports) were conspicuously absent from the discussion within the text.
It is equally baffling—and extremely disturbing—to be told that the New York Times refused—that’s right, refused—to print a rebuttal, authored and signed by former Presidential Science Advisor Dr. William R. Graham, former CIA Director James Woolsey, several scientists of world renown and prominent national security experts. Is it considered good journalistic ethics to dismiss the results of scientific studies, as well as the views and support of leaders on both sides of the political spectrum, out of purely partisan considerations? Is it acceptable to mislead and misinform the public on the nature of a truly devastating threat to national security in order to facilitate the character assassination of a presidential candidate? I think not.
In truth, when Speaker Gingrich brought up the danger of an EMP attack, he was speaking of an event that could bring about our collective demise—one that would remove the United States as an actor on the world stage instantaneously and long-term (months to years—in fact, 4 to 10 years, according to the National Academy of Sciences Report for similar grid damage resulting from a great geomagnetic storm). Within the first year following such an event, at least two-thirds of the population would be decimated. Some experts consider a more realistic death rate to be as high as 90%.
Is it any wonder, then, that the Subcomittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities has stated:
“The committee believes that the Secretary of Defense should ensure that the U.S. Military has the appropriate authorities, capabilities, procedures, protections, and force structure to defend against any threats posed by EMP generated by a high altitude nuclear or by a naturally occurring event. As well as response plans for dealing with the aftermath of an EMP event.”
To that end, the committee directed the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to both the Senate and House Committees on Armed Services “on efforts to prepare for and defend against, and remediate after an EMP event, whether natural or manmade.” I, for one, find it hard to believe that a “far-fetched” notion of threat would warrant Congressional and military action to such a degree. The New York Times may want to pretend otherwise for the sake of political expediency, but the American public could end up paying dearly for their intransigence.
Please—access the reports, read the rebuttal to William Broad’s article, and read the warning issued by Pravda; then pay head to what Speaker Gingrich said during the debate—EMP is most definitely a national security threat that we should all be gravely concerned about.
Family Security Matters Contributing Editor Cynthia E. Ayers is currently Vice President of EMPact Amercia. She recently retired from the National Security Agency after over 38 years of federal service, including 8 years at the U.S. Army War College’s Center for Strategic Leadership.
Whether Alex Jones is a Christian or not remains open to debate. However, he is one of the greatest conspiracy theorists out of all of them available on the net. The following article taken from his Prison Planet.com website and may be of some interest to those of us who have been following what is going on the Middle East with the possibility of Iran being attacked by some foreign power. Personally, my belief is that the possibility of Iran ever being attacked seems to be just as remote as ever, as it would be far too dangerous for any power to even contemplate doing so. Russia for example, has warned other foreign powers in quite the harshest of terms that to do so would result in a war of the most serious consequences, and has for some time, so in that sense this is really nothing that there that is out of the ordinary.
