South Korea One Of Ten Nuclear Horns (Daniel 7:7)

Donald Trump pledges support for U.S., South Korea alliance

By Elizabeth Shim Contact the Author
Nov. 10, 2016 at 10:01 AM

SEOUL, Nov. 10 (UPI) -- President-elect Donald Trump told South Korea's Park Geun-hye on Thursday that under his administration the United States would be with Seoul "100 percent" in tackling North Korea's nuclear provocations.

The 10-minute phone call between Trump and Park occurred a day after the Republican nominee's victory made headlines and took the world by surprise.

Markets in Asia, including South Korea, reacted negatively to the news on Wednesday, but bounced back on Thursday, the BBC reported.

The conversations between Trump and Park focused on themes that emphasized continuity of current U.S. North Korea policy: strengthening the U.S.-South Korea alliance and close cooperation in response to North Korea's nuclear and missile threats, Yonhap reported.

According to the presidential Blue House, Park said the "strong U.S.-South Korea alliance is the cornerstone of robust U.S. leadership in the Asia-Pacific region," adding the alliance should be developed in the mutual interest of both countries.

Trump had previously criticized South Korea, as well as Japan, for their dependence on U.S. forces for defense against North Korea's military threats.

Trump had said both countries "don't pay us," although burden sharing has prevailed in Seoul and Tokyo.

The president-elect appeared to take a different approach to relations with Seoul, and said to Park, "We are with you all the way and we will not waver," according to Yonhap.

Trump also said that he fully agreed with the president, adding he thinks North Korea is very unstable, according to the Blue House.

The China And Pakistan Horns Grow (Daniel 7/8)

The China-Pakistan axis gains momentum and could pull India into a war on two fronts

By Harsh V Pant

Published: 17:11 EST, 15 April 2016 | Updated: 17:11 EST, 15 April 2016

The recently expanded Gwadar deep water port in Pakistan, which is part of the socalled China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), is nearing completion.

According to Zhang Baozhong, chairman and CEO of China Overseas Ports Holding Company Ltd, ‘The port cranes are almost ready, and we are thinking that the port will be at full operation by the end of this year.’

The port will process about one million tonne of cargo next year, most of which will be incoming construction materials to be used in projects related to CPEC.

The port city Gwadar, in southwestern Balochistan province, is central to the CPEC. Pakistan’s army chief has accused India of attempting to undermine the $46 billion project with China.

Speaking at a development conference on the impact of CPEC, Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff General Raheel Sharif said: ‘I must highlight that India, our immediate neighbour, has openly challenged this development initiative.

‘I would like to make a special reference to Indian intelligence agency RAW that is blatantly involved in destabilising Pakistan. Let me make it clear that we will not allow anyone to create impediments and turbulence in any part of Pakistan.’

China-Pakistan collusion against India has taken new turns recently. Despite the Modi government’s attempts to improve ties with Pakistan and China, both have responded negatively so far.

The writing is clear on the wall and has been for quite some time. The Pakistani military-intelligence complex has no interest in a rapprochement with India; it made it a point to scuttle the growing Sharif-Modi bonhomie.

Last month, Pakistani authorities announced they captured a suspected Indian spy in Balochistan, identified as Kulbhushan Jadhav. The military also aired video footage of Jadhav, saying he was working out of his base in Chabahar in neighbouring Iran.

The Pakistani investigation team, which had visited Pathankot, ended up suggesting that the Pathankot attack in January was in fact staged by Indian agencies.

This was followed by the Pakistani High Commissioner announcing the suspension of Indo-Pakistani peace talks. China then turned the screws tighter and made it a point to scuttle the nascent counter-terror cooperation between Delhi and Beijing.

By insisting that designation of any individual as terrorist by UN is a ‘serious issue’, China last week blocked the UN from banning Jaish-e-Mohammad chief and Pathankot strike mastermind Masood Azhar by the global body.

The January 2 attack at Pathankot was followed by a raid on an Indian consulate in Afghanistan that has also been linked to Jaish-e-Mohammad, whose militants were also behind the 2001 attack on Indian Parliament.

The Sino-Pakistan relationship has now moved beyond the ‘higher than Himalayas and sweeter than honey’ phase. Chinese strategists are openly taking of Pakistan as their nation’s only real ally.

China’s submarine operations in the Indian Ocean and the Sino-Pak naval cooperation are challenging naval supremacy and have the potential to change the regional naval power balance.

China is also busy re-defining territorial status quo in the region. By deciding to construct major civil, energy and military infrastructure projects in the CPEC, which runs through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) and the areas of Gilgit and Baltistan, China has accorded de facto ‘legitimacy’ to Pakistan’s illegal occupation of these areas.

China — the world’s third largest weapons exporter — has Pakistan as the top recipient of its arms. By aiding Pakistan to set up its nuclear and ballistic missiles programmes, besides supplying conventional arms, Beijing had made sure that the India-Pakistan military balance is maintained.

China is considered a reliable ally that has always come to Pakistan’s aid when India has seemed on the ascendant — so much so that China has even tacitly supported Pakistan’s strategy of using terror as a policy instrument against India.

With India ascending in the global hierarchy and strengthening its ties with the US, China’s need for Pakistan is likely to grow. This has been evident in China’s polices toward Pakistan on critical issues in South Asia.

A rising India makes Pakistan all the more important in China’s strategy for the subcontinent. It is highly unlikely that China will give up playing the Pakistan card vis-à-vis India anytime soon.

The China-Pakistan partnership serves the interests of both partners by presenting India with a potential two-front theatre in the event of war with either country. And for China, Pakistan is increasingly important to fend off a joint India-US challenge.

South Asia is emerging as an important new front in the balance of power struggle between the US and China as well as India and China, and the region’s importance is only likely to increase in the coming years.

The Modi government needs to recognise that the challenges of a two-front adversarial strategic environment are only likely to intensify in the coming years. New Delhi needs to be prepared to take on this challenge head-on.

Even as India reaches out to China in the next few weeks with the visits of the National Security Advisor and the Defence Minister, it should be clear that Chinese behaviour is unlikely to change in the near future.

The writer is Professor of International Relations, King’s College London

The Islamic Bomb (Revelation 15)

Wahhabis of Mass Destruction: The Doomsday Scenario of an Islamic Nuclear Arms Race

Posted by

Sarie M. Khalid

5 hours ago

Iran does not need nuclear warheads to project its power in the Arab world. The existence and instability fomented by Hezbollah in Lebanon, the deployment of Qods forces in Syria, the Shiite militias attached to Iraq’s army, the Houthis in Yemen and the Bahraini Hezbollah prove that. Iran has intervened with its Revolutionary Guards Corps in the Lebanese, Yemeni, Iraqi and Syrian civil wars, an interventionism with roots deeper than the Islamic Revolution of 1979: the last Shah of Iran sent combat troops to neighboring Oman to help the Sultan’s army defeat Marxist-Leninist Dhofari secessionists in the 1970s.

