World War 3 Coming Soon? Tanks Roll Across the Border as Turkish Invasion of Syria Begins - By Michael Snyder -
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/world-war-3-coming-soon-tanks-roll-across-the-border-as-turkish-invasion-of-syria-begins
The invasion of Syria that so many people have been warning about is now happening. On Wednesday, Turkish tanks rolled across the Syrian border, and they were accompanied by radical Islamic Syrian rebels that want to ultimately overthrow the Assad regime. This invasion was conducted under the code name "Euphrates Shield", and it was supported by airstrikes from A-10s and F-16s that are part of the U.S.-led coalition that has been conducting airstrikes against ISIS targets in the region. The mainstream media in the United States has been very quiet about this escalation of the conflict in Syria, but things are much different in the rest of the world. For example, a major Israeli news source announced the attack this way: "Turkey invades Syria". And without a doubt, that is precisely what is taking place. The Syrian government denounced this move by Turkey as a "blatant breach to its sovereignty", and the Russians are deeply alarmed. The farther Turkish forces push into northern Syria, the more likely they will be to encounter Syrian or Russian forces, and one bad move could result in the outbreak of World War 3 in the Middle East.
The fact that the U.S. media is treating this invasion of Syria as if it is of little importance is deeply disturbing. These days, the big news channels are obsessed with feeding us propaganda about how "healthy" Hillary Clinton is, or about how "racist" Donald Trump is, and they spend exceedingly little time on the things that really matter all over the globe.
Fortunately, it is not the same way around much of the rest of the planet. Here is an excerpt from a British news source about the Turkish attack...
It is hard to anticipate whether Turkey's unprecedented military incursion into Syria this week will change the dynamics of the multiple wars that have ravaged the region and put civilians through hell. If things already seemed complicated in the Middle East, they may have just become even more so. What started on Wednesday ranks as the largest Turkish military operation inside Syrian territory since the civil war began five years ago. A dozen tanks, reportedly followed by a bus transporting Syrian rebels, rolled into northern Syria to drive Islamic State forces from the town of Jarablus, one of their last footholds on the Turkish-Syrian border. Today Turkey sent more tanks in and told the YPG Kurdish armed group it had one week to retreat from the border areas.
We are being told that the primary purpose of this Turkish invasion is "to fight ISIS", but that is just for western consumption. The truth is that Turkey has actually been supporting ISIS and other terror groups in Syria for a very long time. In fact, it has been heavily documented that ISIS sold hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of stolen oil through Turkey until the Russians put a stop to it.
No, the real motivation for this assault is to stop the advance of Kurdish forces. Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu recently promised that Turkey would "do what is necessary" to keep Kurdish fighters east of the Euphrates River, and even President Erdogan is admitting that the Kurds are primary targets in this operation...
"(Wednesday's operation) started in the north of Syria against terror groups which constantly threaten our country, like (ISIS) and the PYD," Erdogan said, referring to a Syrian Kurdish opposition political party.
And U.S. officials know exactly what Erdogan is doing. Just check out what one of them told CNN...
Another senior US official told CNN's Barbara Starr the US assessment is that Turkey's cross-border action is largely about trying to stop Kurdish action. "The Turks never cared about Jarablus until the Kurds wanted to get there," the official said.
So now the Turks have declared open season on the Kurds in northern Syria, and the Syrian Kurds are treating this move as "a declaration of war"...
Spokesman for the YPG Kurdish militia, Redur Xelil, called Turkey's move "blatant aggression in Syrian internal affairs." Aldar Xelil, another influential Kurdish politician, accused Turkey of initiating an occupation of Syria, saying the operation amounted to "a declaration of war" on the autonomous administration set up by Kurdish groups in northern Syria in 2011.
According to the Turkish government, Operation Euphrates Shield will "create a safe zone" that will be 90 kilometers long and 40 kilometers wide that stretches roughly from the town of Jarablus to the town of Marea.
That is a massive amount of territory, and this basically shows that the Turks plan to set up shop there permanently.
