شبكة الإستخبارات الإسلامية

"They plot and plan but ALLAH also plans and ALLAH is the best of Planners." Qur’an VIII – 30

‘’ويمكرون ويمكر الله والله خير الماكرين ‘’: قال الله عزَّ وجل

سورة الأنفال

رضيت بالله ربا و بالإسلام دينا و بمحمد صلى الله عليه و سلم نبيا رسولا لا إلـه إلا اللـه ... محمد رسـول اللـه

This is default featured slide 1 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

This is default featured slide 2 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

This is default featured slide 3 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

This is default featured slide 4 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

This is default featured slide 5 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

Showing posts with label World War IV. Show all posts
Showing posts with label World War IV. Show all posts

Monday, May 21, 2012

Israel is sacrificing the US, NATO and Europe against Russia, China and Iran

Largest U.S. exercise in Middle East furtively taking place in Jordan. Involving 19 countries and 12,000 military 

Almost ignored by some media outlets, a major strategic theater cooperation exercise including 19 countries and more than 12,000 participants is currently taking place in Jordan.

U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) says that the Eager Lion 2012 is “the largest annual exercise in the Central Command area of operations” whose is aim is “to strengthen military-to-military relationships of participating partner nations through a joint, whole-of-government, multinational approach, integrating all instruments of national power to meet current and future complex national security challenges.   The exercise scenarios are designed to portray realistic, modern-day security challenges.  The scenarios are designed years in advance to fulfill collaborative training goals.”

Share:

Wednesday, April 04, 2012

Israel is leading the coup d'Etat in Mali with the help of the French-Algerian Zionist Jews and the NATO Flintock detachment. After Goldman Sachs destroyed Greece, Israel will use Greece as a major platform to counter Russian influence in Eastern Europe (South stream pipeline) and launch a war on Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Gaza from Greece, Cyprus bases. Tha's why Greek are forced to buy weapons and starve to death, they are part of the world war prepared in Tel Aviv

Israeli-US Air, Naval Forces Train for Energy War


Israeli, Greek and U.S. militaries are in an exercise in preparation for a possible war over Israel’s huge off-shore gas discoveries.

Israeli, Greek and U.S. forces are in the midst of a drill in preparation for a possible war over Israel’s huge off-shore gas discoveries, which also may contain commercializable oil. Lebanon and Hizbullah have claimed the fields are in Lebanese territory and that they will "defend" the area against drilling by Israel.

Share:

Monday, July 12, 2010

Israel's Next War, How Soon?

Greater Israel Planned



By Sheykh Imran Hosein,
Thursday, 27 Jamadil Akhir 1431

I fear that Israel will move swiftly to exploit to her advantage soon-to-occur world-wide hysterical fear of calamitous consequences of the major Gulf of Mexico oil leak that has already caused very large quantities of oil to flow into the Gulf – most of it still under the surface of the water - with simultaneous release of very large and perhaps even more dangerous quantities of gas. Both oil and gas are highly flammable, and experts will have to pronounce concerning the possibility of a deliberate or accidental ignition of all of this oil/gas and the horrendous consequences of such an explosion for the world. Is it possible, for example, that we can experience an extended period of darkness in the Americas in which black clouds will prevent the entry of sunlight?
Share:

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

WARNING : ISRAEL FACES ANNIHILATION THIS WEEK END


Is War With Iran Imminent?


April 28, 2008

This time, it's more than a rumor…

by Justin Raimondo,


The shooting has already started in the Persian Gulf – and chances are we'll be at war with Iran before President Bush's term is up. An American ship under contract with the U.S. Navy – the Western Venture – claims it was in international waters when Iranian speedboats approached and failed to answer radio calls. Shots were fired on the American side. Iran denies the whole thing. Yet you'll recall that in the last incident, involving the capture of British sailors, the story about being in international waters was the same – except, it turns out, they weren't in international waters, but in disputed waters, just as we speculated in this space. There's no reason to expect anything different this time. Clearly, the U.S. and Britain are trying to trigger a new conflict with the most brazen provocations, and they don't really care how it happens – only that it does.

The indications of an imminent attack – the latest incident, the steady stream of accusations coming from the U.S. regarding Iranian influence in Iraq, the nuclear charade, etc. – have suddenly taken a more ominous turn with the recent statement of America's top military officer that the U.S. is weighing military action against Iran. The Washington Post reports:

"The nation's top military officer said yesterday that the Pentagon is planning for 'potential military courses of action' as one of several options against Iran, criticizing what he called the Tehran government's 'increasingly lethal and malign influence' in Iraq. Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said a conflict with Iran would be 'extremely stressing' but not impossible for U.S. forces, pointing to reserve capabilities in the Navy and Air Force."

Speaking of malign influences: since when does an American military officer make foreign policy pronouncements, as if he were the president? It's an indication of the advances militarism has made in what used to be a republic that no one has so much as blinked at the brazenness of such blatant Caesarism.

The reasons for the uptick in the rhetorical and physical assault on Iran by the Americans are entirely due to domestic politics, not anything occurring on the ground in the region.

Hillary Clinton's demagogic threat to "obliterate" Iran, uttered on national television just before the Pennsylvania primary, was meant to buttress her newfound image as a shot-swilling macho up against the effete, Adlai Stevenson-esque Barack "Arugula" Obama. It's the Old Politics, trying to revive the red state-blue state dichotomy, and it's driving us down the road to war with Tehran. McCain, too, is helped by the ratcheting up of tensions in the Persian Gulf: think what the outbreak of war with Iran would do for his underdog candidacy.

Standing behind this developing pro-war Popular Front, the central factor in turning the U.S. toward a policy of confrontation rather than constructive engagement with Iran has been the Israel lobby. Since 1993, the Lobby has been demanding that the U.S. take a more aggressive approach to the mullahs of Tehran, and, with few exceptions, has been largely successful.

The policy of "dual containment," conceived by the Clinton administration during the early 1990s, meant that the U.S. was committed to hostile relations with both Iraq and Iran. The policy, as John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt point out, "was essentially a copy of an Israeli proposal." It meant stationing troops in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to offset an alleged threat to American interests. Yet there was no reason to assume Tehran had hostile intentions toward the U.S. At the time, Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani was eager to establish friendly relations with the U.S. As pressure built to abandon "dual containment" and initiate a more workable policy that would give the U.S. more flexibility, the Lobby went on the offensive with a relentless campaign to impose economic sanctions on Iran.

The Iranians, determined to signal their willingness to be reasonable, chose an American oil company, Conoco, to develop the Sirri oil fields. As Trita Parsi points out in Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States:

"For AIPAC, the Conoco deal 'was a coincidence and a convenient target.' The organization went into high gear to use the Iranian offer not only to scuttle the Conoco deal, but also to put an end to all U.S.-Iran trade. In a report that it released on April 2, 1995, titled 'Comprehensive U.S. Sanctions Against Iran: A Plan for Action,' AIPAC argued that Iran must be punished for its actions against Israel. 'Iran's leaders reject the existence of Israel. Moreover, Iran views the peace process as an American attempt to legalize Israel's occupation of Palestinian, Muslim lands,' it said. Pressured by Congress, AIPAC, and the Israelis, President Clinton swiftly scrapped the deal by issuing two executive orders that effectively prohibited all trade with Iran. The decision was announced on April 30 by Clinton in a speech before the World Jewish Congress."