Yet a nuclear Iran is the “Armageddon scenario” for a Saudi Arabia that sees revolutionary Iran as a threat to its “regime legitimacy” as the natural leader of the Islamic world. Yet any multipolar nuclear balance of terror in the Middle East would be unstable. There are no hotlines between Qom, Jerusalem and Riyadh, as existed between the superpowers of the Cold War. Nuclear deterrence in the Middle East can easily break down due to political miscalculation. Can the world really expect cold rationality while far-right ideologies, such as those espoused by Iran’s zealous clerical rulers or Binyamin Netanyahu’s xenophobic Likud in Israel, hold sway? Anyone who claims that predicting such actors’ responses under conditions of existential national crisis would be easy is sadly misguided. A multipolar region populated by nuclear powers would present us with a dangerously unstable nuclear balance of terror, one imposed by Israel and Iran against the backdrop of a crumbling post-Ottoman Arab state system. Even the ‘rational’ US and USSR came to the brink of nuclear war over Cuba in October 1962, and again during the Ramadan War of 1973.
If the accord reached last year breaks down and Iran does obtain an atomic weapon, what we will witness is the development of a tripolar arch of nuclear instability in the Middle East, with Israel, Iran and Saudi Arabia playing the role of nuclear powers (the latter obtaining a weapon via its client state Pakistan, as some believe it has already tried to do). Egypt and Turkey would not stand idly by and would probably be tempted to defy Washington and develop nuclear capabilities.

Communications protocols, verification regimes, high-tech satellite surveillance and strict bureaucratic hierarchies – Khrushchev-style – moderated the brinksmanship of the Cold War. These do not exist in the secretive oligarchies overseen by the Supreme Leader and the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques. If the future of peace in the Middle East is dependent on “rationality” and “restraint” in Jerusalem, Tehran and Riyadh, then world peace will have come to rest on an alarmingly fragile and wobbly foundation.

Both Israel and Iran formally deny having nuclear weapons, though the former’s possession of nukes was all but confirmed by the Pentagon last year. These powers have very flawed and limited intelligence on each other’s intentions, command-and-control systems, decision-making protocols, capabilities or operational nuclear doctrines. Saudi Arabia/Pakistan can only add another dimension of dangerous “nuclear ambiguity”. As long as Israel was the sole nuclear power in the region, deterrence was stable. A nuclear trio in the Middle East means a region with a highly unstable system of nuclear deterrence. Nuclear proliferation in the Middle East must be prevented at all costs, posing as it does a genuine threat to world peace. A world where megalomaniac dictators like Muammar Gaddafi could aspire to nuclear weapons or the Pakistani military built a clandestine “Islamic bomb” is not a world where proliferation risk can ever be minimized.

“Buying the bomb” was a strategy used by both Libya and Saudi Arabia with Pakistan the prospective supplier, while Syria’s Assad regime turned to North Korea for assistance. However, a Saudi-Pakistani nuclear transaction would have to be carried out with extraordinary secrecy in order to evade the constant threat of Western retaliation, be it in the form of economic sanctions or interceptions and sabotage by Mossad or the CIA. Discovery of such a deal between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan could result in economic sanctions which would destroy Saudi Arabia’s oil export reliant economy, which is already suffering from low energy prices. One would think that a House of Saud obsessed with the calculus of regime survival would view this as an unacceptable risk, but if there is one thing we know about the Middle East it is that we know very little at all.

The Islamic Horns of Prophecy (Daniel 8)

Islamic ‘NATO’: Strategic repercussions for India

Saudi Arabia, Pakistan working on ‘NATO-like’ military alliance of Islamic countries

Abhishek G Bhaya

Gulf regional power Saudi Arabia and nuclear-armed Pakistan are working on a proposal to form a ‘NATO-like’ military alliance of Islamic countries, British newspaper The Independent reported on 15 March citing a report on Pakistani TV channel Dunya News a day earlier.

While the report credited Saudi Arabia to be the brain behind the initiative, it said Pakistan had been entrusted to develop the framework for the proposed military alliance of 34 Muslim majority nations.
“The Kingdom [of Saudi Arabia] has requested Pakistan to lead the initiative. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have agreed to continue consultations on the proposal. This remains uncertain whether the proposed alliance will be a further upgradation of the already established 34-nation alliance or a different initiative altogether,” said the Dunya News report.

The development gains significance as Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is poised to visit Saudi Arabia early next month with maritime security and increasing military cooperation placed high on the agenda.

Reports suggest India will be taking diplomatic steps to ensure greater cooperation in the Middle East with its latest plan to hold joint naval and military exercises with Saudi Arabia.

Let us explore the factors that led to the emergence of this proposed Islamic ‘NATO’ and the strategic repercussions of this regional coalition for India.

‘Northern Thunder’

The genesis of an Islamic ‘NATO’ alliance appeared to have emerged during the recently-held war games in Hafr al Batin region of Saudi Arabia, the closing ceremony of which was attended by Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Shareef and Chief of Army Staff General Raheel Shareef.

Billed as the region’s biggest-ever military exercise, the 12-Day ‘Northern Thunder’ manoeuvres, which concluded on 10 March, saw participation from over 20 nations from the Middle East, Africa and Asia. These included: Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Jordan, Senegal, Sudan, Maldives, Morocco, Pakistan, Chad, Tunisia, Comoro Islands, Djibouti, Malaysia, Egypt, Mauritania, and Mauritius.

It is important to note that in December 2015, Saudi Arabia announced a military alliance of 34 Muslim nations (all Sunni-majority) including Pakistan, Egypt and Turkey. The Islamic Military Alliance was envisioned with the mission to fight terrorism in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt and Afghanistan. The command centre of the 34-nation military bloc was planned to be based in Riyadh.

Pakistan, at that time, had reacted with surprise saying its consent was not taken for the alliance, but later Islamabad welcomed the initiative and confirmed its participation in the ‘anti-terror’ alliance.
The ‘Northern Thunder’ war games were the first collective show of strength for this newly-formed alliance which saw over 350,000 troops, 2,500 warplanes, 20,000 tanks and 450 helicopters in action. The subsequent proposal of an Islamic ‘NATO’ appears to be a logical extension of this new military coalition.

Target Iran?

While both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have asserted that the proposed alliance would not be against any particular country but would combat terrorism and threats coming from extremist groups like Islamic State; the composition of mainly Sunni-majority nations makes it amply clear that the Saudi-led coalition is a consolidation of forces against the regional Shiite rival Iran.

Riyadh cut diplomatic ties with Tehran earlier this year after mobs ransacked Saudi diplomatic missions in Iran following the execution of a prominent Saudi Shiite cleric.

Saudi Arabia and Iran are engaged in proxy wars in Syria and Yemen where they are backing opposing sides. Riyadh is also concerned about a resurgent Iran, which is increasingly asserting itself in the region post its nuclear deal with the world powers that ended the sanctions against Tehran.

Iran does not seem to shy away from a belligerent display of its military prowess every now and then, as was evident again in its latest series of ballistic missile tests last week and also by its audacious detention of US Navy sailors in January just before the nuclear deal was implemented.

Seen from the perspective of Saudi Arabia and its allies, the Tehran regime has gone beyond its periphery, posing a serious threat to the stability of the region. This has made the Sunni bloc try to overcome its divisions and forge a common front that can deal with the Iranian threat.

The Russian factor

Also, Russia’s military intervention in Syria and its close alliance with the Iran-led Shiite troika (including Syria and Iraq) seems to have prompted the major Sunni countries in the region to form such a military alliance.

On the other hand, after Turkey downed the Russian military plane, the wedge between the two countries reached a serious point. It can be reasonably said that Russian military intervention in the Middle East has sowed the seed of this counter-alliance to deal with the emerging situation.

Weakening US influence in the Middle East has also contributed to the emergence of this alliance. With this new Islamic Military Alliance, the regional players will have more vital roles in Middle East affairs. Countries like Turkey and Egypt have long been supporters of regional solutions to regional problems.

The formation of this broad-based alliance is certainly aimed at checking Iran’s regional aspirations and stall increasing Russian influence that run contrary to the interests of Riyadh and its friends.