President Erdogan and his supporters have always dreamed of recreating the old Ottoman Empire, and they already have military forces occupying portions of northern Iraq. This move into northern Syria is yet another bold move in the direction of their ultimate goal.
But will the Russians just stand by and allow the Turks to do whatever they want?
So far the Russians are not saying much, but Vladimir Putin has ordered snap military drills...
Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered snap military drills as German Chancellor Angela Merkel accused him of breaking international law in Ukraine and said NATO will defend member states against attack.
Combat readiness exercises are taking place "to defend the interests of the Russian Federation amid increasing threats to its security," Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said Thursday in a statement on the ministry's website. Troops in Russia's southern, central and western military districts, naval deployments in the Black Sea and Caspian Sea, and airborne forces are involved, he said.
The Russians don't want to fight Turkish forces in Syria, but as they have shown in Crimea, in Ukraine and elsewhere, they are definitely not afraid to take military action when their interests require it.
And if Russia and Turkey do start fighting, that would threaten to drag the rest of NATO (including the United States) into the conflict.
Turkey has been chomping at the bit to start grabbing chunks of territory in northern Syria for quite some time now, but this invasion is going to turn out to be a tragic mistake.
President Erdogan has definitely overplayed his hand this time, and let us just hope that it doesn't result in World War 3 erupting in the Middle East.
Former Secretary of Defense explains why we now have greatest threat of nuclear war ever - By Michael A. Lindenberger - http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/latest-columns/20160823-qa-with-former-secretary-of-defense-perry-on-the-rising-risk-of-nuclear-war.ece
Twenty-five years after the end of the Cold War, how safe is America, or the world, from nuclear catastrophe? Not very.
That's the gloomy message from former Secretary of Defense William Perry, who has spent the past quarter-century focused on reducing the risk of nuclear disaster.
Part of the risk, of course, is there are now many more groups intent on inflicting mass destruction that we saw in the Sept. 11 attacks. But the seemingly old-fashion risk, that of a nuclear confrontation between nuclear powers like the United States or Russia, has not gone away either.
Another reason for concern: America and its closest nuclear competitors -- Russia, China, India and others -- are locked in an arms race intent on developing better, faster, more destructive weapons. In the U.S. defense officials have already warned Congress that they will need enormous sums, up to $450 billion over 20 years, and more beyond that, to overhaul America's aging and still-dominant nuclear arsenal. That means requests for new bombers, new subs and new missiles.
This all comes at the tail-end of a presidency that began, back in 2009, with an April speech in Prague in which President Barack Obama promised to work toward a nuclear-free world.
Why do you say that we're now at greater risk of nuclear disaster than ever?
It's been true for a good many years, we just haven't understood that. ... To understand why I say that, I have to break it down into categories of what a catastrophe might be.
The one we think of most is another nuclear holocaust. We think of the danger that we had during the Cold War of a nuclear holocaust. That danger is returning. It's returning because of the continually worsening relations with Russia. But it's not as bad as it was during the Cold War -- yet. So I don't mean to suggest the nuclear war is more likely than it was during the Cold War though it is more likely than it is thought to be.
In the meantime, we've got two new dangers that did not exist in the Cold War. One of them is the risk of a nuclear terrorist and the other is that of a regional nuclear war. For example, between India and Pakistan.
When you add those two into the equation, then the danger of some nuclear catastrophe becomes greater.
With regard to the risk of nuclear terrorism, is it simply because there are more people in the world who wish us harm? Or, has nuclear technology changed in a way that makes it easier to accomplish such an attack?
Both of those are true. The first is due to the rise over the last few decades of radical jihadism. We've faced terror groups for a good many decades. But typically, they would conduct terror instances to make a point and draw attention to themselves. They were not out for mass killings. When 9/11 occurred, we realized, we are now confronted with something different.