This wasn't enough for the Lobby, which brought pressure on Sen. Alphonse D'Amato to introduce a bill that imposed sanctions on any countries doing business with either Libya or Iran. The Iran-Libya Sanctions Act passed the House with not a single dissenting vote, and the same scenario went down in the Senate. The Lobby made sure the Iranian peace offering was rudely rebuffed – and the president reminded of just who was in charge of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. The White House meekly went along with the Lobby's wishes: after all, the presidential election was but three months away.

The Conoco affair should dispel any myths about the supposedly supreme power of the "oil lobby" as the decisive factor in shaping U.S. policy in the region: the Israel lobby beat them hands down. As James Schlesinger put it, "It is scarcely possible to overstate the influence of Israel's supporters on our politics in the Middle East." The harder the Iranians tried to approach the Americans, the more rudely they were repulsed.

The election of the even more pro-American Mohammad Khatami as Iran's president in 1997 did not break the back of "dual containment" – dubbed "a nutty idea" by Brent Scowcroft, albeit one with plenty of domestic political traction. The U.S. had every reason to pursue a policy of engagement, while that was possible, giving Iranian moderates the political breathing space they needed to ensure the growth of pro-American forces in the country. The benefits of opening up Iran to American investment are similarly obvious, yet our leaders chose to do otherwise due solely to the power of the Lobby. As Ephraim Sneh, a prominent figure on the Israeli Right, acknowledged: "We were against it … because the interest of the U.S. did not coincide with ours."

In short: Washington policymakers weighed the interests of both the U.S. and Israel, and made their decision accordingly…

From dual containment to regional transformation and "regime change" was not a long road to travel. After 9/11, Washington embarked on a campaign to topple the governments of both Iraq and Iran, as well as Syria, and rid Lebanon of Hezbollah while they were at it. As soon as "mission accomplished" was declared in Iraq, the Israelis and their American amen corner began demanding action against Iran.

In an interview with the Times of London, Ariel Sharon declared that Washington had better start threatening to march on Tehran "the day after" Baghdad was secured. By late April 2003, the Israeli ambassador to Washington was complaining that the demise of Saddam's regime was "not enough." Those indolent Americans must be made to "follow through" by taking action against "great threats of that magnitude coming from Syria, coming from Iran."

Shimon Peres rallied the faithful with an op-ed in the War Street Journal titled "We Must Unite to Prevent an Ayatollah Nuke." The neoconservatives convened a special all-day conference devoted to inciting war hysteria aimed at Tehran, with all the usual suspects – Michael Ledeen, Bernard Lewis, Reuel Marc Gerecht – in attendance. The cry went up: "Regime change!" The only question was which exile faction we were going to support: the royalists, or the cult-like neo-Marxist Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) and its numerous well-connected front groups in the U.S. and Europe.

The leaders of the latter have energetically vied for the role of the Iranian Chalabi, coming up with reams of "intelligence" detailing Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program. Their "revelations," however, have been definitively debunked by the latest national intelligence estimate, which says Tehran abandoned its nuclear program some time ago. All those diagrams and documents coming from MEK by the truckload were evidence of a nuclear program that no longer existed.

If any of this sounds familiar, then it should.

The efforts of the Lobby aren't limited to war propaganda. The AIPAC spy trial – in which two top officials of the powerful pro-Israel lobbying organization have been indicted for passing top-secret classified information to Israeli embassy officials – is all about Israel's attempt to penetrate U.S. governmental discussions about what stance to take regarding Iran, with the goal of exerting maximum influence on American policymaking circles.


Pre-Order this Book

Israel considers a nuclear-armed Iran an "existential threat" to the Jewish state, a contention that amounts to little more than absolute nonsense. Their argument goes something like this: Iran is not a normal state, it is run by ideologues who are profoundly invested in apocalyptic religious visions that can only end in war. Deterrence means nothing to them. They want to be incinerated in a nuclear exchange involving Israel, themselves, and quite possibly the U.S., because it fulfills the ancient prophecies and means the return of the Mahdi, or something along those lines.

This makes no more sense than the inverse version of the religion-determines-all theory, which would have the "born again" George W. Bush intent on provoking a nuclear war in the Middle East in order to bring about the Second Coming and the Kingdom of God on Earth – as the Christian dispensationalists who make up so much of the GOP's base fervently believe is entirely possible and certainly desirable.

These latter, of course, are the foot-soldiers of the Israel Lobby in America, a group that GOP presidential candidate John McCain has actively courted in the person of the Rev. John Hagee. Rev. Hagee is a vicious Catholic-hater and all-around nut-job who looks forward to a nuclear war in the Middle East as the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. Hagee has lately taken up with AIPAC, appearing at their last national confab in a starring role.

This administration, which has been in thrall to the Israel lobby more than any other, has been increasing the volume in its war of words with Tehran since January of this year, and, as Bush's reign comes to an inglorious end, there apparently remains one last act of perfidy the neocons will leave as their legacy. Bush's going away gift to the American people looks more than likely to be another war – one that truly does make the Iraq war seem like a "cakewalk" in comparison. It took a few years for the impact of the war in Iraq to be felt by the American people, and its full impact has yet to hit. Not so with the next war. The firing of a few shots at those speedboats sent the price of oil up three bucks. Think of what a full-scale all-out war would do to the price of nearly everything. And for what?

Iran, a signatory to the Nonproliferation Treaty, says it is not seeking to build nuclear weapons, and that the production of nuclear energy for peaceful uses is the one and only goal of its activities on this front. This is more than Israel can say, far more. Everyone knows the Israelis have nukes – the technology for which they probably stole from us – and they are one of the few civilized countries who haven't signed the NPT and refuse to even discuss doing so.

If ever there was a nuclear rogue nation, then surely it is Israel. As Henry Kissinger said of them in a 1969 memo to Richard Nixon: "The Israelis, who are one of the few peoples whose survival is genuinely threatened, are probably more likely than almost any other country to actually use their nuclear weapons." Although the Iranians claim their nuclear program is geared exclusively toward peaceful purposes, that they have the option to act otherwise, should the need arise, is a challenge to Israel's nuclear hegemony. The Iranians, by American and Israeli lights, have no right to a deterrent.

In a world where "benevolent global hegemony" is the goal of U.S. foreign policy, there is no right to self-defense; that, along with national sovereignty, has been abolished. Defiance is met with an implacable campaign for regime-change in the offending nation. By all indications, Iran is the next victim to be made an example of, sometime in mid-summer, or so the rumor goes.

We know where the presidential candidates stand on this issue. Hillary looks forward to the "obliteration" of Iran and takes up Charles Krauthammer's demand that we extend our nuclear shield over Tel Aviv just as we would do the same for, say, Toledo. Indeed, there are not a few who would argue that we would be fully justified in sacrificing the latter in order to save the former, and not all of them are to be found among Rev. Hagee's deluded flock. In any case, we know what the McCain-Hagee position is without even having to ask.

