Syria, Turkey Seek Strategic Alliance with Iran, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon

Syrian Information Minister Muhsin Bilal praised the excellent and strategic relations between Syria and Turkey, and said that the two countries were seeking to expand their strategic alliance to include Iran, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon.
Bilal also said that a people whose land has been occupied may use any means to liberate it, because resistance is a sacred right recognized by all international charters.

Source: Al-Thawra (Syria), January 1, 2010
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Whatever is fearless leader going to do? These, afterall, are his brothers! And one is a NATO wanna be.

__________________

Thank you...I had a brain fart and couldn't come up with the word at the time.

I expect to see more and more of these alliances forming in the future. the most important resource currently on the planet is oil.

Yes, oil!

Oil makes the world go round. It's used in everything from fertilizer, farm equipment, chemicals, packaging, heating, fuel...you name it. Oil has made industry possible.

The middle east has 70% of the world's oil supply. The USA consumes 25% of the oil supply currently.

since oil is not infinite and limited in supply we will find prices continuing to go up, more wars and possibly a world war with in my life time. I honestly do believe oil was a primary driving force behind ww2 as well. One of the regions Hitler secured first was middle eastern oil fields.

How does 2 rather small countries, Germany and Japan bring a world into a 4 global war when they themselves have limited resources?

Resources are needed for any conflict to sustain for an extended period of time. Yet and island and a land lacked country had brought the world into a global war. The end result of that war was a new world order lead by the USA and the securing of resources in the middle east.

since that time we have become even more dependent of oil. Plastics are essential in today's economy. American families have a min of 2 cars, drive much further distances, have two incomes, rely on convenience prepackaged food sources.

Everything is connected to oil now. Our very food supply is heavy dependent on the black stuff for fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, machinery. Hauling the food to factories for processing, more machinery there. Packaging. Then hauling food to stores and finally to consumer.

I have been collecting old cookbooks lately. Found some great recipes too. most of these cookbooks actually has food storage sections in them. Unwrapping meat from butcher paper, how to store it in a container with a damp cloth. How to wash and store fresh vegetables, fruits ect. They also have home canning, home freezing sections. (Freezer was a new thing for some of these books.)

Going through these books I realized there was no plastic wrappings, plastic jugs, plastic bags used back then. No tupperwear but rather "paper cups with lids."

One of these old books even had a section on an "ice box" like the days of old. Placing real ice in the top section of the box so the cool air would flow down the inside of the wooden box. That same book also had a section on "window boxes" and using a cellar to store food.

The realization of just how much our consumption has changed in very little time is mind boggling. For very basic things such as food, water and electricity.

Oil is precious in our society but so well hidden in daily uses we never think much about it until we need to fill up with gas for the car. I think what scares me the most is how ignorant we as a society are in regards to this dependency. Because we have always had plenty of things in this country we never really thought about how certain resources affect our daily life.

Once oil is gone our society will come to a screeching halt. Knowing this fact our government will continue to wage wars to secure the future oil supplies, not drill our own oil supplies until everyone else's is gone. which means more wars.

the rest of the world is in the same boat with an oil dependency. They will see us as a threat to the oil supplies as well. Thus more alliances will be made. I also believe there will be an attempt to spark a civil war in the USA to make us turn on each other thus causing the military to flounder.

If we could free ourselves of oil there would be no need for the middle east. They would go back to being a non essential area.

I agree with what you say. However, after all you have written, there are still the ideological and religious differences to deal with. Complicated, isn't it?

__________________

Get ready for the repurcussions of the Obama foreign policy decisions.

China to levy anti-dumping duties on US chicken

China said on Friday it would impose preliminary anti-dumping duties of up to 105 percent on broiler chicken imports from the United States.

__________________

If Iran obtains the nuclear weapons capability, Hillary Clinton will resign as Sec. of State in protest.

__________________

Friggin WAH!!!!!

How is her threat supposed to stop them. Heck, its encouragement.

What a brat.