In the case of Al Qaeda, they were out to kill as many Americans as they could. The number on 9/11 happened to be a few thousand. We also know, they had a project trying to get a nuclear bomb, which happily they did not succeed in. The first and most important point is, there are now terror groups practicing radical jihadism who are out to kill vast numbers of Americans in the thousands or hundreds of tens of thousands instead of just a few dozen. That's new. That's just developed in the last several decades.
What also is new is that the access to fissile material has probably increased in the last few decades. More countries now have nuclear weapons. With the access to nuclear weapons in Pakistan and North Korea for example, that opens up more avenues by which a terrorist could get the fissile material by which he could make a bomb. And maybe even get a bomb itself.
The Berlin Wall fell in 1989 and the Soviet Union collapsed in late 1991, a year ahead of Bill Clinton taking office. You were his defense secretary. You said then that your top priority was to track down thousands of nukes - the so-called loose nukes problem -- in the former Soviet republics. Did you succeed?
Besides Russia, which had the capability of taking care of those weapons adequately, there were now nuclear weapons and a good many nuclear weapons in Kazakhstan, Belarus and Ukraine. In total, there were several thousand nuclear weapons. These were not under any adequate control. That was my top priority when I became secretary. That problem had arisen a year earlier than that.
We got rid of all of those. Every one of them. All of those nuclear weapons were dismantled ... and in fact, that uranium is being used in American reactors through General Electric.
What has happened since then?
Since then India and Pakistan have built nuclear arsenals and North Korea has built a nuclear arsenal. Iran has had a nuclear program, which fortunately was short-stopped before it got to a nuclear arsenal.
But that presents many more opportunities for a terror group to get access, if not to a bomb itself, at least the fissile material from which they could perhaps make a bomb. It's much more dangerous now, because of the proliferation to those countries, particularly to Pakistan and North Korea, the ones I worry most about.
Specifically, what threat do these new national arsenals pose?
The more (nukes) there are in the world, the harder it is to keep track of for sure. But I worry about some countries more than others. I worry about Pakistan because we know there are within the Pakistani military, you might say renegade groups, who owe an allegiance to radical jihad and not to the government.
To this point, the government has kept that under control, but that is a particular danger that doesn't exist in other countries. In the case of North Korea, the danger is, this is a country that for a number of reasons, not the least the sanctions we imposed on them, is desperately poor. They might try to sell their fissile material or even bombs if somebody can pay them enough for it.
There are two very different dangers there, but they're both very real.
In the early decades of the Cold War, we heard a lot about so-called tactical nuclear weapons. We are hearing more about that now, again. Can you talk about that?
I am very much concerned about that. The idea that you can use a little bit of nuclear weapons, as a small-yield nuclear weapon, and contain it at that point, is extremely dangerous. Nobody that I know of, no government that I know of, has a credible strategy for preventing the escalations for a full-scale nuclear war. Any use of nuclear weapons has a very high danger of escalating to full use of nuclear weapons...
Many of these tactical nuclear weapons have the yield of the Hiroshima bomb. It's a confusing point to really refer to them as tactical when you consider the enormous damage they do. Even the lower-yield ones can do an enormous amount of damage.
This is a very dangerous idea. I'm very much opposed to the use of tactical weapons, most importantly to a policy by which we might purport to use tactical nuclear weapons, on the unproven theory that they would not escalate to a major war.
How did the idea of using tactical nuclear weapons -- raised again during the George W. Bush administration -- first gain traction?
I'm sorry to say the United States was the one who really introduced the idea of tactical nuclear weapons. During the Cold War, we were confronted in Europe from the Soviet Union that had about three times the size of the conventional military forces that we did.
As we thought, they had aggressive ambitions. Therefore, we believed our NATO forces would be swept right back to the Channel if the Russian forces moved in. We developed tactical nuclear weapons and we deployed them in Europe and we had a policy that if the Soviet Union attacked in Germany, we would use them...
We no longer have a policy of using tactical nuclear weapons to defend Europe...
When I was the Undersecretary of Defense in the late '70s, my primary focus was developing a set of conventional weapons, stealth and precision munitions and precision reconnaissance systems so that our conventional forces, even though smaller than those of the Soviet Union would be able to adequately defend without nuclear weapons.