Bulwark against India

With Pakistan playing a leading role in the formation of this Islamic ‘NATO’, it wouldn’t be out of place to imagine that Islamabad would eventually use the alliance as a bulwark against India.

Just like the NATO was founded as an alliance against the erstwhile Soviet Union and eventually encircle and target Russia, Pakistan – with its India-centric foreign policy – is bound to lead the alliance into an anti-India trajectory.

Although India has strategic ties with several Muslim countries – including Saudi Arabia, UAE and Oman – that are, or may become, part of this coalition; in the event of a future conflict between the nuclear-armed neighbours, these member countries would be bound by the principle of collective defence (as in NATO), wherein an attack against one ally is considered as an attack against all allies.

A military alliance on doorsteps, in all likelihood, will trigger a dangerous arms race and a realignment of forces in the region. Countries like Russia, Iran and India that may feel targeted by the Islamic ‘NATO’ alliance may eventually be compelled to form their own coalition as a strategic counterweight.

It will be interesting to see what line Israel takes.

Impact on Indo-Saudi ties

Meanwhile, the current ties between India and Saudi Arabia are on the upswing. In 2014, the two countries signed an MoU on defence cooperation, which allows exchange of defence-related information, military training and education as well as cooperation in areas varying from hydrography and security to logistics.

According to reports, the Indian Army has also agreed to hold joint military exercises with the Royal Saudi Land Force. In fact, there are talks of India establishing a mountain warfare training school to help Riyadh improve their offensive and defensive capabilities. These issues are expected to come up for discussion during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit next month.

Acknowledging India’s growing status as a major power in the region, Saudi Arabia has allowed New Delhi to carry out hydrographic surveys off the Saudi coastline. Such surveys, which facilitate the operation of submarines, had until now been outsourced only to the US.

Modi must candidly share India’s concerns about the proposed military alliance during his talks with Saudi officials. Only time will tell what impact will the Islamic ‘NATO’ have on the robust bilateral relations between India and Saudi Arabia.

Why Saudi Arabia And Pakistan Will Be Enemies At The End

Riyadh’s love for New Delhi worries Islamabad

March 15, 2016

SHAFQAT ALI

ISLAMABAD – Riyadh’s growing love for New Delhi is causing serious concern to Islamabad as the country’s diplomats scrambled to stop the traditional ally from moving away towards the historic rival, The Nation learnt.
The diplomatic tremor came after Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir said his country’s relations with Pakistan did not come at the expense of the Kingdom’s ties with India.
He expressed the hope that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s first visit to Saudi Arabia early next month would see a “tremendous uplift” in bilateral relations.
Officials at the foreign ministry said the al-Jubeir’s statement was seen as a reaction to Pakistan’s diplomacy on Saudi tension with Iran, Syria and Yemen.
Calling it “a bombshell for most of us”, a senior official said Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has asked his diplomatic corps to stand up and stop Saudi Arabia from going into the hands of India.
“Pakistan is a historic ally and will remain so,” al-Jubeir said in his statement, adding Saudi Arabia and India have a strategic relationship in all fields. He pointed out that Saudi Arabia had extensive economic relations with India. “We are the largest supplier of oil to India.”
Al-Jubeir said Saudi Arabia had a community of almost 3 million Indians. “They are our doctors, bankers, engineers and teachers. They are by far the most peaceful non-Saudi community and we appreciate all their contributions to Saudi nation and society. They are an important bridge.”
Established in the 1960s, strategic ties between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have remained largely cordial, except during the erstwhile Pakistan People’s Party led government, which Saudis viewed with suspicion due to the PPP’s secular credentials and close relations with Iran.
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif – who recently visited Saudi Arabia along with Army Chief Raheel Sharif – enjoys exceptionally close ties with senior members of the Saudi royal family.
When Sharif was toppled in the bloodless 1999 Pakistani coup d’état, Saudi Arabia intervened and then military ruler Pervez Musharraf allowed Nawaz Sharif and his family to travel into exile to the kingdom.
“This is a bombshell for most of us. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has asked his diplomatic corps to stand up and stop Saudi Arabia from going into the hands of India,” a senior official told The Nation.
Mr Sharif, he said, believed Saudi Arabia has every right to have good ties with India but these should not be comparable to Pakistan.
“He wants the Saudi-India ties to remain within limits and has asked his men to work on this while he will also be in contact with the top leaders in Riyadh,” the official added.
Another official said, in the past, the United States too walked away from Pakistan preferring India. “Though the cases are different yet in case Saudi Arabia also follows the US, Pakistan will be diplomatically knocked out,” he remarked.
He said serious diplomatic efforts will be made to control the Saudi-India friendship from going too far. “The recent meetings of the PM and the army chief with the Saudi leadership have been positive and hopefully Adel Al-Jubeir’s statement would not be the policy of the Kingdom,” he added.
After coming to power in 2013, the incumbent PML-N government regained an enthusiasm for diplomatic and strategic ties with Saudi Arabia.
“This is a bombshell for most of us. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has asked his diplomatic corps to stand up and stop Saudi Arabia from going into the hands of India,” a senior official told The Nation.
Mr Sharif, he said, believed Saudi Arabia has every right to have good ties with India but these should not be comparable to Pakistan.
“He wants the Saudi-India ties to remain within limits and has asked his men to work on this while he will also be in contact with the top leaders in Riyadh,” the official added.
Another official said, in the past, the United States too walked away from Pakistan preferring India. “Though the cases are different yet in case Saudi Arabia also follows the US, Pakistan will be diplomatically knocked out,” he remarked.
He said serious diplomatic efforts will be made to control the Saudi-India friendship from going too far. “The recent meetings of the PM and the army chief with the Saudi leadership have been positive and hopefully Adel Al-Jubeir’s statement would not be the policy of the Kingdom,” he added.
The enthusiasm of Nawaz government to maintain close ties with Saudi Arabia was recently watered down when the Pakistani parliament decided to maintain Pakistan’s traditional policy of neutrality and non-interference in Middle Eastern affairs and refused to send troops to join Saudi-led combat forces in Yemen.
This decision was mainly motivated by a growing shift in Pakistan’s foreign policy, which is apparently becoming regional and China oriented in its outlook and calls for friendly relations with the country’s neighbours, including Iran, and fears that Pakistani involvement in the Middle East will negatively affect sectarian harmony and internal security of the country.
Defence analyst Lt-Gen Amjad Shoaib (r) said Pakistan was the only major military power in Saudi-led military alliance but other countries have their own political significance in the world.
“Pakistan needs a cautious foreign policy in this regard because we need to sustain our relations with Iran. The visit of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani to Pakistan is also due in coming days,” he added.
After Pakistan announced its National Action Plan against terrorism, criticism of Saudi Arabia’s alleged funding of madrasas and violent sectarian groups also increased.
Saudi Arabia’s 2014 defence agreement with India had also greatly disturbed Pakistani strategists and policymakers. However, analysts believed Pakistan will not want these factors to become permanent irritants in its relations with Saudi Arabia.
Lt-Gen Amjad Shoaib said that Pak-Saudi relations were historic and deep rooted. He said the kingdom’s better ties with India or any other country does not mean a threat to Pakistan.
Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are leading members of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. KSA was one of the strongest supporters of Pakistan during country’s wars with India, especially opposing the creation of Bangladesh in 1971.
In 1969 pilots of the Pakistan Air Force flew aircraft of the Royal Saudi Air Force to repel an incursion from South Yemen. In the 1970s and 1980s, approximately 15,000 Pakistani soldiers were stationed in the kingdom.
Senior analyst Dr A Z Hilali also said Pakistan and Saudi Arabia had historic bilateral relations which were based on religious grounds. He said the cooperation between the two countries covered several fields.
“Saudi Arabia always supports Pakistan and it is a time tested friend of our country. The Saudi forces are thankful to our military forces who provided them professional training,” he said.
Saudi Arabia has also negotiated the purchase of Pakistani ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Western countries speculate the kingdom secretly funded Pakistan’s nuclear bomb programme and seeks to purchase nuclear weapons from Islamabad to enable it to counter possible threats from the ‘weapons of mass destruction’ possessed by Iran, Iraq and Israel.
While KSA had supported Pakistan’s stance on the Kashmir conflict, it has since endorsed the Paik-India peace process.
Defence analyst Lt-Gen Talat Masood (r) said Pakistan has its unchanged stance on Kashmir and wants to resolve all disputes with India through negotiations but India has never shown maturity in this regard.
Former ambassador B A Malik said, “The regional and global dimension of recently created KSA-led alliance must be kept in mind. The alliance should expand its goal beyond elimination of ISIS.” It should include the Kashmir, Palestine and other issues haunting regional peace into its agenda.
“The Middle Eastern monarchies must reform their political structures in order to make the alliance more inclusive, attractive and long lasting,” he added.