We also know where Obama stands on all or most of this: he advocates a policy of engagement with the Iranians, just as he has endorsed talking with South American caudillo Hugo Chavez, and for the same very sound reasons: because it's talk or fight. He clearly realizes waging perpetual war is hardly in our interests, even if we had the financial and military capacity to carry out such a crazed policy. Yet, if he's speaking out about this, at this crucial moment – when the chairman of the Joint Chiefs is practically declaring war on the Iranians – then I just can't hear him: he must not be speaking very loudly, or perhaps this gets lost amid all the soaring rhetoric about Change and Hope and A Better Tomorrow.

Hillary voted for the Kyl-Lieberman resolution, which designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guards – an official part of the Iranian armed forces – as a "terrorist organization," and now Gen. Petraeus is telling us Tehran is funding, arming, and succoring those who are killing American soldiers and bombing the Green Zone. The main threat against us in Iraq is no longer the Sunni "dead-enders," as Don Rumsfeld liked to call them, it's the Mahdi Army – Iraqi Shi'ites – and the Iranians, who have very close ties to the government our troops are dying to defend. If Bush seeks to obliterate Iranian hopes for regional preeminence by launching an attack before he leaves office, one can hardly see how the Clintons could possibly object: perhaps they'll declare that, this time, we have to send enough troops to "do the job." This, you'll recall, was Hillary's McCain-like critique of the Iraq invasion long before being antiwar was required of all Democratic presidential aspirants. No doubt she'll revert to that when the time comes, but what about Obama?

He could skewer Hillary the hawk with one well-placed arrow, aimed straight at her vulnerability on the Iran issue. With the first shots of a new war already fired, apparently, and rumors of an imminent American strike at Iran flying thick and fast, Obama could denounce her as a warmonger, a McCain in drag, whose short-term political opportunism is helping to embroil us in a quagmire far worse than the one in Iraq, where she played a similar role in 2003. Yet I hear nothing like this coming from Obama's camp. Maureen Dowd nails it, with her typically acerbic take:

"Despite all his incandescent gifts, Obama has missed several opportunities to smash the ball over the net and end the game. Again and again, he has seemed stuck at deuce. He complains about the politics of scoring points, but to win, you've got to score points."

The American people oppose war with Iran, perhaps more than they want out of Iraq: the economic consequences alone will infuriate them far more than any other foreign policy decision of this administration. What the War Party is hoping is that their fury will be directed overseas, at our alleged "enemies" in Tehran, and not at home, in the direction of Washington, where proper blame belongs.

Americans await the advent of a real leader, the sort who could and would focus that anger on the right target. Whether Obama has the gumption – and the strategic sense – to make this fight about policy, not personalities, race, and gender, remains to be seen. He's promised us a new politics, but that doesn't have to mean blandness and an inability to fight. It can and must mean sharp attacks on wrong ideas – and one looks in vain for an idea as wrongheaded as war with Iran.

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12755
Share:

Friday, March 07, 2008

Accord Nucléaire US Russie sur le Dos de l'Iran


Il fut un temps où l'Iran aurai pu croire qu'un ordre mondial multipolaire serait juste et équitable pour les « nations opprimées ». Si cette idée n'a pas été ébranlée depuis longtemps, elle la sûrement été vendredi dernier quand le directeur de Rosatom, l'agence fédérale de la Russie pour l'énergie atomique, Sergei Kiriyeno, s'est envolé en urgence à Washington pour une « visite de travail » d'un jour.


Le Tzar du nucléaire russe s'empressait d'aller formaliser un accord entre la Russie et les US que Moscou recherchait assidûment depuis plusieurs années. Du point de vue de Washington, le moment ne peut être mieux choisi. Alors qu'il apparaissait qu'une nouvelle tournée de sanctions du CSONU semblait impossible à atteindre, les perspectives se sont éclaircies.


Téhéran n'est pas la seule capitale à devoir se faire du souci si les deux poids lourds de l'ordre nucléaire commencent à frayer ensemble. De nombreux pays – tels que l'Inde et l'Afrique du Sud – seraient également affectés par une revue du régime commercial du combustible nucléaire. Mais c'est l'Iran qui est dans la ligne de feu.



L'Accord Nucléaire US Russie



A Washington, Kiriyenko et le secrétaire au Commerce US, Carlos Gutierrez, ont signé un accord commercial autorisant la Russie à augmenter automatiquement ses exportations d'uranium enrichi vers les US. L'accord autorise la vente directe d'uranium enrichi russe aux centrales nucléaires US.



Auparavant, de telles transactions devaient passer par la Société d'Enrichissement US, une agence spéciale intermédiaire, sous le programme de conversion connu sous le nom de HEU-LEU. Ce régime discriminatoire maintenait la Russie en dehors du commerce hautement lucratif d'enrichissement d'uranium avec les US. Le HEU-LEU, connu sous le nom populaire d'« Accord De Megatons à Megawatts » date de 1993, et stipule que la Russie doit convertir 500 tonnes d'uranium hautement enrichi ou HEU, ce qui représente environ l'équivalent de 20 000 têtes nucléaires, à partir des stocks d'armes nucléaires démantelées de l'ex Union Soviétique, en uranium enrichi à bas taux, ou LEU, avant de le convertir en combustible nucléaire pour utilisation aux US.



L'accord de Washington veut dire beaucoup pour la Russie – commercialement, politiquement, et stratégiquement. Kiriyenko a admis qu'il valait 5-6 milliards de dollars US en terme commercial pour la seule période des cinq prochaines années à venir. Arrivé à 2014, 1 centrale nucléaire sur 5 américaine fonctionnera avec l'uranium russe. L'accès au marché US permet à la Russie d'utiliser pleinement sa capacité d'enrichissement d'uranium, qui est de l'ordre de 40 % de toute la production mondiale.



Le quotidien russe Nezavisimaya Gazeta a noté que Washington avait signalé être intéressé pour « développer sa coopération en matière de nucléaire civil avec Moscou ». Selon l'Institut à l'Energie Nucléaire US, le marché américain fera face à une pénurie d'uranium en 2011, donc cela se justifie pour les US de libéraliser son marché pour l'uranium russe. Selon Rosatom, le Russie a 870 000 tonnes d'uranium naturel, les réserves les plus importantes au monde après celles de l'Australie et du Kazakhstan.



Donc, avec l'accord signé vendredi, Washington offre un bonus à Moscou en supprimant les 110 % de droits de douane, exorbitants et discriminatoires, qui jusqu'à présent avait écarté l'uranium enrichi à bas taux russe du marché US. Les US interdisent également tout approvisionnement en combustible ou retraitement de déchets de combustible par la Russie pour les réacteurs nucléaires fabriqués aux US dans des pays tiers tels que la Taiwan et la Chine.




