WarSclerotic

Syria: Assad Secret Memos Reveal Tactics On Dealing With Press; Barbara Walters | World News | Sky News.

(ANONYMOUS !  Protector of the people!  All the honor…. – JW )

Private messages between the president and his advisers have been revealed by hacking group Anonymous.

The Syrian government’s computer system has reportedly been hacked, to reveal private memos, documents and emails apparently advising President Bashar al Assad on how to tackle reactions to his crackdown on protesters.

Hacking group Anonymous claim the documents show how advisers close to the president offer their thoughts on how he should deal with questions from the press amid the government’s on-going military campaign.

One email appears to advise Assad on how to approach his interview with ABC’s Barbara Walters, who spoke to the leader late last year.

“Mentioning ‘armed groups’ in the interview is extremely important and we can use American and British articles to prove there are armed gangs,” the adviser writes.

The president was also advised to mention the way protests are sometimes handled in western countries, adding that “Syria doesn’t have a policy to torture people, unlike the USA… We can use Abu Ghraib in Iraq as an example”.

Sky’s foreign affairs editor Tim Marshal said of the hacking: “The translations of the emails from Arabic to English do not prove that they are what the hackers say, but it would have taken a solid knowledge of how the Syrian government and political public relations works to make them up,” he said.

“The emails are not particularly damaging to the Syrian government, which would mean if forged someone has gone to a lot of effort for little gain.

“This suggests they are real, and while not devastating, they throw some light on the government’s thinking.”

An email goes on to explain that admitting to errors committed early on may be a good way of shaping public opinion.

“American psyche can be easily manipulated when they hear that there are ‘mistakes’ done and now we are ‘fixing it,'” the email says.

Continuing to generalise about western thought processes, the adviser says Facebook and YouTube are “open now” and that these things are “very important to the American mind-set”.

The adviser continues: “It would be worth mentioning how your personality has been attacked and praised in the last decade according to the media,” adding that he should make more of the “hero” and “bad guy” images because “Americans love these kinds of things and get convinced by it”.

Another memo appeared to uncover the identity of a suspected defected diplomat who had recently given an anonymous interview to a western reporter.

The hacking by Anonymous is the latest in a number of high-profile attempts by them at revealing classified information. Earlier this month hackers from the same group intercepted FBI calls with Scotland Yard.

President Assad’s crackdown started almost a year ago, and this weekend saw operations intensify in the city of Homs, where Sky correspondent Stuart Ramsey is with activists.

Iran: Genocide a Moral Obligation – Defense/Security – News – Israel National News.

Ali Khameini

Israel news photo: Wikimedia Commons/sajed.ir

Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Monday endorsed a new doctrine explaining why it would be ‘legally and morally justified’ to commit genocide and wipe Israel off the map.

The article was written by Khameini’s close adviser Alireza Forghani and endorsed by the Supreme Leader whose writings played a critical role in its drafting.

The article has since appeared on numerous Iranian government and military websites.

“Israel is a cancerous tumor in the Middle East,” the article in the ultraconservative Farsi-language Alef news site. “Israel is a satanic media outlet with bombers. Every Muslim is required to arm themselves against Israel.”

“I have already noted the usurper state of Israel poses a grave threat to Islam and Muslim countries. Islam and Muslim states must not lose this opportunity to remove the corruption from out midst. All of our problems are because of Israel – Israel of America.”

“The first step should be the absolute destruction of Israel. To this end, Iran could make use of long-range missiles. The distance between us is only 2,600 KM. It can be done in minutes.”

The crux of the piece says Iran would be justified in launching a pre-emptive strike against Israel because of the threat the Jewish state’s leaders are posing against its own nuclear facilities.

However, during a lengthy discussion of the ‘jurisprudence of Jihad,’ the article makes it clear that an Israeli strike ‘isn’t required’ and would ultimately serve as a pretext for genocide.

Instead, he says ‘defensive Jihad’ justifies annihilating Israel and targeting its civilian population because Israel has “spilled Muslim blood” and “oppresses” its Muslim neighbors.

“With regard to the fake state of Israel in Palestine, which is included in the first Qibla of Muslims, we must defend the sacred blood of Muslims in Islamic Palestine using any means necessary,” it goes on to explain.