__________________
The world was here first, it owes you nothing. Count yourself fortunate if you get all you've earned. Count yourself a thief if you get what others have earned. Count yourself a parasite if you believe you're entitled to it.-Mark Twain

Oh, I have to disagree. Even the progressives (think that they) love their country. As a matter of fact, they believe that they are the only ones who do. But that is a different subject for a different time. For Hillary to fail at the biggest challenge of her term, would leave her with no choice other than seppuku. Unfortunately, it will only be with a resignation and not the steel bladed version.

__________________

Send over US nuclear engineers and make sure Iran get's the bomb!

You are not that far off, Rachel. Did you ever think that Obama might actually be wanting Iran to nuke up? "Never let a good crisis go to waste"

__________________

http://www.juancole.com/2010/02/top-...attack-on.html

Saturday, February 20, 2010

It appears that, the International Atomic Energy Agency is at least allowing for the possibility that documents allegedly found on a laptop some years ago --but discounted by the US Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency as of dubious provenance and incompatible with other intelligence gathered in Iran -- point to a nuclear weapons program that no one has been able to locate. Some close observers have concluded that the laptop documents are forgeries. A new IAEA report that declines to dismiss the alleged documents will certainly cause the war lobby in the United States to redouble its efforts to get up an attack on Iran.

Forged documents on the supposed purchase of yellowcake uranium by Iraq from Niger were used by George W. Bush to promote a war on Iraq. It was at that time the Intelligence and Research division of the Department of State that attempted to throw cold water on these "documents," but was ignored by the president. Then head of the IAEA, Mohammed Elbaradei, was able to show them false in one afternoon.

The UN inspectors have a right to be frustrated with Iran, which has allowed inspections of its Natanz nuclear enrichment site, but which has not been completely transparent or adhered to the letter of its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But the sum of those frustrations does not point to a nuclear weapons program, unlike the disputed laptop documents. In statements to the press this fall, US intelligence officials have said that they stand behind the conclusions first reached in 2007, that Iran has no nuclear weapons program.

But Russia's General of the Army Nikolay Makarov, Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, warned that an American attack on Iran now, when the US is bogged down in two wars, might well lead to the collapse of the United States. He said that such an attack would roil the region and have negative consequences for Russia (a neighbor of Iran via the Caspian Sea). And, he said, the Russian military is taking steps to forestall such an American strike on Iran. Makarov made the remarks in Vzglyad on Friday, February 19, 2010, and they were translated or paraphrased by the USG Open Source Center:

'Makarov also commented on the recent rumors about the possibility of an attack upon Iran by the United States. In his opinion, this would be complete madness on the part of the American military. He said: "Admiral Michael McMullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently said that, in the United States, there is a plan for carrying out strikes against Iran but the United States clearly understands that now, when it is conducting two military campaigns, one in Iraq and the other in Afghanistan, a third campaign against Iran would simply lead to a collapse. It would not be able to withstand the strain."

Nevertheless, in proportion to the winding down of the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, (the plan for) a war with the Islamic Republic of Iran, in the opinion of General Makarov, may again come out to the foreground.

General Makarov, Chief of the General Staff, said: "The consequences of such an attack will be terrible not only for the region but also for us. Iran is our neighbor and we are very carefully following this situation. The leadership of our country is undertaking all measures in order not to allow such a (military) development of events." '

The less potentially catastrophic path, tougher United Nations Security Council sanctions, however, depend on Russia and China going along. Despite Washington's optimism that Russia is softening toward the idea of stricter sanctions, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov cast the severest doubts on that idea on Friday.

In a radio interview on Friday with Ekho Moskvy Radio, which was translated by the USG Open Source Center, Lavrov was asked, "What is the situation with Iran's foreign policy today? And is it true that we now have as a whole a united position with the United States on Iran?"