Mais le commerce US –Russie n'est jamais basé sur les seules considérations commerciales, c'est très politisé. Dans le cas du combustible nucléaire, cela l'est encore plus. Donc, le commerce de combustible nucléaire a un impact sur le régime de non prolifération. La Russie projette la création d'un centre international d'enrichissement d'uranium à Angarsk, dans l'Est de la Sibérie, qui fournira de l'uranium enrichi à des pays tiers projetant de développer de l'énergie nucléaire. Selon les dires de Kiriyenko, lors de la 51 ème conférence de l'AIEA à Vienne en septembre dernier, la Russie planifie l'usine d'Angarsk, qui sera sous contrôle de l'AIEA, comme « un pas vers la création d'une nouvelle génération d'infrastructure d'énergie nucléaire. »



L'usine sera également responsable du retraitement des déchets. Comme l'a fait remarqué en octobre l'ambassadeur de la Russie à l'ONU, Vitaly Churkin, le centre d'Angarsk sera « capable de jouer un rôle important » dans la non prolifération nucléaire en « assurant l'accès à l'énergie nucléaire pacifique à tous les pays qui respectent leurs obligations dans le cadre du TNPN. »


La Russie avait d'abord envisagé un centre international comme initiative de non prolifération qui aurait pu fournir une solution de compromis pour le problème nucléaire iranien. La proposition russe a d'abord été rendue publique il y a deux ans par Vladimir Poutin, qui a dit que les centres internationaux fourniraient aux pays un accès transparent à la technologie nucléaire civile, sans provoquer les craintes de la communauté internationale que l'uranium enrichi soit utilisé pour des programmes clandestins de fabrication d'armes nucléaires.


L'accord de vendredi dernier souligne le soutien des US à la démarche russe de création d'un cartel international de combustible nucléaire qui renforce le régime de non prolifération. Mais l'idée de centres internationaux n'est pas aussi démocratique qu'elle paraît. Moscou récemment a écarté l'idée que des installations du type Angarsk puissent être répliquées dans des pays arabes. Kiriyenko a affirmé, « nous croyons qu'il devrait y avoir un certains nombre de ces centres, mais c'est clair que ces centres devraient être situés dans des pays qui maîtrisent complètement la technologie d'enrichissement d'uranium afin que la technologie ne prolifère pas dans le monde. »


C'est clair qu'un cartel est en cours de création dans le domaine du commerce très lucratif du combustible nucléaire. Et Washington et Moscou sont sur la même longueur d'onde. Le vice premier ministre russe Sergei Ivanov a été cité admettant que tout signataire du TNP aura le droit d'acheter du combustible nucléaire enrichi des centres internationaux, « ceci en théorie seulement. Pour différentes raisons un pays pourra se voir refuser l'accès à l'uranium. »


Des experts russes du nucléaire ont reconnu que les US associaient implicitement l'accord signé avec la Russie vendredi dernier à Washington avec le fait que celle-ci cesse ses activités nucléaires en Iran, où elle est engagée dans la construction d'une centrale nucléaire à Bushehr. Rétrospectivement, la hâte manifeste avec laquelle la Russie a rempli – par 8 livraisons sur une période de 6 semaines depuis le 16 décembre – ses obligations d'approvisionnement en combustible nucléaire enrichi à bas taux, soit au total 82 tonnes, pour la centrale de Bushehr, peut être mise en perspective. La Russie a terminé le 28 janvier – tout juste 4 jours avant l'accord de vendredi dernier à Washington – sa 8ème et dernière livraison à Bushehr.


Les US libére la Russie de ses liens avec l'Iran


De même le président US George W. Bush a adopté une attitude tolérante surprenante envers les livraisons de combustible de la Russie pour Bushehr, alors qu'Israel et plusieurs capitales européennes ont vu d'un mauvais œil le geste de Moscou, le considérant comme une menace directe à la sécurité régionale. Pour citer un commentateur russe, « Bush n'a fait que répéter les mots de Vladimir Poutin comme quoi puisque maintenant la Russie fournissait l'Iran en combustible nucléaire, l'Iran n'aurait pas besoin de s'occuper lui-même d'enrichissement d'uranium. »


C'était une brillante déclaration pragmatique de la part de Bush. En fait, il a « libéré » Moscou de la « tyrannie » de la coopération nucléaire avec l'Iran. Mais il espérait alors que Moscou – dans la foulée de l'accord à Washington de vendredi - réajusterait sa position sur la nécessité de faire pression sur Téhéran par le biais de sanctions.


Suite à la réunion des « 5+1 » à Berlin le 22 janvier, le ministre des affaires étrangères russe Sergei Lavrov avait avancé que toute nouvelle résolution sur l'Iran présenterait certains traits :


Toute action au CS devrait avoir pour but de soutenir l'AIEA « en tenant compte des « progrès réalisés dans le travail de l'AIEA » et exprimer le soutien pour les efforts continus de l'AIEA pour répondre aux questions qui restent à clarifier. »


Toute nouvelle mesure « devrait être en rapport avec la situation réelle » c'est-à-dire, le CS doit prendre en compte la disposition à coopérer avec l'AIEA de l'Iran.

L'ouverture à des discussions doit être maintenue tant que « l'Iran accepte les termes établis par l'AIEA. »

« Les discussions porteront non seulement sur les questions nucléaires et non seulement pour assurer en pratique les droits légitimes de l'Iran à développer l'énergie nucléaire à des fins pacifiques, mais aussi à étendre la coopération économique avec l'Iran dans le champ du nucléaire, et à collaborer avec l'Iran sur des problèmes régionaux, sur des problèmes de sécurité de sa région. »

La nouvelle résolution sera « principalement sous forme d'appels à la vigilance de tous les pays » dans le développement de leurs relations avec l'Iran dans le domaine du nucléaire.

Lavrov a tiré satisfaction du fait que « finalement, nous avons reçu un texte qui diffère des demandes initiales de nos partenaires occidentaux, qui en fait allait dans le sens de punir l'Iran plutôt que de soutenir les efforts de l'AIEA. »

Selon les détails disponibles, l'ébauche de la résolution du CS établie à Berlin manquait de mordant. Elle contenait les éléments suivants :

Interdiction de voyager pour des iraniens « impliqués dans, directement associés ou fournissant un soutien à la prolifération des activités nucléaires de nature sensibles, ou pour le développement de systèmes de transport d'armes nucléaires ».
Stipulation que le gel des avoirs détaillés dans la résolution précédente inclura maintenant des personnes et des organismes spécifiques.


Conseil que tous les pays devraient « exercer une vigilance » sur les activités de leurs institutions financières avec les banques iraniennes, spécialement la Banque Melli et la banque Saderat.


Mais Washington a l'intention de jouer la « carte sanction « et les puissances occidentales suivront finalement les désirs de Washington. La Chine reste équivoque. Beijing « appelle toutes les parties à renforcer leurs efforts diplomatiques pour être créatifs et rechercher de nouvelles approches pour sortir de l'impasse, et trouver une solutions raisonnable à la question iranienne », pour citer le porte parole du ministère des affaires étrangères à Beijing.


Maintenant, après l'accord de vendredi à Washington, quelle est la position de la Russie ?


C'est pourquoi la déclaration du vice ministre des affaires étrangères russe Serge Kislyak posté sur le site web du ministère à Moscou mardi intrigue. Il dit que la Russie appelle l'Iran à geler l'enrichissement d e l'uranium jusqu'à «ce que les points compliqués aient été résolus » par l'AIEA. C'est ici un virage subtil dans la remarque. Jusqu'ici Moscou avait mis l'accent sur le rapport que le directeur de l'AIEA Mohammed ElBaradei doit remettre la troisième semaine de février au CS.


Jusqu'à maintenant on attendait qu'ElBaradei clarifie les questions en suspend sur les activités nucléaires passées de l'Iran. ElBaradei a dit dans une interview avec le quotidien basé au Koweit al-Rai : « l'Iran a fait une avancée dans la résolution du problème posé par son programme nucléaire ». Mais Kislyak a dit « je crois que ce gel de l'enrichissement est tout à fait possible si des décisions politiques appropriées sont prises. Les inquiétudes internationales peuvent être facilement calmées par Téhéran afin de créer des conditions favorables pour une coopération étendue de l'Iran avec d'autres pays.»