“If the enemy should invade Muslim lands and spill Muslim blood, it is obligatory upon the Muslim masses to use every means possible to defend the lives and property of their brothers. It does not require a judge’s permission.

“But regardless of the Israeli aggression against Palestine and the Muslims, it is clear the heads of this fake regime seek to dominate other Islamic lands on its borders and to develop hegemony over the region,” it reads.

The article makes it clear Iran sees no place in the Middle East for the Jews.

“Political subdivisions of states and political boundaries between units are not relevant and what is important is to divide the nations and territories based on beliefs and religions groups, blood and blood. Muslim blood must be separate from Infidel blood,” it says, citing Khameini’s writings.

The document then cites statistics saying 5.7 million of Israel’s 7.5 million citizens are Jewish – as a justification for attack. It then proceeds to break down Israel by region and demographic concentrations in order that the most Jews possible would be killed.

It specifically states that Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Haifa ,contain more than 60 per cent of the Jewish population, which could be hit by Shahab 3 ballistic missiles to “easily kill everyone.”

The publication of the doctrine comes after Khamenei announced on Friday that Iran would support any nation or group that attacks the ‘cancerous tumor’ of Israel.

Since its publications several Iranian officials have called for a strike on Israel “within the year.”

Our World: Obama’s rhetorical sto… JPost – Opinion – Columnists.

Dr. Josef Olmert: Assad’s Downfall and the Regional Balance of Power.

The remaining advocates of Bashar Assad are working overtime to portray a vision of a completely chaotic Middle East if and when the Alawite regime finally collapses. To predict chaos in the Middle East is a safe bet, so what’s really new in this case? The threat of chaos is almost automatically linked to another round of Arab-Israeli war, this time a Shi’ite-led Iranian-Hezbollah-Alawite desperate attack on Israel. Well, while the Israelis may naturally take the proper precautionary steps to deal with the day after Assad, they are far from showing any sign of undue worry or panic.

There is concern about the arsenal of chemical warheads that is in Syrian hands, some of it was transferred to Syria from Iraq on the eve of the American invasion of March 2003. The fear is that these warheads may find their way to Hezbollah and Iran. Surely not a pleasant prospect, but not one that cannot be dealt with. Even Hezbollah and the Iranians know that any attempt to use these weapons against Israel will be calamitous to them. The thought that either of the two will risk their very existence [in the case of Hezbollah], or most vital national interests [in the case of Iran], in support of the Alawite dictatorship is good for psychological warfare, but not in the real world. The same applies to the possibility of Iranian closure of the straits of Hormuz in support of Assad. Really? Not really…

They will not do that. All this is relevant to the Syrian situation and its implications, not to the much talked-about scenario of an Israeli or American attack against the Iranian nuclear program. This is clearly a totally different opera. The connection between a final collapse of the Assad regime and the Israeli and/or American calculus regarding Iran is possible but not inevitable. Sure, a Syrian participation in an Iranian retaliation against a strike is not something cherished by Israeli and American planners and policy makers, but this is becoming a remote possibility since the Syrian Army is in a stage of disintegration. General Mustafa Al-Sheikh, the highest ranking Syrian defector, predicted some days ago that the Syrian Army will disintegrate until the end of February. This may be wishful thinking in terms of the timing, but not the process, which is very obvious, leading in the not distant future to that exact outcome. So, if we move away from the Israeli angle of the situation, what else can happen affecting neighboring countries and overall regional stability? First, we can expect a massive refugee problem, Alawites trying to cross to Lebanon and Turkey. Also, possible mass flight out of Ba’athi functionaries, not just Alawites. Chaos in Syria will inevitably take its toll of neighboring Lebanon.

Tripoli, a Sunni city with a sizable Alawite minority, is likely to explode, and that will be part of a bigger issue in Lebanon, as the traditional anti-Assad forces there, mainly the Sunnis and some Christian Maronite factions, will find the new circumstances conducive to put pressure on Hezbollah, demanding it dismantle its arms. The not so old wounds created by the assassination of former PM Rafiq Hariri will reopen with ferocity. Whether all that will lead Lebanon towards chaos is not clear, though it’s likely. Sheikh Nasrallah, however, will find himself and Hezbollah engaged in a conflict with the majority of the Lebanese people. So, under these circumstances, a war initiated by him against Israel may seem a good diversionary exercise, but still is highly unlikely. The Sheikh will fight for his own survival inside Lebanon as his first priority.