The Korean-Iranian Nuclear Alliance (Daniel 7)

North Korea: Iran’s Pathway to a Nuclear Weapon

Tehran’s strategic alliance with Pyongyang could be all it needs to get nuclear weapons.

Ilan Berman

August 13, 2015

A central plank of the Obama administration’s case for the nuclear deal just concluded by the P5+1 powers is that the agreement closes off “all pathways” by which the Iranian regime could acquire a nuclear capability, at least for the coming decade.

That, however, simply isn’t true. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), as the new nuclear bargain is officially called, only addresses the overt means by which Iran might go nuclear. A covert path to the bomb, entailing the procurement of materiel from foreign suppliers, still remains open to Iran, if it chooses to take that route.

If it does, the Islamic Republic will invariably look to Asia. That’s because over the past three decades, Iran and the Stalinist regime of the Kim dynasty in North Korea have erected a formidable alliance—the centerpiece of which is cooperation on nuclear and ballistic-missile capabilities.

As long ago as 1985, the two countries had already launched cooperative missile development, with Iran helping to underwrite North Korea’s production of 300-kilometer-range Scud-B missiles. Their interaction expanded in the 1990s, when Iran and North Korea began joint development of Iran’s Shahab medium-range missile, which is closely based on North Korea’s own nuclear-capable No Dong.

Indeed, North Korea’s arsenal is the inspiration behind most of Iran’s ballistic-missile capabilities—including the Shahab 3 and Shahab 4, now in service, and its longer-range Shahab 5 and 6 variants, currently in development. And the collaboration continues today; the two nations are believed to be jointly working on a nuclear-capable missile of intercontinental range.

The Islamic Republic has also relied on the DPRK for help with its nuclear program. In recent years, North Korea is known to have assisted in fortifying a number of Iranian nuclear facilities against possible preemptive strikes. It has also reportedly dispatched hundreds of nuclear experts to work within the Islamic Republic, as well as providing Tehran with key nuclear software.

In a public sign of this collusion, a delegation of Iranian scientists was on hand during North Korea’s very public February 2013 nuclear test. The Iranian experts are believed to have paid tens of millions of dollars to the DPRK for a front-row seat to the successful detonation.

But the North Korean-Iranian alliance isn’t merely transactional. At its heart is a shared antipathy toward the West. As Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei told Kim Yong Nam, the powerful Chairman of the Presidium of North Korea’s Supreme People’s Assembly, in September of 2012, when they concluded a new agreement on scientific-technical cooperation, the two countries share “common enemies” in the “arrogant” nations of the United States and Europe.

Now, the Iranian-North Korean alliance is poised to take a major leap forward. Under the terms of the JCPOA, Iran will need to disclose key information regarding its military-related nuclear work to the International Atomic Energy Agency in the coming months. Once it does, the Islamic Republic will reap an unprecedented financial windfall, totaling $100 billion or more—equivalent to roughly a
quarter of Iran’s total annual GDP.

That money will dramatically increase Iran’s purchasing power globally, including its ability to pursue a clandestine path to the bomb. It will also make Tehran, already an important strategic partner, even more indispensable to the cash-strapped regime in Pyongyang.

Iran, for its part, now finds itself in a position to take a page from North Korea’s nuclear playbook. Since the early 1990s, the North has engaged in extensive diplomacy with the international community over its atomic effort, obtaining significant diplomatic and economic benefits as a result. These inducements played an instrumental role in strengthening and stabilizing the Kim regime.

They did not, however, lead Pyongyang to give up its nuclear program. Over time, it has reneged on every single international commitment relating to its nuclear effort, from uranium enrichment to plutonium production to atomic testing. It has done so, moreover, largely without consequence from the international community, which has consistently attempted to moderate North Korean conduct through conciliatory steps, rather than punitive ones.

Much like North Korea before it, the Iranian regime can be expected to pocket the concessions contained in the JCPOA as a means of strengthening its economic position and consolidating its domestic power. But, also like Pyongyang, the West’s current diplomatic bargain isn’t likely to chill Tehran’s enthusiasm for nuclear status.

In fact, it is likely to do exactly the opposite, while giving Tehran the means to move even closer to the bomb. Iran’s strategic alliance with North Korea could very well do the rest.

Is Korea Harboring Iran’s Nukes?

Iran’s Khamenei and UN’s Ban Ki-moon against America and Israel

By Vladimir Minkov
Sat, 30 Jan 2016, 09:03

Ayatollah Khamenei:

Who assists the fake Zionist regime, who supports them, who clears the road for them, who stands behind them? Western powers headed by America are doing so.

Ayatollah Khamenei is right – the countries of Western civilization headed by America support Israel although this support may not be proclaimed openly by the majority and is clouded by politically correct pro-Islamic statements.

However, he is wrong on the chief reason why the Western countries are doing so. Ayatollah Khamenei wants everybody to believe that the “All-mighty Jewish lobby” forces the Western countries to support Israel against the very Western interests which, as Khamenei implies, are fighting with the Shiites’ Iran against Israel and all Iran’s Sunnis’ Muslim enemies.

Contrary to the Khamenei’s assertions, the chief reason for Western countries to support Israel is the mutual spiritual Judeo-Christian fundamentals, the belief in importance of survival of Judaism as the foundation of Christianity, the fear of Islamic invasion into Western countries, and the understanding that Israel is the first-line defense against Islamic invasion.

The Khamenei’s wish to convince the Western countries not to support Israel is justified … of course, from the Islamic vision of the world. It would make much easier for the Islamic world with Khamenei as the Supreme Leader to destroy Israel and then to begin mass invasion into the Western world with the goal of replacing the Bible-based civil order in the Western world by the Quran/Sharia order. What is much more difficult to justify is the efforts of President Obama to help Iran’s Khamenei in achieving his goals.

UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon:

After nearly 50 years of occupation, Palestinians are losing hope. Young people especially are losing hope. They are angered by the stifling policies of the occupation.

UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon is right – the Palestinians are losing hope.