Il a aussi minimisé la coopération de l'Iran avec l'AIEA en disant « pour parler franc, nos collègues iraniens auraient pu commencer ce travail il y a longtemps et ne pas perdre tant d'années en confrontation, d'abord avec le conseil des gouverneurs de l'AIEA, et ensuite avec le CSONU. »


Kislyak a mis en garde sur le fait que la nouvelle résolution avec des sanctions « contient des signaux sérieux pour l'Iran et envisage des décisions pour étendre les sanctions adoptées précédemment par le CS ». Un commentateur russe renommé a ajouté rapidement sa voix à la mise en garde de Kislayk en prévenant que la nouvelle résolution « pourrait se montrer plutôt sérieuse » et que Moscou «ne l'avait pas noté à première vue ».

Il a ajouté, « l'adoption d'une nouvelle résolution a été continuellement repoussée à cause de la Russie et de la Chine Pendant ce temps, l'équipe du président Mahmud Ahmadinejad est allée plus loin dans le durcissement de son attitude. Il en résulte que des experts internationaux, y compris iraniens, sont d'accord sur le fait que le programme nucléaire iranien s'approche du point au-delà duquel il débouchera inévitablement sur le développement d'armes nucléaires. Sur toile de fond de faibles sanctions au CS, l'Iran a probablement été encouragé à aller de l'avant. »


Selon le double langage de la Russie, il semble qu'en plus des clauses de l'ébauche de résolution accepté à Berlin le 22 janvier, quelque soit les conclusions du directeur de l'AIEA, la résolution à venir devrait insister sur le fait que l'Iran doit stopper l'enrichissement d‘uranium comme pré condition à la reprise des discussions. Il est certain que Téhéran rejettera une telle pré- condition.

Mais l'Iran va devoir réaliser combien le monde multipolaire ne présente toujours pas de garantie de la fin des manigances entre grandes puissances ; Dans le système international post soviétique, l' »Animal ‘s Farm » de George Orwell existe toujours, et certains sont toujours plus égaux que les autres.



M.K. Bhadrakumar 09/02/08 copyright Asia Times on Line www.atimes.com


Traduction et introduction Mireille Delamarre pour www.planetenonviolence.org


M.K Bhadrakumar a été en poste comme diplomate de carrière pour le Ministère des Affaires Etrangères Indou pendant 29 ans. Il a notamment été ambassadeur en Uzbekistan (1995-1998) et en Turquie (1998-2001)

Share:

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Les pertes des banques se comptent en millier de milliards

Le dollar américain et le système financier ont déjà explosés. Les discussions à propos de comment la crise systémique « arrive » ne devraient pas exister - la crise est déjà là. Le krach du système basé sur le dollar provoquera l’explosion du système financier international dans son ensemble. Dèjà, des débris de la planète éclatée volent dans tous les sens, comme des astéroïdes - mais seul un idiot pourrait prétendre que les astéroïdes « vont causer » l’explosion ! La planète a explosée ! Seul un idiot ou un menteur débattrait « d’une tendance allant vers une crise à venir ». La catastrophe est maintenant.

La brève qui suit représente l’un de ces éclats :

20 novembre 2007 (LPAC) - Selon les annonces de ces derniers jours - relatives à des pertes dues à la crise financière, de la part de grandes banques - l’énorme bulle de contrats dérivés financiers tenue par les banques, évaluée de 500 000 à 700 000 milliards de dollars, ajoutée aux « pertes à effet de levier » sur les actifs de crédit, constitue le nouvel épicentre des pertes - comme le LPAC et l’EIR l’avaient prévenu, avec par conséquent un krach de plusieurs milliers de milliards de dollars face à nous.

Dans le cas le plus notable, la compagnie géante de réassurance, Swiss Re, a reconnu avoir essuyé une perte d’un milliard de dollars, venant seulement de deux contrats de dérivés connus comme des « credit swaps ». Swiss Re a refusé de nommer l’autre partie, sans nul doute une banque, à l’adresse de laquelle ces deux contrats de dérivés étaient destinés, bien que Goldman Sachs soit soupçonnée.

Le 16 novembre, l’économiste en chef de Goldman Sachs pour les Etats-Unis, Jan Hatzius, a publié une estimation effrayante des dégâts dans le système bancaire. Il prévoit que les pertes directes pour les banques américaines au cours de l’année prochaine soient de 400 milliards de dollars (une estimation très similaire venait juste d’être produite par l’économiste en chef de la Deutschebank). En supposant simplement que la moitié de ces pertes soient en actifs fortement multipliés (où le taux de dollars empruntés dans l’argent utilisé pour acheter les actifs est de 10 pour 1), Hatzius prévoit que la baisse totale dans la capacité des banques à prêter soit de 2 000 milliards de dollars. A titre de comparaison, en 2006, selon la Réserve fédérale, les prêts totaux des banques américaines aux ménages et aux sociétés non financières étaient de 3 240 milliards de dollars. En déclarant beaucoup moins que la réalité, Hatzius appelle le résultat « une récession substantielle ».

Le lecteur devrait ne pas se laisser prendre au jeu de la folie collective des financiers, et s’armer de ce que Lyndon LaRouche a proposé comme alternative au système financier, d’ores et déjà anéanti.

http://www.solidariteetprogres.org/spip/sp_article-breve.php3?id_article=3534
Share:

Sunday, November 18, 2007

Redrawing the Middle East : Israel lost control of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia

NDLR: Behind the scene Israel is moving his pawns in northern Iraq with PKK, in Sudan (Darfour) and in Pakistan to balance the weakness of the US-british in the Middle East. The aim of the zionists is to trigger more NATO troups, french and German armies on the ground before the end of the year, to open a double front with Iran and destabilise the entire region, Saudi Arabia, with civil wars. Pakistan is now clearly on the hand of the Islamic Resistance, any use of nuclear weapon will signify the end for Israel.


On November 14, during his morning rush hour radio program on WPFW, Br. Hodari Ali had Dr. Kaukab Siddique speak at 7 AM and questioned him about the latest situation in Pakistan. Br. Hodari's live radio program reaches an important audience, the highly politicized people of Washington , DC.




The main points Dr. Siddique made are as follows: Musharraf has been thwarted by the Islamic movement in Pakistan. In the north he faces a popular armed uprising. In the cities, he is the most unpopular person. Instead of letting the Pakistani people achieve their Islamic aspirations, the U.S. is trying to thwart them by sending in Benazir Bhutto to create a fake civilian "democratic" front for Bush's hegemonic program. The corporate media in America are presenting Benazir as THE opposition.




They ignore the fact that she is feudalist and has been extremely corrupt when she had a chance to rule. She is very unpopular but is trying to feed off the general frustration with Musharraf in the hope that people will follow her to get rid of Mush. Benazir will be working for the U.S., not for Pakistan or Islam. If Mush doesn't want to go, then we'll have a Saddam or Somoza type of situation with Bush trying to get rid of his own man. Another general is already waiting in the wings. The Islamic resistance in the northern areas is giving a hard time to the Pakistani military. The situation could develop in a direction where the U.S. would send its own troops into Waziristan.




