Kindgo
Advanced Member
Member # 2
|
posted
We appear to be nearing a Middle East war, which will likely have the US and Iraq involved, with the possibility of having Israel, Syria, and Iran included in the mix, and with an outside chance of seeing Saudi Arabia and Egypt involved.
As we continue to hear the war rhetoric, the US government policy pertaining to the Middle East continues to demonstrate doublemindedness, with its two sides exposed as it did again this week. The State Department and the Defense Department had opposing views, with the Bush team leaning in both directions. The following is an example:
In a Tuesday, August 6th, Washington Post article, reporting on a briefing given last month to a top Pentagon advisory board, Saudi Arabia was described as an enemy of the United States. Further, the recommendation was made that US officials give the Saudis an ultimatum to stop backing terrorism or face seizure of its oil fields and its financial assets invested in the United States.
"The Saudis are active at every level of the terror chain, from planners to financiers, from cadre to foot-soldier, from ideologist to cheerleader," stated the explosive briefing. It was presented on July 10 to the Defense Policy Board, a group of prominent intellectuals and former senior officials that advises the Pentagon on defense policy.
"Saudi Arabia supports our enemies and attacks our allies," said the briefing prepared by Laurent Murawiec, a Rand Corp. analyst.
In response, and as stated in a British Financial Times article Tuesday, Colin Powell, US secretary of state, contacted his Saudi counterpart to assure him that the US did not view Saudi Arabia as its new enemy.
He made the call after Donald Rumsfeld, US secretary of defence, confirmed reports of a Rand Corporation briefing of the Defense Policy Board last month in which Saudi Arabia was characterized as America's "most dangerous opponent".
Mr Rumsfeld said the report did not reflect the views of the US government. However, he did little to express support for Washington's traditional ally.
Then on Tuesday the Chicago Tribune laid bare the sharp, behind-the-scenes disagreements that have shaped the Bush administration's Middle East policy, stating that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sided strongly with Israel on Tuesday, asserting Jewish state’s right to continue holding captured Arab lands.
Rumsfeld referred to the lands Israel seized in the 1967 Middle East War as "so-called occupied territories" and questioned whether Israel was obligated to cease building settlements on them.
"My feelings about the so-called occupied territories are that there was a war . . . and [Egypt, Jordan and Syria] lost a lot of real estate to Israel, because Israel prevailed in that conflict," Rumsfeld told Pentagon employees during a question-and-answer session.
"In the intervening period, they've made some settlements in various parts of the so-called occupied area, which was the result of a war, which they won," he said.
It was stated in a Jerusalem Post article that the Bush administration, playing down remarks made by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made clear Wednesday that it still regards the West Bank and Gaza Strip as territories "occupied" by Israel.
The clarification came after Rumsfeld said Tuesday that the "so-called occupied territories" were captured by Israel in the 1967 Middle East war after neighboring countries, despite warnings, "got involved and lost a lot of real estate."
Rumsfeld also said that it would be difficult for Israel to transfer territory to the Palestinian Authority, which has been "involved in terrorist activities."
Daniel Kurtzer, the US ambassador to Israel, said yesterday that Rumsfeld was speaking only for himself and that his remarks did not signal a change in US policy.
"Secretary Rumsfeld made clear in what was a town meeting for Defense Department employees that he was speaking personally. He also made clear that the policy on this issue is made by President Bush. I think the president's June 24 speech speaks for itself and the secretary fully agrees with that," Kurtzer told Israel Television.
On the war front:
Saudis stated this week they will not allow the U.S. to use their airfields in the war against Iraq.
The Palestinians are being used as a catalyst by Iraq, in an effort to produce a swift Israel response designed to initiate scud and katyusha missile launches from Iraq and Lebanon. Israel, as reported last week, has warned Syria three times -- twice through the U.S. and once through Egyptian President Hosni Mubarek -- reign in the Hezbullah or they] will be taken out of commission.
The Iraqi and U.S. war rhetoric continues. There is great concern in the Middle East that if Saddam Hussein is taken out that it will destabilize the Middle East. Many believe with him in place there is more order. Ironically, the U.S. envisions Iraq as a major oil producer to the world and eventually as a means of our relying less on Saudia Arabia. Now, that is a strange twist! The thinking is based on the fact that an estimated 35% of Iraq is fundamentalist Muslims, while Saudia Arabia has an estimated 80 to 90% fundamentalist Muslims.
Additionally, the Middle East countries, the former Desert Storm ally base, are calling for the United States to not go to war with Iraq. There are many nations, too, who are calling on the U.S. to not go to war against Saddam Hussein.
On the Syria front, according to a Ha’aretz article, Syria, current president of the UN Security Council, is violating the UN arms embargo on Iraq by sending weapons and military equipment delivered to Syrian ports on to Iraq via trucks and rail. Most, but not all, of the supplies come from East European countries. Among other things, Russian-made jet engines, refurbished Russian tank engines and Czech anti-aircraft cannon are being delivered to Iraq via this route.
Europe remains concerned about a massive Middle East war and the impact it could have on the flow of oil and the subsequent harm to their economies. Isn’t it an irony that their years of pro-Arab, pro-land-for-peace policies are coming back to haunt them?
The U.S. continues to maneuver people into place for a war with Iraq. The troops will be able to strike with quick notice. The most likely war dates are after the U.S. election in November with January and February 2003 the most likely. However, things could change quickly.
There are concerns that the U.S. troops in the region surrounding Iraq could be the target of weapons of mass destruction. There are also concerns for Israel. It is very probable the U.S. and Israel could go at this together; how they will cooperate remains to be seen.
In summary, we are so blessed to have Jesus Christ in our lives and to have front-row seats as we watch the Lord’s prophetic fulfillment play out as stated in the Bible.
--------------------
God bless,
Kindgo
Inside the will of God there is no failure. Outside the will of God there is no success.
Posts: 4320 | From: Sunny Florida | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged | 
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