However, they are not losing hope for creating their own independent state to live in peace with the State of Israel, as Ban Ki-moon implies – they have never wanted such outcome. If that were the wish of the Palestinians, they might have their own independent state long ago. What they are losing is the hope for creating a militarized independent state, which is able to eliminate the state of Israel.

The Ban Ki-moon’s support of the Palestinians in their anti-Israel propaganda war is justified … of course, by the need to have the UN General Assembly pro-Arab, anti-Israel, anti-Western majority voting for him as a UN General Secretary. What is much more difficult to justify is Obama’s support for pro-Palestinian demands in the UN, which are harmful for Israel. However, if the rumor that Obama is planning to become a UN General Secretary is correct, his pro-UN actions looks logical.

How Turkey Is Supporting ISIS

Turkish Support for ISIS

by Daniel Pipes
The Washington Times
June 18, 2014

The battle in Iraq consists of “Turkish-backed Sunni jihadis rebelling against an Iranian-backed Shi’ite-oriented central government,” I wrote in a recent article.

Some readers question that the Republic of Turkey has supported the “Islamic State in Iraq and Syria,” the main Sunni group fighting in Iraq. They point to ISIS attacks on Turkish interests, within Turkey, along its border with Syria, and in Mosul and a successful recent meeting of the Turkish and Iranian presidents. Good points, but they can be explained.

First, ISIS is willing to accept Turkish support even while seeing the Islamist prime minister and his countrymen as kafirs (infidels) who need to be shown true Islam.

Second, the presidential visit took place on one level while the fighting in Syria and Iraq took place on quite another; the two can occur simultaneously. Turkish-Iranian rivalry is on the rise and, as the distinguished Turkish journalist Burak Bekdil notes in the current issue of the Middle East Quarterly:

Recent years have often seen official language from the two countries about prospering bilateral trade and common anti-Israeli ideological solidarity. But mostly out of sight have been indications of rivalry, distrust, and mutual sectarian suspicion between the two Muslim countries.

Ankara may deny helping ISIS, but the evidence for this is overwhelming. “As we have the longest border with Syria,” writes Orhan Kemal Cengiz, a Turkish newspaper columnist, “Turkey’s support was vital for the jihadists in getting in and out of the country.” Indeed, the ISIS strongholds not coincidentally cluster close to Turkey’s frontiers.

Kurds, academic experts and the Syrian opposition agree thatSyrians, Turks (estimated to number 3,000), and foreign fighters (especially Saudis but also a fair number of Westerners) have crossed the Turkish-Syrian border at will, often to join ISIS. What Turkish journalist Kadri Gursel calls a “two-way jihadist highway,” has no bothersome border checks and sometimes involves the active assistance of Turkish intelligence services. CNN even broadcast a video on “The secret jihadi smuggling route through Turkey.”

Actually, the Turks offered far more than an easy border crossing: they provided the bulk of ISIS’ funds, logistics, training and arms. Turkish residents near the Syrian border tell of Turkish ambulances going to Kurdish-ISIS battle zones and then evacuating ISIS casualties to Turkish hospitals. Indeed, a sensational photograph has surfaced showing ISIS commander Abu Muhammad in a hospital bed receiving treatment for battle wounds in Hatay State Hospital in April 2014.

One Turkish opposition politician estimates that Turkey has paid $800 million to ISIS for oil shipments. Another politician released information about active duty Turkish soldiers training ISIS members. Critics note that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, has met three times with someone, Yasin al-Qadi, who has close ties to ISIS and has funded it.

Why the Turkish support for wild-eyed extremists? Because Ankara wants to eliminate two Syrian polities, the Assad regime in Damascus and Rojava (the emerging Kurdish state) in the northeast.

Regarding the Assad regime: “Thinking that jihadists would ensure a quick fall for the Assad regime in Syria, Turkey, no matter how vehemently officials deny it, supported the jihadists,” writes Cengiz, “at first along with Western and some Arab countries and later in spite of their warnings.”

Regarding Rojava: Rojava’s leadership being aligned with the PKK, the (formerly) terrorist Kurdish group based in Turkey, the authoritative Turkish journalist Amberin Zaman has little doubt “that until recently, Turkey was allowing jihadist fighters to move unhindered across its borders” to fight the Kurds.

More broadly, as the Turkish analyst Mustafa Akyol notes, Ankara thought “anybody who fought al-Assad was a good guy and also harbored an “ideological uneasiness with accepting that Islamists can do terrible things.” This has led, he acknowledges, to “some blindness” toward violent jihadists. Indeed, ISIS is so popular in Turkey that others publicly copy its logo.

In the face of this support, the online newspaper Al-Monitor calls on Turkey to close its border to ISIS while Rojava threatened Ankara with “dire consequences” unless Turkish aid ceases.

In conclusion, Turkish leaders are finding Syria a double quagmire, what with Assad still in power and the Kurdish entity growing stronger. In reaction, they have cooperated with even the most extreme, retrograde and vicious elements, such as ISIS. But this support opened a second front in Iraq which, in turn, brings the clash of the Middle East’s two titans, Turkey and Iran, closer to realization.

Russia and Iran new nuclear allies (Daniel 8:8)

 

Russia And Iran: Emergence Of New Nuclear Alliance

Posted By: Polina TikhonovaPosted date: August 20, 2015 05:45:17 AMIn: Politics, Russia

Russia and Iran have reached an agreement over the delivery of the S-300 long-range surface-to-air missile systems by the end of 2015, according to Russian deputy foreign minister Mikhail Bogdanov.

Russia Iran

“As things stand now, this topic is closed. We have reached full understanding on the matter together with our Iranian partners. The question has been fundamentally solved. The rest is just technical details,” Bogdanov told Russian state-owned RIA Novosti on Wednesday.

The number of S-300 missile systems will reportedly comply with the order in the agreement signed in 2007.

“There will be as many as mentioned in the contract,” a high-ranking source in Russia’s Foreign Ministry told RIA Novosti, answering the question on whether Russia would supply Iran with four divisions of S-300 instead of three, as it was previously reported by Russia’s Ministry of Defense.
However, it must be noted that the 2007 agreement included the delivery of five S-300 divisions of the PMU-1 modification.

On Tuesday, a day before the announcement of Bogdanov, Iran’s defense minister, Hossein Dehghan stated that Moscow and Tehran will sign a revised agreement over the delivery of modernized S-300 long-range surface-to-air missile systems by the end of August.

“The text of the contract is ready and our friends will go to Russia next week to sign the contract,” Dehghan was quoted as saying by Iran’s Fars news agency. He also noted that there are no impediments to sign the agreement.

New S-300 contract is on the table

A source familiar with the contract clarified the details of the contract in the interview with Russian Interfax news agency. According to the source, the contract will be different to the previous one that included the S-300 missile systems. “The new contract will differ in terms of price and new conditions of the delivery,” the source told Interfax.

Commenting the statement of Dehghan about the modernized version of the S-300, the source also noted that “the new contract will not be about the S-300 PMU-1 missile systems, since they are no longer in production – it will be rather about the modernized version of S-300 VM that goes by the export name Antey-2500.”

In April 2015, Russian President Vladimir Putin lifted the five-year embargo on the delivery of S-300 missile systems to Iran. The leader of Russians explained his decision by saying that there was a significant progress in the talks on Iranian nuclear issue.

The embargo was put in place back in September 2010 by the then-President of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev, under the decree issued by the UN Security Council to limit the delivery of offensive weapons to Iran. The sanctions of the United Nations did not cover surface-to-air missile systems, which are considered defensive weapons, but the Kremlin decided to ban the delivery due to the ‘reset’ relations between Russia and the U.S.