The result would be a major upheaval because Islam is much stronger in Pakistan than it is in Iraq. Behind the American moves is Israel which wants to sabotage Pakistan 's nuclear program. American moves are in fact Israeli moves.




Bush Failed to See Musharraf’s Faults, Critics Contend (November 18, 2007) But with the future of that country’s leadership in doubt, debate is intensifying about whether Washington has done enough to help protect the warheads and laboratories, and whether Pakistan’s reluctance to reveal critical details about its arsenal has undercut the effectiveness of the continuing security effort.




The aid, buried in secret portions of the federal budget, paid for the training of Pakistani personnel in the United States and the construction of a nuclear security training center in Pakistan, a facility that American officials say is nowhere near completion, even though it was supposed to be in operation this year.




A raft of equipment — from helicopters to night-vision goggles to nuclear detection equipment — was given to Pakistan to help secure its nuclear material, its warheads, and the laboratories that were the site of the worst known case of nuclear proliferation in the atomic age. While American officials say that they believe the arsenal is safe at the moment, and that they take at face value Pakistani assurances that security is vastly improved, in many cases the Pakistani government has been reluctant to show American officials how or where the gear is actually used.




That is because the Pakistanis do not want to reveal the locations of their weapons or the amount or type of new bomb-grade fuel the country is now producing. The American program was created after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when the Bush administration debated whether to share with Pakistan one of the crown jewels of American nuclear protection technology, known as “permissive action links,” or PALS, a system used to keep a weapon from detonating without proper codes and authorizations.




In the end, despite past federal aid to France and Russia on delicate points of nuclear security, the administration decided that it could not share the system with the Pakistanis because of legal restrictions. In addition, the Pakistanis were suspicious that any American-made technology in their warheads could include a secret “kill switch,” enabling the Americans to turn off their weapons. While many nuclear experts in the federal government favored offering the PALS system because they considered Pakistan’s arsenal among the world’s most vulnerable to terrorist groups, some administration officials feared that sharing the technology would teach Pakistan too much about American weaponry.




The same concern kept the Clinton administration from sharing the technology with China in the early 1990s. The New York Times has known details of the secret program for more than three years, based on interviews with a range of American officials and nuclear experts, some of whom were concerned that Pakistan’s arsenal remained vulnerable.




The newspaper agreed to delay publication of the article after considering a request from the Bush administration, which argued that premature disclosure could hurt the effort to secure the weapons. Since then, some elements of the program have been discussed in the Pakistani news media and in a presentation late last year by the leader of Pakistan’s nuclear safety effort, Lt. Gen. Khalid Kidwai, who acknowledged receiving “international” help as he sought to assure Washington that all of the holes in Pakistan’s nuclear security infrastructure had been sealed.




The Times told the administration last week that it was reopening its examination of the program in light of those disclosures and the current instability in Pakistan. Early this week, the White House withdrew its request that publication be withheld, though it was unwilling to discuss details of the program.




In recent days, American officials have expressed confidence that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is well secured. “I don’t see any indication right now that security of those weapons is in jeopardy, but clearly we are very watchful, as we should be,” Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Pentagon news conference on Thursday. Admiral Mullen’s carefully chosen words, a senior administration official said, were based on two separate intelligence assessments issued this month that had been summarized in briefings to Mr. Bush. Both concluded that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal was safe under current conditions, and one also looked at laboratories and came to the same conclusion.




Still, the Pakistani government’s reluctance to provide access has limited efforts to assess the situation. In particular, some American experts say they have less ability to look into the nuclear laboratories where highly enriched uranium is produced — including the laboratory named for Abdul Qadeer Khan, the man who sold Pakistan’s nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya.




The secret program was designed by the Energy Department and the State Department, and it drew heavily from the effort over the past decade to secure nuclear weapons, stockpiles and materials in Russia and other former Soviet states. Much of the money for Pakistan was spent on physical security, like fencing and surveillance systems, and equipment for tracking nuclear material if it left secure areas. Bush Failed to See Musharraf’s Faults, Critics Contend (November 18, 2007) But while Pakistan is formally considered a “major non-NATO ally,” the program has been hindered by a deep suspicion among Pakistan’s military that the secret goal of the United States was to gather intelligence about how to locate and, if necessary, disable Pakistan’s arsenal, which is the pride of the country. “Everything has taken far longer than it should,” a former official involved in the program said in a recent interview, “and you are never sure what you really accomplished.”




So far, the amount the United States has spent on the classified nuclear security program, less than $100 million, amounts to slightly less than one percent of the roughly $10 billion in known American aid to Pakistan since the Sept. 11 attacks. Most of that money has gone for assistance in counterterrorism activities against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.




The debate over sharing nuclear security technology began just before then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was sent to Islamabad after the Sept. 11 attacks, as the United States was preparing to invade Afghanistan. “There were a lot of people who feared that once we headed into Afghanistan, the Taliban would be looking for these weapons,” said a senior official who was involved. But a legal analysis found that aiding Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program — even if it was just with protective gear — would violate both international and American law. General Musharraf, in his memoir, “In the Line of Fire,” published last year, did not discuss any equipment, training or technology offered then, but wrote: “We were put under immense pressure by the United States regarding our nuclear and missile arsenal. The Americans’ concerns were based on two grounds.




First, at this time they were not very sure of my job security, and they dreaded the possibility that an extremist successor government might get its hands on our strategic nuclear arsenal. Second, they doubted our ability to safeguard our assets.” General Musharraf was more specific in an interview two years ago for a Times documentary, “Nuclear Jihad: Can Terrorists Get the Bomb?” Asked about the equipment and training provided by Washington, he said, “Frankly, I really don’t know the details.” But he added: “This is an extremely sensitive matter in Pakistan. We don’t allow any foreign intrusion in our facilities.




But, at the same time, we guarantee that the custodial arrangements that we brought about and implemented are already the best in the world.” Now that concern about General Musharraf’s ability to remain in power has been rekindled, so has the debate inside and outside the Bush administration about how much the program accomplished, and what it left unaccomplished.




A second phase of the program, which would provide more equipment, helicopters and safety devices, is already being discussed in the administration, but its dimensions have not been determined. Harold M. Agnew, a former director of the Los Alamos weapons laboratory, which designed most of the United States’ nuclear arms, argued that recent federal reluctance to share warhead security technology was making the world more dangerous. “Lawyers say it’s classified,” Dr. Agnew said in an interview. “That’s nonsense. We should share this technology. Anybody who joins the club should be helped to get this.” “Whether it’s India or Pakistan or China or Iran,” he added, “the most important thing is that you want to make sure there is no unauthorized use. You want to make sure that the guys who have their hands on the weapons can’t use them without proper authorization.”




In the past, officials say, the United States has shared ideas — but not technologies — about how to make the safeguards that lie at the heart of American weapons security. The system hinges on what is essentially a switch in the firing circuit that requires the would-be user to enter a numeric code that starts a timer for the weapon’s arming and detonation. Most switches disable themselves if the sequence of numbers entered turns out to be incorrect in a fixed number of tries, much like a bank ATM does.