That program was successful and the demonstrations are successful of the program was made in Iraq, where those new highly effective conventional weapons in three or four days' time defeated quite a large and well-equipped army, the Iraq Army.
So we have long since abandoned this policy ourselves. But the really bad news is that today Russia seems to have embraced a policy of using tactical nuclear weapons for that same purpose. If they feel their conventional forces are inferior or being overwhelmed by opposing forces, they would then use tactical nuclear forces to offset the other side's damage.
President Obama has recently proposed a massive overhauling of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. What does he have in mind? Does it make sense to you?
As long as Russia is adopting belligerent and aggressive policies in Europe against our allies, in which they see nuclear weapons as a part of that policy, then we have to maintain a strong deterrence...
So we will have some moderation program. I'm questioning the nature of the program. I do not think we should simply reproduce what we did during the Cold War, because that was 30 or 40 years ago when you conceived, designed and built other weapons and a lot has changed since then.
What do you make of the nuclear threat with North Korea?
We had an opportunity, I believe, to stop the North Korean nuclear program before they built an arsenal. That was back in 1999 and 2000.... [But] During the time of [George W.] Bush's presidency, they developed a nuclear weapon capability and actually tested a couple of nuclear weapons. In the last eight years under President Obama, they've tested more nuclear weapons and started building an arsenal.
I don't think we're going to be able to get an agreement now. It was one thing getting them to agree not to build an arsenal, but it's a much, much harder task to get them to agree to give up an arsenal they already have.
New Turkey - New Friends - Alf Cengia - http://www.omegaletter.com/articles/articles.asp?ArticleID=8297
It appears that there's a New Turkey, and it has found New Friends to play with.
Some time ago I received negative feedback on my musings about Vladimir Putin's motives. I was informed that Putin was a "flash in the pan." He was a wannabe Czar whose star would eventually fizzle out like a snuffed birthday candle.
Often our opinions are shaped by the material we regularly read. Most news media contain degrees of partiality - some more than others. Further complicating matters are our own personal biases. Many would rather not believe that troubling events are occurring around the world. It interferes with their lifestyles.
A lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then. Putin's subsequent actions confirmed his Real Deal status. He has always harbored a calculated game plan for expanding Russian interests. Putin telegraphed what he wanted to do and then set about achieving those targets.
I remember the lead up to the 2008 United States presidential elections. At the time I was still living in Australia and reading about the presidential candidates from several sources. One candidate stood out - Senator Barack Obama. He seemed to come from nowhere.
There were different lines of thought about Senator Obama. Some were leery of him based on his history, what he said, and the people he associated with. Others loved him for those very same reasons.
Still others (some conservatives included) dismissed negative feedback as possibly racially motivated. Many were excited about potentially making history by voting for the first mixed race President of the United States.
Like Putin, Mr. Obama telegraphed his intentions. Sure he spouted the obligatory pre-election throw away promises. But mixed in with the political fluff, he achieved what he said he'd do - kowtow to Islam and oversee a smaller American global footprint (especially in the Middle East). Among his accomplishments has been the advancement of nuclear Iran and assisting the Muslim Brotherhood. You might even say that Obama was the perfect man for Putin's career!
Then there's the new Turkey and its new friends - Russia and Iran. For a long time we wondered what Erdogan was going to do. Would he jump into bed with the European bunch? Would he cultivate a cozy relationship with Israel, as some reports suggested? Even when he was spitting out vitriol against Zionist Israel?
The thing about Erdogan is that he's a funny guy - but not in a good way. Think of Joe Pesci's unstable character in the movie Goodfellas. He's the sort of individual who can compliment and threaten, all in the same sentence.
The attempted rebel coup served to strengthen Erdogan's Islamist position in Turkey. It allowed him to enact "temporary" emergency measures which have cemented his position. The West had been hopeful that "moderate" Turkey would align itself to it. But Erdogan now appears to have chosen Putin:
Turkey's newfound love affair with Russia will inevitably have repercussions in Syria, and that pleases Iran. "Not only will Turkey have to 'digest' that [Russian-Iranian-Syrian] line, it will have to join it, entering into a pact with Putin and the ayatollahs.