As a result, the contract to deliver S-300 PMU-1 systems to Iran signed in 2007 costing about $800 million was banned at the stage of shipping. Tehran immediately reacted by suing Russia for $4 billion in the international arbitration court in Geneva. Since June 2015, Tehran and Moscow have been holding talks to withdraw the claim from Geneva.

China + Russia + Iran + Pakistan = new military alliance?

Moscow and Tehran are thus entering a new phase of military relations. Just a week ago, a Russian navy fleet docked at the northern Iranian port city of Anzali in order to strengthen friendly maritime ties between Russia and Iran. Meanwhile, Tehran and Moscow are planning joint efforts of their special forces to resolve geopolitical issues relevant to the two countries.

Before recently, the relations between the two sanction-hit countries could hardly be called ‘friendly’. But in the midst of Western sanctions, a rising threat from ISIS and a number of other geopolitical issues, there are reasons to believe that Tehran and Moscow may soon seal their warming military relations in the form of joint declaration and create some kind of alliance in the region.

It was reported by ValueWalk yesterday that there are clear indications of the emerging world’s new superpower axis between China, Russia and Pakistan. And judging by recent developments in the relations between Russia and Iran, it seems that no country of the triangle would mind a nuclear power such as Iran joining such an alliance.

ValueWalk asked an expert on nuclear weapons to comment the new developments in the delivery of S-300 to Iran.


“It’s curious that [U.S. President Barack] Obama hasn’t said a word about the delivery of the missile systems from Russia to Iran. Exporting those missiles, Russia will get $2 or $3 million guaranteed,” Valeriy Poddubny said in an interview with ValueWalk.

Russia and Iran: emergence of a new nuclear alliance

“I believe Iran will be a perfect political ally for Russia, as both of the countries share the need to maintain antagonism with the U.S. for their survival,” Poddubny noted. “It’s too early to say whether or not there will be benefits for Russia as a result of such an alliance. For example, the Kremlin’s attempts to take part in the development of Saudi Arabian crude oil sector fell through, but [Russian President Vladimir] Putin did not regard that as a major failure.”

“He is willing to play the geopolitical game and let his country suffer economically. Judging by the sanctions imposed against Russia, there are reasons to believe that political intrigues are more important for Mr. Putin than economic stability of his country,” Poddubny said.

The expert added that economic interest of Russia and political interests of the government do not always align. “And while Russia will win from building nuclear objects in Iran and getting profits from the export of anti-missile and surface-to-air missile systems, the fact that Iranian crude oil is entering the market will significantly reduce the price on oil on the global market. And that will be a disaster for Russia’s budget,” Poddubny noted.

The expert concluded by saying that those are extremely “sensitive” things for Russia and that he cannot think of any direct economic benefits from the contract for Russia apart from intimidating the West with the emergence of a nuclear alliance.

Russia Takes Opportunity To Make More Nuclear Allies (Daniel 7:7)

Russia signs nuclear deals with traditional U.S. allies in Middle East

By Jack Caravelli
Published July 30, 2015

Washington Free Beacon

The Russian government has signed major nuclear cooperation agreements with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan since the start of this year, increasing its influence among traditional U.S. allies in the region.

In June, Russia closed a major deal on nuclear cooperation between Russia and Saudi Arabia. Since the end of the last decade the Saudis have been implementing plans to construct as many as 16 commercial nuclear power plants. The Saudis have signed agreements with other nuclear nations, including the United States, France, China and Argentina, to help construct the reactors.
Russia is now expected to play a sizable role in operating the nuclear plants, which are still to be built.

The Saudis have indicated that a nuclear program will free up oil reserves to be used almost exclusively for foreign sales that generate hard currency earnings.

In February, Russia and Egypt secured a preliminary deal in which Russia signaled its willingness to assist Egypt in building its first nuclear power plant. The agreement was announced during President Vladimir Putin’s February visit to Cairo, during which he also solidified Russia’s overall political and trade relationships with his Egyptian counterpart, President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi.

Current plans call for the power plant to be built near the northern Egyptian city of El Dabaa. Russia, which has extensive experience with nuclear energy, has offered to provide training and nuclear-related research for Egyptian engineers.

Shortly thereafter, the Jordanian Atomic Energy Commission and Russia’s Rosatom, the state-run nuclear energy corporation, agreed on a plan for the construction of Jordan’s first nuclear power plant. Under the agreement two nuclear reactors of 1000 megawatts each would be built.

As Iran Is Scrutinized US Nukes Up Her Allies (Dan 7:7)

 

Iran nuclear-free, Italy nuclearized

by Manlio Dinucci

“Today is a historic day and it is a great honor for us to announce that we have reached an accord on the Iranian nuclear solution, to make our world safer.” Federica Mogherini, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, said this in Vienna on July 14.

Almost simultaneously another announcement arrived from the United States: “The U.S. Air Force and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) have conducted the first flight test of the jointly developed B61-12 guided nuclear bomb from a Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle at the Tonopah Test Range in Nevada.” (flightglobal.com, July 10) This weapon will soon replace the B61, the U.S. nuclear bomb, with 70-90 of them stored in Aviano and Ghedi Torre, part of an arsenal of at least 200 nuclear weapons stored in Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Turkey.

The success of the test, “provides clear evidence of the nation’s continued commitment to maintain the B61,” says the NNSA, which then specifies that “the B61-12, with a tail kit assembly produced by Boeing, will replace the B61-3, -4, -7, -10 bombs in the current U.S. nuclear arsenal.” It is thus officially confirmed that the B61 bomb will be transformed from a free falling to a “smart” bomb, which can be dropped on the target from a great distance. The precision-guided B61-12, whose cost is estimated at 8 billion to 12 billion dollars for 400-500 bombs, is configured as multi-purpose weapon, with an average power of 50 kilotons (about four times the Hiroshima bomb). It will perform the function of many bombs, including those designed to “decapitate” the enemy country, destroying the bunker command centers and other underground structures in a nuclear first strike.

The replacement of the B61 with the B61-12, announces the NNSA, “provides assurance to our allies.” This is demonstrated by the fact that at Aviano and Ghedi, nuclear bombs are kept in special hangars with fighters ready for nuclear attack: U.S. F-15 and F-16 and Italian Tornado jets, whose pilots are trained for nuclear attack. In Italy, in 2013 and 2014, NATO held the nuclear war exercise Steadfast Noon, which Polish F-16s also participated in last year. Thus Italy is violating the Treaty on Non-proliferation, whose Article 2 states: “Each non-NWS party undertakes not to receive, from any source, nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices; not to manufacture or acquire such weapons or devices; and not to receive any assistance in their manufacture.”


The modernization of U.S. nuclear weapons deployed in Europe is part of the growing nuclear arms race. According to the Federation of American Scientists, the U.S. maintains 1,920 strategic nuclear warheads ready to launch (out of a total of 7,300), compared to 1,600 Russian ready to launch (out of 8,000). Including French and British weapons, NATO nuclear forces have some 8,000 nuclear warheads, of which 2,370 are ready to launch. Adding those of the Chinese, Pakistani, Indian, Israeli and North Korean weapons, the total number of nuclear warheads is estimated at 16,300, of which 4,350 are ready to launch. And the nuclear arms race continues the ongoing modernization of arsenals.
For this reason the big hand of “Apocalypse Watch,” the symbolic timepiece that the “Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists” uses to tell us how many minutes until the midnight of nuclear war, has been moved from five to midnight in 2012 to three to midnight in 2015, the same level as in 1984 in the midst of the Cold War [1].