In some cases, the disabled link sets off a small explosion in the warhead to render it useless. Delicate design details involve how to bury the link deep inside a weapon to keep terrorists or enemies from disabling the safeguard. Musharraf Refuses to Say When Emergency Will End (November 18, 2007) Bush Failed to See Musharraf’s Faults, Critics Contend (November 18, 2007) The most famous case of nuclear idea sharing involves France. Starting in the early 1970s, the United States government began a series of highly secretive discussions with French scientists to help them improve the country’s warheads. A potential impediment to such sharing was the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which bars cooperation between nations on weapons technology.




To get around such legal prohibitions, Washington came up with a system of “negative guidance,” sometimes called “20 questions,” as detailed in a 1989 article in Foreign Policy. The system let United States scientists listen to French descriptions of warhead approaches and give guidance about whether the French were on the right track. Nuclear experts say sharing also took place after the cold war when the United States worried about the security of Russian nuclear arms and facilities.




In that case, both countries declassified warhead information to expedite the transfer of safety and security information, according to federal nuclear scientists. But in the case of China, which has possessed nuclear weapons since the 1960s and is a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Clinton administration decided that sharing PALS would be too risky. Experts inside the administration feared the technology would improve the Chinese warheads, and could give the Chinese insights into how American systems worked. Officials said Washington debated sharing security techniques with Pakistan on at least two occasions — right after it detonated its first nuclear arms in 1998, and after the terrorist attack on the United States in 2001.




The debates pitted atomic scientists who favored technical sharing against federal officials at such places as the State Department who ruled that the transfers were illegal under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and under United States law. In the 1998 case, the Clinton administration still hoped it could roll back Pakistan’s nuclear program, forcing it to give up the weapons it had developed. That hope, never seen as very realistic, has been entirely given up by the Bush administration. The nuclear proliferation conducted by Mr. Khan, the Pakistani metallurgist who built a huge network to spread Pakistani technology, convinced the Pakistanis that they needed better protections. “Among the places in the world that we have to make sure we have done the maximum we can do, Pakistan is at the top of the list,” said John E.




McLaughlin, who served as deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency at the time, and played a crucial role in the intelligence collection that led to Mr. Khan’s downfall. “I am confident of two things,” he added. “That the Pakistanis are very serious about securing this material, but also that someone in Pakistan is very intent on getting their hands on it.”
Share:

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

L'apocalypse selon Tel Aviv, Londres et Washington

LE « GRAND JEU » BRITANNIQUE MÈNE À LA GUERRE


A aucun autre moment depuis la fin de la Deuxième Guerre mondiale, on n’avait vu autant de régions du monde sombrer dans le chaos, la guerre asymétrique et la désintégration économique. Sur fond d’effondrement du système financier mondial, ces conflits apparemment isolés posent la menace grandissante d’une troisième guerre mondiale, cette fois-ci asymétrique.
Tout comme l’assassinat de l’Archiduc François-Ferdinand à Sarajevo en 1914 servit de détonateur à la Première Guerre mondiale, l’un quelconque de ces foyers de crise pourrait provoquer une conflagration.
Toutefois, hier comme aujourd’hui, la vraie cause du conflit se trouve dans les machinations géopolitiques de l’empire britannique. Il existe cependant une différence fondamentale par rapport à cette époque : aujourd’hui, les Etats-Unis sont beaucoup plus sous l’mprise des maîtres du jeu géopolitiques et de l’idéologie libérale anglo-hollandaise qu’à la veille de la Première Guerre mondiale. A travers des agents comme Bernard Lewis, George Shultz et tout l’appareil néo-conservateur, le gouvernement Bush-Cheney est devenu l’instrument de l’autodestruction des Etats-Unis et de l’abolition de l’Etat-nation au profit de l’Empire.
Des sources au sein de la communauté du renseignement américain ont qualifié de « chaos géré » cette stratégie britannique consistant à plonger de plus en plus de nations dans l’ingouvernabilité, sans aller jusqu’à provoquer l’éclatement d’une guerre généralisée. En même temps, à la faveur de la faiblesse du dollar, les cartels de l’énergie et des matières premières renforcent leur emprise.
Cependant, de tels jeux d’équilibre mènent souvent à la guerre.
Depuis la Corne de l’Afrique jusqu’au Caucase, en passant par le Proche-Orient et l’Asie centrale, on a affaire à des crises « locales » à une échelle sans précédent :
Une guerre entre la Turquie et l’Irak est attisée par les attaques militaires contre l’armée turque, menées par les Kurdes du PKK depuis leurs bases situées dans le nord de l’Irak, à la frontière turque. L’Armée turque et le parti au pouvoir sont convaincus que les opérations du PKK sont protégées et soutenues par les Etats-Unis et l’OTAN, du fait que les insurgés kurdes conduisent également des attaques contre l’Iran, pays prioritaire sur l’agenda Bush-Cheney pour un « changement de régime ».

La région frontalière entre le Pakistan et l’Afghanistan est au bord de l’explosion, suite à la « guerre au terrorisme » menée par les Etats-Unis et l’OTAN, créant des conditions d’instabilité dans les deux pays (cf. ci-dessous). En même temps, l’Afghanistan est devenu un véritable narco-Etat, les « seigneurs de l’opium » à l’oeuvre dans tout le pays fournissant entre 75 et 90 % de la consommation mondiale d’héroïne.

Le constat est semblable pour toute la région de la Corne d’Afrique. L’instabilité du Soudan gagnerait automatiquement l’Egypte. Le 5 novembre, le Groupe de crise international a publié une déclaration, avertissant que l’Ethiopie et l’Erytrée sont au bord d’une véritable guerre, bien pire que le conflit qui ensanglanta la région en 1998-2000. Les deux pays sont engagés dans une guerre interposée en Somalie, et depuis fin septembre, l’Ethiopie menace de rompre le Pacte d’Alger qui mit fin à la guerre en instaurant une commission frontalière.

Dans le Caucase, le président géorgien Mikhail Saakashvili a déclaré un état d’urgence de quinze jours pour faire taire les protestations, de plus en plus violentes, contre son gouvernement. Il reproche aux Russes de fomenter les manifestations, provoquant un regain de tension entre Tiflis et Moscou, qui risque de relancer d’autres insurrections séparatistes dans la région, entretenues depuis longtemps par des combattants étrangers, souvent recrutés en Grande-Bretagne.