Will the relationship last? Ken Timmerman's article sums the current status up well:
A [tectonic] shift has occurred in the balance of power in the Middle East since the failed Turkish coup of mid-July, and virtually no one in Washington is paying attention to it. Turkey and Iran are simultaneously moving toward Russia, while Russia is expanding its global military and strategic reach, all to the detriment of the United States and our allies. This will have a major impact across the region, potentially leaving U.S. ally Israel isolated to face a massive hostile alliance armed with nuclear weapons. (Emphasis mine)
Tectonic is an appropriate word. The military ramifications of this new alliance are large scale. Saudi Arabia has already broadcasted its intention to counter a future nuclear Iran. Will this escalate into a new arms race?
The following comments by Timmerman were also interesting:
Believers in Bible prophecy see this new alignment as a step closer to the alliance mentioned in Ezekiel 37-38, which Israel ultimately defeated on the plains of Megiddo...Today's Israel, however, is doing its best to soften the blow by patching up relations with Turkey and through cooperation with Russia. (Emphasis mine)
One of the main points raised by prophecy enthusiasts - when discussing the Gog-Magog conflagration - is Israel's trust in its peaceful conditions (Ezek 38:11). These conditions suddenly change requiring God's intervention to prevent Israel from being destroyed. For more information on this topic I recommend Ron Rhodes' book Northern Storm Rising.
Note that some prophecy scholars subscribe to a Psalm 83 scenario occurring prior to Gog-Magog. Bill Salus and Thomas Ice debate the issue HERE.
In general, I've avoided commenting about prophetic details. Not only am I not an expert but it's fraught with all sorts of possible pitfalls. Even so, the big picture seems to be forming - at least to my mind. It has taken a long series of unusual circumstances to get where we are now: Putin, Obama, ISIS, Erdogan, the Syrian and Iraqi collapse, the Turkish coup attempt etc. But here we are.
One wonders what's next, lurking around the corner. What about China and North Korea? Is Pyongyang just indulging in the usual saber rattling, like Putin allegedly was? Is the U.S. Administration concerned? It should be.
We live in a world filled with tenuous conditions fertile for another Word War. Conflict can escalate quickly. The epicenter of the world's current tribulations is the Middle East. And Israel just happens to be in the center of it all. Hatred of Israel and anti-Semitism is rising. This appears analogous to scenarios portrayed in the Bible (Zech 13-14 etc).
Could these events be precursors to the End of this Age? We need to be paying close attention.
Those of us who have placed our trust in the Lord must renew our relationship with Him on a daily basis. Our hearts should be cast upon on heaven, even while serving God and witnessing here. That last thought always stings my conscience.
Our lives are like vapors. If you haven't placed your faith in Jesus Christ yet, now is the time to do it. Your eternity depends on your choice in the here and now (John 3:16-18; I Cor 15:3-4).
Time may well be running out.
Iranian military official: We have 100,000 missiles in Lebanon ready to hit Israel - Ariel Ben Solomon - http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Iranian-military-official-We-have-100000-missiles-in-Lebanon-ready-to-hit-Israel-459350
According to Hossein Salami, deputy commander of the IRGC, "the opportunity to destroy Israel is now better than ever."
President Hassan Rouhani said the last year's nuclear deal "was the cheapest way to achieve Iran's goals and interests."
Speaking in Tehran on Saturday at an iftar meal breaking the Ramadan fast, Rouhani said the pre-Iran nuclear-deal era is past and Iran now needs to take advantage of the new atmosphere to pursue its "national interests more than before," Iran's Islamic Republic News Agency reported.
The country's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Saturday called for student associations to establish a "unified anti-US and anti-Zionist front" among the Muslim world's students, Tasnim News Agency reported.