Another country that will feel the brunt of the Assad collapse will be Iraq, where the current Sunni-Shi’i tension may be greatly exacerbated, as the former will be much encouraged by the rise of a new regime in Syria, most likely Sunni-dominated. Not for nothing, the Maliki government in Iraq is the most pro-Assad Arab government. They know why.

Then there is Turkey. But for the expected Alawite flight across the northwestern border, the Turks should be greatly preoccupied by the fallout of a collapse in Damascus on the northeast border, where over 2 million Syrian Kurds live, just waiting to rid themselves of the Assad yoke. An unruly Kurdish population on the Syrian side of the border will not be good news to the Turkish government and military having to deal with their own unruly Kurdish population.

The Turks may gain, however, many political dividends from their support to the Sunni Syrian rebels. A Sunni-dominated regime in Damascus is likely to be friendly to Ankara, and so Turkey’s overall regional standing may be significantly enhanced. Such a regime in Damascus will also be friendly to the Saudis, and a Turkish-Saudi rivalry over influence in Damascus of the future is highly likely. The big losers will be Iranians. They cannot expect a friendly Syrian government in the near future. The overall regional Sunni-Shi’i schism will be in display in the most dramatic way. But even that is not really new, as this schism has been a feature of Middle East Islamic reality since the killing of Imam Hussein in 680 A.D.

The downfall of Bashar Assad is behind the door. No Armageddon, but still a significant challenge to regional stability.

Op-ed: The Covert Meaning Behind the Headlines – Features – News – Israel National News.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

The writer is a member of the Arutz Sheva staff.

Often, what is reported in the media is just as significant as the way in which the information is relayed as well as what stories and details get omitted, determined to be ‘unfit to print.’ Politically savvy readers quickly learn that they must read between the lines, ascertain the nuisances of political headlines and deconstruct the language being used, in order to discern the true message behind the information being conveyed.

On February 3, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei reaffirmed the Iranian regime’s commitment to obtaining nuclear weapons and fighting any country that seeks to hinder such efforts, namely the United States and Israel. He espoused that any attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities would result in an attack “10 times worse for the interests of the United States.”

While the story quickly made headlines, Commentary Magazine’s Jonathan S. Tobin poignantly notes that not all noteworthy publications, namely The New York Times, chose to report such noteworthy news. He states, “there was something missing from the Times report of Khamenei’s speech that was reported elsewhere. Other accounts noted that in addition to threatening the United States, Khamenei said this: ‘The Zionist regime is a cancerous tumor and it will be removed.’ While we don’t know how or why a mention of this element of speech managed to get excised from the account in the Times, it’s a question worth pondering.” As one of the leading newspapers in the United States, one must question whether such an omission was simply a careless oversight, or an intentional omission, aimed at understating Israel right to defend itself, whether or not given the “green light” from the American administration.

Furthermore, last week the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Mohammed Hussein, exemplified the incitement and hatred that is so prevalent in Palestinian society, encouraging and exalting the killing of Jews.  Marking the 47^th anniversary of the founding of Fatah he said, “The hour of judgment will not come until you fight the Jews… The Jews will hide behind the stone and behind the tree. The stone and the tree will cry, ‘Oh Muslim, Oh Servant of God, this is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.” This statement came only a few days before International Holocaust Remembrance Day, during which world leaders, or at least those still committed to preventing genocides against the Jewish people, pledged to never allow such an atrocity to occur again.

While proclamations of “Never Again” are all very noble and heartwarming, one must ask, given the anti-Semitic trends of our times, if such statements really hold any weight. If President Obama, who, upon his quest for the Jewish vote in the upcoming elections, pledges his commitment to the Jewish people and to the State of Israel, why, then, were there no statements issued condemning the remarks of the Grand Mufti, whose rhetoric, like that of the Iranian regime, directly mirrors the rhetoric used by Hitler and the Nazi party?