La faction de Dick Cheney à la Maison Blanche continue de mobiliser pour des frappes militaires américaines contre l’Iran, ce qui ne manquerait pas de provoquer une explosion régionale et, probablement, des guerres de religion.
http://www.solidariteetprogres.org/spip/article-imprim.php3?id_article=3505
Share:

Sunday, November 11, 2007

World War III : China, Russia target USS Kitty Hawk during military exercises

The Uninvited Guest Mathew Hickley –

Daily Mail.co.uk November 10, 2007

When the U.S. Navy deploys a battle fleet on exercises, it takes the security of its aircraft carriers very seriously indeed. At least a dozen warships provide a physical guard while the technical wizardry of the world's only military superpower offers an invisible shield to detect and deter any intruders. That is the theory. Or, rather, was the theory. American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board. By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier. The Americans had no idea China's fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication, or that it posed such a threat. One Nato figure said the effect was "as big a shock as the Russians launching Sputnik" - a reference to the Soviet Union's first orbiting satellite in 1957 which marked the start of the space age.
The incident, which took place in the ocean between southern Japan and Taiwan, is a major embarrassment for the Pentagon. The lone Chinese vessel slipped past at least a dozen other American warships which were supposed to protect the carrier from hostile aircraft or submarines. And the rest of the costly defensive screen, which usually includes at least two U.S. submarines, was also apparently unable to detect it. According to the Nato source, the encounter has forced a serious re-think of American and Nato naval strategy as commanders reconsider the level of threat from potentially hostile Chinese submarines. It also led to tense diplomatic exchanges, with shaken American diplomats demanding to know why the submarine was "shadowing" the U.S. fleet while Beijing pleaded ignorance and dismissed the affair as coincidence.
Analysts believe Beijing was sending a message to America and the West demonstrating its rapidly-growing military capability to threaten foreign powers which try to interfere in its "backyard". The People's Liberation Army Navy's submarine fleet includes at least two nuclear-missile launching vessels. Its 13 Song Class submarines are extremely quiet and difficult to detect when running on electric motors. Commodore Stephen Saunders, editor of Jane's Fighting Ships, and a former Royal Navy anti-submarine specialist, said the U.S. had paid relatively little attention to this form of warfare since the end of the Cold War. He said: "It was certainly a wake-up call for the Americans. "It would tie in with what we see the Chinese trying to do, which appears to be to deter the Americans from interfering or operating in their backyard, particularly in relation to Taiwan." In January China carried a successful missile test, shooting down a satellite in orbit for the first time.

Russian Jets Buzzed U.S. Carrier,
Moscow Media Report NewsMax.com
Thursday, Nov. 16, 2000
Russian reconnaissance and fighter planes "buzzed" the aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk in the Sea of Japan after evading its battle group's radar systems three times in recent weeks, Moscow’s Izvestiya bragged. Operating in pairs, the Russian fighters made a mock attack on the carrier and took detailed photographs of the reaction on the carrier’s deck, Russian press reports said. The incidents allegedly mimicked similar mock attacks that often took place during the Cold War, the London Telegraph reported. "If these had been planes on a war mission, the aircraft carrier would definitely have been sunk," Izvestiya commented.
The carrier failed to scramble an F/A-18 fighter to intercept the intruders, the Interfax agency said, until a second pair of Su-24 and Su-27 planes swooped down on the Kitty Hawk on Oct. 17. Former Navy pilots questioned the claims. "I think this story is wrong," said one. "If I'm not mistaken, if the Russians had tried this during the Cold War, the E-2s would have picked them up far, far away and the boys (and I do mean boys) in the Tomcats would have greeted them well away from the carrier." More on this:
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 10:57:55 EST From: MELUMAN@aol.com Subject: USS Kitty Hawk Incident The Real Story of the USS Kitty Hawk Incident Miscellaneous Miscellaneous Source:
Military E-Mail Published: 9 December 2000
Author: U.S. Navy F/A-18 Pilot Posted on 12/13/2000 17:32:15 PST by Spook86 Note: The following is an eyewitness account of the recent Russian "buzzing" of the USS Kitty Hawk in the Sea of Japan. It was written by a U.S. Navy F/A-18 pilot who was on the carrier at the time of the incident. I received this via e-mail from a military colleague who, in turn, verified that it came from the Kitty Hawk. It makes for interesting reading, and provides a remarkable account of the absolute buffoonery that took place during the incident. Comments in brackets were added to clarify or explain military jargon Flying **** :
-Cruise was pretty easy and interesting: 54 days at sea, 40 traps carrier landings, and 45 flying hours in the month of October alone! Yes, we flew our asses off! Since I'm one of three department heads with all my quals I fly a lot. Here's an interesting story (this is a no sh---er). I was on the bridge in line to drive the ship as there are a bunch of O-5s and a few O-4s earning our "coming alongside" qual. It's a gay shoe boy ***** where you give commands to the helm and lee helm (that's the throttle, dude) and you're actually flying formation on the replenishment ship during UNREPS underway replenishment ops. You do this under the close supervision of the Captain of the ship and the CDO (command duty officer--an O-5, usually the navigator or assistant navigator). Anyways, I'm sitting there bullsh-----g with my XO executive officer who is also getting his qual and we hear on the CO's squawk box a call from CIC (Combat Info Center). They said "sir, we're getting indications of Russian fighter activity." His response was "launch the alert fighters." Combat told him the highest alerts were Alert 30s launch within 30 minutes of notification.
The Captain got p---ed and said "launch everything we've got ASAP." I ran to the navigator's phone and called the SDO squadron duty officer. Our squadron didn't have alert duty that day, bummer, so I told him to find out who did and get their ass moving up to the flight deck (only Alert 7s are actually sitting on the flight deck, ready to go; alert 30s means you are in the ready room). Anyways, 40 minutes after the CO called away the alerts, a Russian SU-27 Flanker air superiority fighter--similar to a U.S. F-15 and SU-24 strike fighter, akin to an F-111 Fencer made a 500 knot, 200 foot pass directly over the tower of the Kitty Hawk...it was just like in Top Gun, shoes on the bridge spilled coffee and everyone said "H--y S---!. I looked at the Captain at this point and his face was red. He looked like he just walked in on his wife getting boned by a Marine. The Russian fighters made two more high speed, low altitude passes before we finally launched the first aircraft off the deck...a EA-6B Prowler electronic warfare aircraft. That's right...we launched a f-----g Prower and he ended up in a 1 versus 1 with the Flanker just in front of the ship. The Flanker was all over his ass (kind of like a bear batting around a little bunny right before he eats it). He was screaming for help when finally an F/A-18 Hornet from our sister squadron (I use this term in the literal sense because they looked like a bunch of f-----g girls playing with the Russians) got off the deck and made the intercept. It was too late. The entire crew watched overhead as the Russians made a mockery of our feeble attempt to intercept them.
The funny part of the story was the Admiral and the CAG Carrier Air Group Commander were in their morning meeting in the war room andthey were interrupted by the thundering roar of Russians buzzing the tower. A CAG staff dude told me they looked at each other and our airplan, noticed we didn't have any flights scheduled until a few hours later, and said "what was that?" Four days later, the Russian intelligence agency e-mailed the CO of the Kitty Hawk and enclosed pictures they had taken of our dudes scrambling around the flight deck, frantically trying to get airborne. I'm quite sure the f-----g loser shoe boy black shoe=ship driver/surface warfare officer in charge of our battle group's air defense was fired. It's also ironic that the Admiral's change-of-command occurred just a few weeks prior to this incident. Anyways, the Russians tried to come out a few other times, and we were more than ready.
I personally intercepted an IL-38 May anti-submarine wargfare aircraft and shoved my wingtip in front of his windscreen to prevent him from turning towards the ship (yeah, yeah we're friends now, blow me). In typical Navy Senior officer knee jerk fashion our entire airwing stood alerts around the clock as if WWII was going to break out anytime. This story was plasteredall over Russian and Japanese newspapers yesterday. The Russians even awarded their aircrew medals for their achievement. What f-----g shame! I felt like I was on the Bad News Bears and we got our asses kicked, and I didn't even get off the bench to help the team.

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/naval-forces/10665-russian-aircraft-buzz-uss-kitty-hawk.html
Share:

Blog Archive

Support


Definition List

Just Foreign Policy Iraqi Death Estimator

Unordered List