"By using advanced means of communication and in cyberspace, general campaigns can be formed by Muslim students based on the opposition to the policies of the US and the Zionist regime of Israel so that when needed, millions of young Muslim students create a big movement in the Islamic world," he said.
Khamenei also warned against plots by enemies seeking to sabotage the country.
Separately, on Saturday, Fars News Agency reported a senior official of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards as having said Israel's Iran Dome anti-rocket system has vulnerabilities that were revealed in recent wars.
On a similar note, the deputy commander of the Revolutionary Guards, Brig.-Gen.
Hossein Salami, said on Friday "more than 100,000 missiles are ready to fly from Lebanon," according to Tasnim.
"Today, the grounds for the annihilation and collapse of the Zionist regime are [present] more than ever," he declared, saying there are "tens of thousands of destructive long-range missiles" from Islamic territories aiming at all of "occupied" Israel.
"If the Zionists make a wrong move, all the occupied territories will come under attack from dedicated fighters and, God willing, the territories will be liberated," Salami warned.
On Friday, Rouhani accused Western powers of trying to exploit differences between the world's Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims to divert attention from the Israel-Palestinian conflict, state television reported.
"We stand with the dispossessed Palestinian nation," he said.
Why Iran isn't rattled by Turkey-Russia turnabout - Zakiyeh Yazdanshenas - http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/08/turkey-russia-rapprochement-impact-iran-regional-policies.html?utm_campaign=applenews&utm_medium=applenews&utm_source=apple
The politics of the Middle East are undergoing rapid changes, as demonstrated by recent developments in Turkey's domestic and foreign policies. These shifts will undoubtedly impact the regional and foreign policies of Turkey's neighbors, in particular those of Iran. For Tehran, the two primary factors are Turkey's decision to redefine its ties with Israel and Russia and the diminishing of Ankara's power as a key player in the Middle East and a rival of Iran.
These days, Iran sees itself as Russia's strategic partner in the Middle East. Of importance, the two countries are supporting the same side in the Syrian war. "Neither West nor East" remains part of the Islamic Republic's lexicon, but Russia has always enjoyed a better position in the country relative to the United States and other Western powers. In this vein, increased military cooperation between Moscow and Tehran is evidence of how important this partnership is for Iran. This month, the Islamic Republic for the first time allowed Russia to conduct military air operations from one of its air bases, perhaps a show of Tehran's wish to maintain its pivotal position in Moscow's regional policies.
As some have recently argued, Iran's allowing Russia to use its Hamedan air base can be considered a message to its opponents in Syria, such as Turkey, who are attempting to court Russia. Indeed, Iran wants to signal that while Russia might talk to different players about Syria, such as Turkey and the United States, at the end of the day, it is Iran that Russia views as trustworthy. This bottom line has been lost amid the storm of criticism from Iranian lawmakers and negative public opinion about the sorties from Hamedan that led Tehran to announce Aug. 22 that Russian military operations from Iranian soil had been halted.
Although Iran and Russia have supported Syrian President Bashar al-Assad since the war in Syria erupted, their red lines in the country do not fully overlap. Ali Akbar Velayati, who serves as foreign policy adviser to the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had previously stated that keeping Assad in power is Iran's red line in Syria. In contrast, Russia's red line is maintaining the regime but not necessarily Assad. As such, the Turkey-Russia rapprochement, in the context of Ankara distancing itself from the West, may cause concerns in Iran about the possibility of a Turkish-Russian deal on Assad's fate.
Nasser Hadian, a professor of international relations at Tehran University, told Al-Monitor that the impact of the July 15 coup attempt on Turkey's future has three basic dimensions. "Generally, the coup has weakened the Turkish position in the region and the world, but it has strengthened President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's power within the Turkish political system, while also limiting the role of the army," he said.
With Turkey's internal turmoil weakening its position in the region, Hadian said, Ankara's power to act in the Middle East will be limited. This in turn could provide Iran, as a key regional player, with more opportunities as Turkey focuses on internal challenges for the foreseeable future.