While it is true that if one is still surprised by the aforementioned statements, he or she has, apparently, not been keeping up with the political trends of our times or the reoccurring cycle of Jewish history. However, whether leaders, like the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and the Supreme Leader of Iran, unmistakably proclaim their desire to obliterate the “Zionist entity” or, whether journalists and politicians, who chose to omit or refrain from issuing harsh and unapologetic statements of condemnation in response, are all embarking down a similar path, overt or covert, characterized by undermining the State of Israel and Jewish People.

Stephens: (How) Should Israel Bomb Iran? – WSJ.com.

Diplomacy has run its course, sanctions are too late, and Israel can’t cry wolf again.

Can Israel attack Iran? If it can, will it? If it will, when? If when, how?

And what happens after that?

On Sunday with Matt Lauer, President Obama said “I don’t think that Israel has made a decision on what they need to do.” That didn’t square with the view of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who’s been reported as saying he expects an Israeli attack this spring. Nor does it square with public warnings from Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak that the Iranians would soon enter a “zone of immunity” from foreign military attack if nothing is done to stop them.

Yes, these war drums have been beaten before. But this time it’s different.

Diplomacy has run its course: Even U.N. diplomats now say Iran uses negotiations as a tactic to buy time. The sanctions are too late: Israel can’t afford to wait a year or two to see if Europe’s embargo on Iranian oil or the administration’s squeeze on Iran’s financial institutions will alter Tehran’s nuclear calculations.

Covert action—computer bugs, assassinations, explosions—may have slowed Iran’s progress, but plainly not by enough. And Israel can only hint so many times that it’s planning to attack before the world tires of the bluster-and-retreat routine.

Two additional points. Washington and Jerusalem are at last operating from a common timetable—Iran is within a year of getting to the point when it will be able to assemble a bomb essentially at will. And speaking of timetables, Jerusalem knows that Mr. Obama will be hard-pressed to oppose an Israeli strike—the way Dwight Eisenhower did during the Suez crisis—before election day. A re-elected President Obama is a different story.

That means that from here until November the U.S. traffic light has gone from red to yellow. And Israelis aren’t exactly famous for stopping at yellow lights.

But can they do it? There’s a mountain of nonsense exaggerating Israel’s military capabilities: Israel does not, for instance, operate giant drones capable of refueling jet fighters in midair.

At the same time, there’s an equally tall mountain of nonsense saying that Israel is powerless to do significant damage to Iran’s nuclear-weapons complex, as if the Islamic Republic were the second coming of the USSR. In fact, Iran is a Third World country that can’t even protect its own scientists in the heart of Tehran. It has a decrepit air force, antiquated air defenses, a vulnerable electrical grid, exposed nuclear sites (the uranium conversion plant at Esfahan, the heavy water facility at Arak, the reactor at Bushehr), and a vulnerable energy infrastructure on which its economy is utterly dependent. Even its deeply buried targets can be destroyed. It’s all a question of time, tonnage and precision.

The bottom line is that a strike on Iran that sets its nuclear ambitions back by several years is at the outer periphery of Israel’s military capability, but still within it.

As for how Israel would do it, the important point is that any strike that’s been as widely anticipated as this one would have to contain some significant element of surprise—a known unknown. What could that be? Here’s a hint: Gen. Hossein Salami, the deputy commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, recently warned that “any place where enemy offensive operations against the Islamic Republic originate will be the target of a reciprocal attack.” Look at a map: Africa and Central Asia are wide open places.

What happens on the day after? Israelis estimate that between Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Syria and Iran itself, there are some 200,000 missiles and rockets pointed in their direction. They could start falling before the first sortie of Israeli jets returned to base. Israel’s civil defenses have been materially improved in recent years. But the country would still have to anticipate that missile and rocket barrages would overwhelm its defenses, causing hundreds of civilian casualties. Israel would also have to be prepared to go to war in Lebanon, Gaza and even Syria if Iran calls on the aid of its allies.

Put simply, an Israeli strike on Iran would not just be a larger-scale reprise of the attacks that took out Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981 and Syria’s in 2007. On the contrary: If it goes well it would look somewhat like the Six Day War of 1967, and if it goes poorly like the Yom Kippur War of 1973. Nobody should think we’re talking about a cakewalk.

So: Should Israel do it? If the U.S. has no serious intention to go beyond sanctions, Israel’s only alternative to action is to accept a nuclear Iran and then stand by as the rest of its neighbors acquire nuclear weapons of their own. That scenario is the probable end of Israel.