The risk is particularly high that one day nuclear weapons will be used in the Middle East, where the only country to possess them is Israel, which unlike Iran has not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. According to estimates, the Israeli armed forces have 100-400 nuclear warheads, including H-bombs, with a power equivalent to almost 4,000 Hiroshima bombs. Israeli delivery systems include over 300 U.S. F-16 and F-15 fighter-bombers, also armed with U.S.-Israeli Popeye missiles with nuclear warheads, and approximately 50 Jericho II ballistic missiles on mobile launching ramps. Israel also has four Dolphin submarines, modified for nuclear attack, provided by Germany, which last September delivered the fourth of the six planned.

In addition, the United States has signed agreements to supply, to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, nuclear technology and fissile material with which they can acquire nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia has officially declared that does not prevent them from building or acquiring nuclear weapons with the help of Pakistan, whose nuclear weapons program they fund to the tune of 60 percent [2].

On this background the Vienna negotiation appears as a tragic melodrama. It put the spotlight on Iran, which does not possess nuclear weapons and whose civilian nuclear program is verifiable, but it leaves aside the dramatic reality of the nuclear arms race. This was done to convince the public that, with the Iranian nuclear agreement, “Our world is safer.”

Manlio Dinucci
Translation
John Catalinotto

China Taking Over As Pakistan’s Major Partner (Dan 7)

 

Move over, United States
H K Dua

Pakistan is now positioned as China’s frontline state
Posted at: Jun 21 2015 10:48PM

Geography has always been a cause of Afghanistan’s troubles. Other countries have used its position on the map to their advantage, played games, great and not so great, along its mountainous terrain.
The British and the Russians were engaged in wars in Afghanistan nearly two centuries ago. The Soviet Union invaded it in 1979 only to be defeated by the Mujahideen backed by the US. Moscow paid the price for its occupation in the collapse of its economy and of the Soviet regime.

In the post-9/11 situation, the US chose to fight the Taliban to destroy Al-Qaida’s sanctuaries in Afghanistan. American troops were there for 13 long years before deciding to go back, suffering from acute battle fatigue, and without winning any major goal. Nearly 1,50,000 lives had been lost in the 13 years of the latest edition of the Afghan war.

Practically, the US has, by now, withdrawn most of its troops from Afghanistan leaving behind a token presence of 9,800 troops and a stack of drones to guard its residual interests.

While Afghanistan has been a victim of its geography, Pakistan, on the other hand, has been a gainer because of its location. For Pakistan, its location on the map became a sort of an ATM which it could always draw on. Rather than building the nation, it fell for easy ways. like a good rentier state, Pakistan has been the United States’ frontline state for years.

Now when the US has pulled out most of its troops, Pakistan, as is its wont, has again become a frontline state — this time of none else than its all-weather friend, China.

To keep it in good humour, Beijing has been giving Pakistan nuclear technology, missiles, submarines, military aircraft and critical weaponry. The all-weather friend has become a brother-in-arms now and Pakistan a frontline ally across the Karakorum Range.

The US pull-out has created a sort of vacuum in Afghanistan, which the Chinese have been watching with interest.

The Chinese are practioners of hard geopolitics and never like to miss an opportunity to advance their interests.

Actually it is Pakistan, which has been eyeing the vacuum left by the US pull-out in Kabul with greedy eyes. What better opportunity for it now than to create a situation when a pro-Pakistan Taliban group can come to acquire a share of power in Kabul! In any case, Islamabad has an old self-proclaimed doctrine of strategic depth, which it wants to invoke in Afghanistan and install a regime convenient for its future needs.

Lately, it has not been using the term strategic depth, but the essence of its policy remains intact. It is not without reason that Pakistan continues to provide hospitality to Mullah Omar and the Quetta Shura and the support to Haqqani group and some other Taliban groups.

The links it has been sustaining with different factions of the Taliban have been useful for Pakistan to strike better bargain with the US, which has been wanting safe withdrawal from Afghanistan. While Hamid Karzai’s government was trying to negotiate directly with the Taliban, his successor President Ashraf Ghani is more dependent on Pakistan for dealing with the Taliban and stabilising the situation in Afghanistan. No wonder, Ashraf Ghani has even gone in for an agreement between Pakistan’s ISI and Afghan security agency, ignoring his own security chief’s boycott of the signing ceremony. This is no mean gain for Pakistan.

While Pakistan has been making advances to Ashraf Ghani’s new regime, China, too, has been more active on the Afghanistan front. Ashraf Ghani’s first visit after election was to China. Significantly, two Taliban delegations have recently visited China — one to Beijing and the other to Uramchi, capital of Xinjiang.

Apparently, Chinese interests in the developing situation in Afghanistan are no longer confined to coppder mines leased to it by the Karzai government. China’s decision to have direct links with the Taliban groups is also indicative of its concern about jehadi groups’ activities in Xinjiang and western China and Central Asia.

Apparently, Pakistan and China are moving in concert in the future of Af-Pakistan region. Pakistan knows it cannot have its way alone in the strife-torn nation. Hence it will be to its advantage if China, a trusted ally, takes more interest in the Af-Pak region and in Pakistan.

China’s agreeing to build an economic corridor — road, rail and a pipeline through Pakistan to the Gwadar Port in Pakistan — can be seen a part of Pakistan-China joint strategy designed by China to reach near the Persian Gulf. With Pakistan acting as a spearhead, China wants to reduce its dependence on the Malacca Straits in the east.

Pakistan is unmindful of the cost a frontline state has to pay. Like the US, China will use Pakistan’s territory to reach the Persian Gulf to protect its trade routes and oil supplies. It provides China a window to study the emerging situation in the area arising out of ISIS’s attempts to establish a Caliphate. The ISIS is not going to be Beijing’s friend in Western China; and to counter it, Beijing would need Pakistan’s cooperation, and a pro-Pak Taliban regime in Kabul.

Apparently, to be a frontline state of China, Pakistan would be prepared to pay a price in losing some area of autonomy in handling its own foreign policy. It is forgetting that in the affairs of the nations, a frontline state can always become a front paw with little will to move on its own. Pakistan, even in a brother’s embrace, can earn some goodies, but when an embrace becomes too tight, it can make things difficult for any independent action. Pakistan, however, is used to it.

India cannot ignore what is happening in its North-West. Before Prime Minister Narendra Modi embarked on his China visit, New Delhi called the Chinese envoy to protest against the Beijing’s building projects through PoK in its thrust to reach the warm waters of the Persian Gulf. The issue may also have figured at his talks in Beijing. But it is not clear what is going to be the Indian policy to protect its political, strategic and economic interests in Afghanistan, once the US troops have been completely pulled out by next year. May be the Indian policy-makers will have to sit back and think of ways to ensure that India’s role in Af-Pak region doesn’t become minimal.

The nuclear web thickens (Dan 7)

  

Saudi Arabia, Russia sign nuclear power cooperation deal

Pakistan Today
Written by: iFreePress

Earlier the same month, Saudi Arabia and South Korea signed a memorandum of understanding that could enable at least two South Korean-designed SMART reactors to be built in Saudi Arabia.

Ahead of the meeting between the two sides, Saudi’s ambassador to Russia, Abdulrahman Al-Rassi said Moscow plays an “important” role in the Middle East and its presence at the Security Council helps to “maintain stability and security in the world”.

Saudi Arabian and Russian officials took part in a series of high-level talks this month, something which analysts say raises questions about a possible new alliance between Saudi Arabia and Russia – a close American ally and its old, and re-emerging, geopolitical foe.