The foreign minister replied, "I don't think that we have a united position." He said that both Washington and Moscow agree on the importance of not allowing "a violation of the regime of nonproliferation of nuclear weapons." He said the two countries have the same position on this issue, "although we do not coincide 100 per cent in methods of implementing it."

So what Lavrov is saying is that the US and Russia do not actually have a common position or agree on really tough sanctions. They just both have a vague similar position that proliferation is bad.

Lavrov said that Moscow's independent stance toward Iran is rooted in the two countries' historical relationship as well as in Russian desire to get Iranian cooperation on such issues as the disposition of resources in the Caspian Sea. (For a quick overview of Russian-Iranian relations, see N.M. Mamedova, who also mentions Iran's tacit support for Russia against Georgia in the Caucasus.) Lavrov said:

' But Iran for us, unlike the US, is a close neighbour, a country with which we have had a very long, historically conditioned relationship, a country with which we cooperate in the economic, humanitarian and military-technology fields alike and, let me note this particularly, a country that is our partner in the Caspian along with three other Caspian littoral states.

Therefore, we are not at all indifferent to what happens in Iran and around it. This applies to our economic interests and our security interests alike. This also applies . . . to the task of early settlement of the legal status of the Caspian Sea, which is not an easy task and in the approaches to which the Iranian position is close enough to ours.

Therefore, speaking of the proliferation threats, yes, we are concerned about Iran's reaction. '

Lavrov is less convinced there is anything sinister about Iran's civilian nuclear research, though he admits that questions remain:

' in the process of work, questions arose both from the IAEA's inspectors themselves and on the basis of the intelligence which the IAEA obtains from various countries. They were questions that aroused suspicion as to whether there might in reality be some military aspects to Iran's nuclear programme.

These questions were presented to the Iranians, as required by the procedures applicable in such cases. And, some time ago, Iran answered most of them. In principle, its answers were satisfactory, in a way that was considered by the professionals in Vienna normal. However, some of the questions are still on the table. '

So Lavrov thinks Iran's answers are largely 'satisfactory,' though there remain small areas of uncertainty.

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was in Moscow earlier this week calling for 'crippling sanctions on Iran.' Lavrov's remarks clearly indicated that Moscow disagreed that that situation was so perilous as to call for such a step.

But just to be sure there was no misunderstanding, Lavrov sent out his own deputy foreign minister, Sergei Ryabkov, to denounce any such talk.

Ryabkov said, according to Xinhua, "The term 'crippling sanctions' on Iran is totally unacceptable to us. The sanctions should aim at strengthening the regime of non- proliferation . . . We certainly cannot talk about sanctions that could be interpreted as punishment on the whole country and its people for some actions or inaction . . . " He said that Russia sought to settle differences with Iran through dialogue and engagement. He also pledged that Russia would honor its deal to provide Iran S-300 air defense systems. He said, "There is a contract to supply these systems to Iran and we will fulfill it. The delays are linked to technical problems with adjusting these systems..."

So on Friday, even as the hawks in Washington watered at the mouth at the prospect of being able to use the new IAEA report as a basis for belligerency against Iran, Russia's foreign policy establishment was engaged in a whirlwind of activity aimed at challenging the notion that Moscow is was in Washington's back pocket on Iran sanctions. The chief of staff predicted American collapse in an Iran conflagration, and vowed in any case to try to block any such attack. The foreign minister pronounced himself largely but not completely satisfied with Iran's answers concerning its nuclear activities, and underlined that Russia needs Iran because of Caspian issues (and he could have added, because of Caucasus and Central Asian ones). And then the deputy foreign minister was enlisted to slap Netanyahu around a little, presumably on the theory that it would sting less coming from someone with 'deputy' in his title.

Those who have argued that Russia's increasing willingness to acquiesce in tougher UNSC sanctions might influence China to go along, too, should rethink. Russia doesn't seem all that aboard with a brutal sanctions regime. China not only has its own reasons not to want its own deals with Iran to be declared illegal, but its leaders doubt Iran has the capacity to construct a nuclear warhead anytime soon.

__________________