Then again, if Israel is going to gamble so much on a strike, it should play for large stakes. The Islamic Republic means to destroy Israel. If Israel means to survive, it should commit itself similarly. Destroying Iran’s nuclear sites will be a short-lived victory if it isn’t matched to the broader goal of ending the regime.

Diplomats: Iran boosts nuclear w… JPost – Iranian Threat – News.

By Raheb Homavandi / Reuters

VIENNA – Iran is believed to be expanding uranium enrichment activity deep inside a mountain, diplomatic sources said on Monday, a move likely to add to tension with Western powers that suspect Tehran is seeking nuclear weapons capability.

The move to increase sensitive nuclear work at the Fordow underground site near the Shi’ite Muslim holy city of Qom, even if expected, underlines the Islamic state’s defiance in the face of intensifying Western pressure to curb such activity.

Iran last month confirmed it had begun refining uranium to a fissile concentration of 20 percent at Fordow, shifting its highest-grade enrichment from an above-ground location to better protect it against any strikes by Israel or the United States.

Washington, which has not ruled out military action against Iran if diplomacy fails to resolve the long-running nuclear dispute, on Jan. 9 denounced the start-up of the Fordow plant as a further escalation of Iran’s “ongoing violations” of UN resolutions.

At that time, diplomats said Iran was operating at Fordow two so-called cascades, each of 174 centrifuges – machines that spin at supersonic speed to increase the ratio of the fissile isotope. More centrifuges were being installed, they said.

Enriched uranium can have both civilian and military uses.

One Vienna-based diplomat said two more cascades, like the first pair connected with each other to make the process more efficient, had now also been deployed to enrich uranium.

“The second set of cascades is operational … my understanding is they are both operational and (have) no problems,” the diplomat said.

Another diplomat accredited to the IAEA also painted a picture of expanding activity at Fordow, without giving details.

Neither Iran nor the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Vienna-based UN agency that regularly inspects Iranian nuclear sites including Fordow, was immediately available for comment.

Iran said last year that it would transfer its highest-grade uranium refinement work to Fordow from its main enrichment plant at Natanz, and sharply boost capacity.

The decision to move work which the UN Security Council has called on Iran to suspend to an underground facility could further complicate diplomatic efforts to resolve the standoff peacefully.

US Policy on Israel’s Potential Attack on Iran.

Israel has signaled once again that it is weighing an attack, if all else fails, to halt Iran’s advancing nuclear weapons program as an act of anticipatory self-defense. This time, more officials in Washington and other capitals are listening. Iranian officials have repeatedly warned that Tehran will retaliate against the U.S. in the event that Israel launches a strike. The U.S. should have a clear and unambiguous policy on how it will respond if Israel undertakes legitimate action for its self-defense.

Before an Attack

To mitigate the threats posed by Iran to U.S. national security and to protect U.S. interests, the United States should:

• Recognize Israel’s right to self-defense against a hostile Islamist dictatorship that also threatens U.S. interests and regional stability. Washington should not seek to block Israel from taking what it considers to be necessary action against an existential threat. The U.S. does not have the power to guarantee that Israel would not be attacked by a nuclear Iran in the future, so it should not betray the trust of an ally by tying its hands now. Although an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear program would entail increased risks for U.S. interests in the Middle East, these risks would be dwarfed by the threats posed by a nuclear-armed Iran. Moreover, a nuclear Iran would induce many other Middle Eastern states to seek their own nuclear weapons. This cascade of nuclear proliferation would enormously increase the risks of a future nuclear exchange.
• Continue to deploy missile defenses to defend Israel and other U.S. allies from Iranian missile attacks. The Pentagon has already deployed an X-Band radar to Israel to support missile defense interceptors. In addition, the U.S. should make preparations to deploy or transfer to Israel the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system and sea- or land-based versions of the Standard Missile-3 interceptors. U.S. Navy Aegis-class warships should be deployed to protect Israel and other threatened U.S. allies against a possible Iranian ballistic missile attack. The Obama Administration should also offer to further deploy land- or sea-based missile defense systems in the greater Persian Gulf area with the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council—the alliance formed in 1981 by Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates to provide collective defense against Iran and other threats.
• Hold more frequent missile defense exercises with Israel and other nations. The Juniper Cobra joint missile defense exercises conducted with Israel in 2009, for example, involved up to 2,000 personnel and some 17 U.S. Navy warships that simulated a joint defense against a missile attack on Israel from all directions. Such exercises provide valuable hands-on experience necessary to maintaining an effective overall missile defense system.
• Enhance deterrence against Iranian attacks. To deter Iran from following through on its threats to attack American targets in response to an Israeli preventive attack, the Obama Administration should make it clear to Tehran beforehand that such attacks would make a bad situation much worse for the regime. Since the Islamist dictatorship’s highest priority is its continued domination of Iran, Washington should privately warn the Supreme Leader that if the Ahmadinejad regime launches attacks against U.S. targets, the U.S. would respond with devastating strikes against not only Iran’s military and nuclear targets but regime leaders and the institutions that keep the regime in power—particularly the Revolutionary Guards, intelligence agencies, and internal security forces.
• Warn Tehran that if it takes action to disrupt Arab oil production in the Persian Gulf or attacks American targets, the U.S. would prevent any Iranian oil from being exported through a naval blockade. Communicating this ahead of time could help to deter Iran, as the loss of oil income would be a major blow that would threaten the survival of the regime.