“Our colleagues from Saudi Arabia have brought a lot of projects to the table. These projects will be introduced to our companies, including the ones involving the construction and upgrade of railways and building underground railway systems”, Novak said.

Similarly, the Saudi king extended an invitation to Putin to visit the Arab country, which Putin also accepted.

The oil exporter now has no nuclear power plants.

The document was signed by the Russian state nuclear corporation, Rosatom’s chief Sergei Kiriyenko and President of the King Abdullah City for Atomic and Renewable Energy, Hashim Abdullah Yamani during the St. Petersburg global Economic Forum on Thursday, Russia’s Interfax news agency reported.

According to Simon Henderson, an specialist at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a U.S. think tank, the meeting probably included discussions about oil prices, whose fall has hit Russia especially hard, and the war in Yemen, where Saudi Arabia is waging a campaign of airstrikes. “We will aim to develop bilateral relations in all sectors”, he added.

Gulf diplomats have suggested that Saudi Arabia could buy a bomb from among their staunch allies to safeguard against a nuclear Iran, which is expected to sign a nuclear deal with world powers in coming weeks.

Nuclear and solar power stations would reduce the diversion of Saudi Arabia’s oil output for use in domestic power generation, leaving more available for export.

The Saudi Nuclear Horn Allies With Russia (Dan 7:7)

Saudis Sign Nuclear Agreement With Russia

As prince visits Moscow, six deals signed between two sides including ‘peaceful’ nuclear technology, in signs of schism with US over Iran.

By Ari Yashar
First Publish: 6/18/2015, 10:53 PM

Amid speculation by experts that a nuclear deal with Shi’ite Iran might force its Sunni rival Saudi Arabia to buy a nuclear weapon, likely from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia on Thursday signed a nuclear agreement with Russia.

Al Arabiya reported that six agreements were signed Thursday between the Saudis and the Russians, including one on the “peaceful use of nuclear technology.”

The report did not detail the specifics of the deal, but it would apparently indicate Saudi Arabia’s desire to become a nuclear power even as Iran is reportedly working to build a nuclear arsenal under the guise of a “peaceful” nuclear program, ahead of a June 30 deadline for talks with world powers.

The move showing increased ties between Russia and Saudi Arabia may also indicate how the Saudis are moving further from the US, as its traditional ally in Washington is poised to reach a deal allowing its rival Iran to continue developing its nuclear program.

In an apparent admission of allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons, US Secretary of State John Kerry reportedly offered the Saudis a nuclear umbrella back in March.

Saudi ambassador to Russia Abdulrahman Al-Rassi was quoted by the paper saying on Thursday that Russia plays an “important” role vis-a-vis Iran, adding that Moscow is working in the UN Security Council to “maintain stability and security in the world.”

“I think that Russia is feeling this responsibility and we always hope and talk with Russian officials on the Iranian issue or other (issues). I do not think that Russia’s interest is in the instability in the region and this is certain,” said Al-Rassi.

Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman met with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday in Moscow after arriving the night before in an official visit, showing the high level interaction between the two states.

Meanwhile sources told Reuters that the oil ministers of Russia and Saudi Arabia are to discuss a cooperation agreement on Thursday at an economic forum in St Petersburg.

The Russian interest in Saudi oil may come partially as a result of intense international sanctions pressure leveled due to Russia’s invasion of Crimea and military involvement in Ukraine.

US Allied With the Antichrist and the Iranian Horn (Daniel 8:3)

U.S., Iraqi Militias Join In Uneasy Alliance

Alice Fordham September 21, 2014


Members of the Mehdi Army militia, which once fought U.S. forces in Iraq, take part in training in the southern Iraqi city of Basra on June 17. The militia’s fighters now find themselves allied with the U.S. against the self-declared Islamic State. (AFP/Getty Images)

In the Middle East, alliances have a strange way of shifting. And as the United States again becomes deeply involved in the conflict in Iraq, it’s found itself making some strange alliances too.

Militias that used to fights American forces in Iraq are now fighting against the Islamic State — on the same side as the U.S. — and all sides involved have reservations about it.

A decade ago in Sadr City, a sprawling Shiite suburb of Baghdad, the Mehdi Army, led by Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, began to fight bitterly against American forces, calling them occupiers.

Now the Mehdi army has been re-branded the Peace Brigades, and it’s fighting alongside Iraqi security forces against the Sunni extremists known as the Islamic State. American warplanes support their operations.

But even in Sadr City, not everyone’s sure about militias playing such a big role. In a shop selling doves, canaries and birdseed, Abbas Naim expresses some doubts. He volunteered for the Peace Brigades after swaths of Iraq fell to the Islamic State earlier this year; right now he’s on leave from duties in Samarra, north of Baghdad.

“Not everyone is as disciplined as the Peace Brigades,” he says.

Multiple Militias

They’re just one of an array of Shiite militias fighting, he says, and others are more brutal. Many Sunnis here allege those Shiite militias kill innocent civilians. Naim, for his part, doesn’t want militias around forever.

“When Iraq is liberated, the arms should be under the control of the government. Everyone should go back to his former life,” he says. “You can’t tell what will happen on the street — maybe gangs.”

Then Naim sells a little girl some birdseed. He’ll be back with the fighters in a couple weeks.

Sayyed Ibrahim Jaber, the representative of Moqtada al-Sadr in his Baghdad stronghold, agrees that the militias are only a temporary solution.

“God willing, when this war comes to an end, the weapons will stay in the hands of the government and the security forces,” he says.

That’s in line with the views of American officials. But when NPR raised the fact that Sadr’s militia and American air power are fighting on the same side, it becomes clear that Jaber is still deeply hostile to the United States.

“They want to come to an Iraq another time, under the pretext of fighting the Islamic State fighters, in order to occupy Iraq,” he says. “And the Iraqi people are aware of this.”

Thus far Sadr and other militia leaders have kept bolstering the feeble Iraqi security forces, under U.S. air protection, but they draw the line at American boots on the ground.

The Shadow Of Iran

On the American side, a huge headache of working with these Shiite militias is Iran. The Iranian special forces, called the Quds Force, are enormously influential in training and funding these groups, and their commanders are on the ground, directing the fight.

Derek Harvey, who was a senior intelligence adviser to Gen. David Petraeus, says there’s a lot of history to overcome.

“The Quds force and these Shia militias, at the end of the day, have actually killed more American service members and probably others than what we lost on 9/11 from al-Qaida,” he says. “So. We need to keep that in mind.”

That doesn’t mean Harvey’s against working with them — he points out that the U.S. fought the Japanese and then allied with them. But he says that for Iraq to beat the Islamic State and avoid being sucked back into sectarian conflict, it needs a non-sectarian army.

The militias and the long shadow of Iran don’t help, he says: “Those two issues create some very significant problems in building an effective, nonsectarian security force going forward.”

Last week, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that U.S. military support to Iraq would be aimed at bolstering units that are loyal to the central government and not sectarian. He said the aid would be “conditional” based on the unit.

Everyone’s aware of the problems, but plenty of Iraqis fear these Shiite militias will become entrenched. In al-Zawra park in Baghdad one evening, a Sunni housewife named Iman Hussein says she’s from Diyala, a mixed province, and blames the Shiite militias for the growing violence there.

“They trained for a long time in Iran, and then they invaded Iraq and brought us nothing good,” she says.

What Iraq needs, she says, is to build trust between sects. And so far the militias have done nothing to improve goodwill.