If an Attack Occurs

• Respond robustly to any Iranian military or terrorist attack against American targets. If Tehran attacks the U.S. people or property, then Washington should respond in a forceful way that leaves Iran in a much worse situation. The Pentagon should activate contingency plans for air strikes against Revolutionary Guard bases, ballistic missile production and launch facilities, air bases, naval bases, and Iran’s nuclear weapons program infrastructure. If Iran persists, then the U.S. and its allies should launch air strikes on Iran’s top leaders and impose a naval blockade on Iran’s oil exports. No Iranian regime could survive long without oil export revenues, which furnish the bulk of Iran’s government income.
• Defend against and attack Hezbollah and other Iranian terrorist surrogates. Tehran is likely to use Hezbollah to attack American targets around the world and possibly inside the U.S. The Pentagon should target Hezbollah bases and leaders and cooperate with other U.S. government agencies and U.S. allies to uproot Hezbollah drug smuggling, money laundering, and other fundraising activities. Tehran should also be clearly warned that it will be held responsible for any surrogate terrorist attacks.
• Veto any Security Council resolution that does not acknowledge Iran’s provocations and continued defiance of U.N. resolutions. The Ahmadinejad regime has frequently stoked tensions with Israel by threatening to “erase Israel from the page of history” and a constant stream of other threats that are tantamount to incitement for genocide. Ahmadinejad’s denial of the Holocaust while building weapons for another possible holocaust was unwisely provocative as well. Israel, whose unofficial motto is “Never again,” is especially sensitive to such bellicose rhetoric, particularly when it is backed up with concrete signs that Tehran is developing a nuclear capability and the missiles to deliver it. Washington should point out to members of the Security Council that are critical of the veto that the U.N.’s weak and ineffective response to Iran’s nuclear program helped to sow the seeds of conflict with Israel.

Be Prepared

The U.S. should stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel in confronting Iran’s growing nuclear menace. If Jerusalem decides to exercise its right of self-defense, then the U.S. and its allies should support that decision, not condemn it. The brutal dictatorship in Tehran has been given ample warning that its longstanding violations of its legal obligations under international treaties will have a progressively heavy cost, yet it defiantly continues to enrich uranium, issue threats, and order terrorist attacks, including one plot to bomb a restaurant in Washington, D.C. If Iran is willing to risk such an attack before it gains nuclear weapons, what threats is it likely to pose after it attains nuclear weapons? The U.S. and its allies cannot afford to find out.

James Phillips is Senior Research Fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, and James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., is Deputy Director of the Davis Institute and Director of the Allison Center at The Heritage Foundation.

Majority of U.S. Voters Advocate Military Strike on Iran, Concerned About Potential Terrorist Attack – International Business Times.

By Ashley Portero

Lebanon news – NOW Lebanon -New Opinion: Calling in favors.

Flames rise from the fuel tanks at Beirut International Airport after an Israeli strike during the July War. Hezbollah needs to tell the Lebanese if it would fight Israel again were the Jewish State to attack Iran. (AFP photo)