Nonetheless, given the interconnected nature of security in the region, Hadian believes that Iran is in fact concerned about the security situation in Turkey. Indeed, Iranian officials' prompt condemnation of the coup attempt as it unfolded and backing of Turkey's democratically elected government could be seen within this framework.
As for any potentially negative implications stemming from the new twist in Turkish-Russian relations and the possibility of Turkey surpassing Iran as Moscow's regional ally, Hadian said, "I believe that [the situation] is not a zero-sum game, and [Iran] should not be concerned about this issue." He thinks that the impact of the rapprochement between Ankara and Moscow on Iran's regional policy will notably be seen in developments in Syria.
"It is likely that Turkey will close its borders [with Syria] to stop equipping Assad's opponents, and it may probably agree with a transitional period [as part of a peace deal], with Assad remaining in power during that period," he said. "The realization of this scenario is consistent with Iran's regional objectives."
Iran has consistently backed the Syrian government and fought Assad's opponents throughout the 5-year-long civil war. Unlike Western countries and Turkey, Iran and Russia see no difference between the Islamic State (IS) and the "moderate" opposition to Assad. As such, if Russia can persuade Turkey to effectively seal off its southern border and stop arming Assad's opponents, both Moscow and Tehran will move closer to their common objectives in Syria.
There are several reasons for Turkey's possibly being receptive to Russian influence. Although the coup attempt has caused instability in Turkey, the country was already suffering from instability related to the Syria war and the situation in Kurdish areas in the southeast. This has put Turkey in a weaker position vis-a-vis Russia. Furthermore, the United States and Russia are reportedly coordinating their efforts in the fight against IS in Syria. Given these developments on the ground, Russia has a good opportunity to persuade Turkey to decrease its support to Assad's opponents. In return, Russia is likely to pay more attention to Turkey's security concerns, and in this regard, likely reduce its support for Kurdish forces in Syria. Finally, unlike complex security issues that have proven difficult to resolve, common economic and commercial interests favor both Russia and Turkey expediently improving their ties.
While Turkey is unlikely to do a complete U-turn of its Syria policy, cooperation between Tehran and Ankara will likely improve, while the relative strengthening of Iran's position in the region in the aftermath of the coup attempt is likely to continue regardless of the improvement in Turkish-Russian relations.
'The Hal Lindsey Report' - Hal Lindsey - www.hallindsey.com
Russia is on the move again. Ukraine is the target again.
Recently, the Russian military moved as many as 40,000 troops, along with tanks, armored vehicles, and air force units, to staging areas along Russia's border with Ukraine.
Russia is also conducting massive military exercises nearby and in Belarus, north of Ukraine.
Some media organizations are noting that these are the same preparations Russia made before invading and annexing Ukraine's southern peninsula of Crimea in 2014.
Some are speculating that Russia is preparing to invade Ukraine and seize the eastern regions that are home to many Russian-speaking Ukrainians. Others think that Russia is flexing its muscles in response to NATO's and the European Union's efforts to draw Ukraine into the western sphere.
Even more ominous is the response of the United States. Several media outlets are reporting that President Obama recently ordered the removal of the large nuclear arsenal housed at Incirlik Air Base in Turkey.
Now, in view of the unrest and instability in Turkey, that is a wise decision. However, instead of moving the arsenal to a stable NATO ally like France or Great Britain, Obama has apparently decided to move the nukes to Romania -- the nation that borders Ukraine to the east and south.
Whether or not he means to, the President just sent a provocative message to Vladimir Putin. And he is furious!
Poor Ukraine. A furious Russia -- who has already invaded and seized prized territory -- on its eastern border, and NATO and the United States and its nuclear arsenal on its western border.
Further, NATO's Supreme Allied Commander recently said that "Russian doctrine states that tactical nuclear weapons may be used in a conventional response scenario."
So Russia believes it can use nuclear weapons when fighting a conventional war; it has become more aggressive with its challenges to western air forces and naval forces; it has increased its submarine patrols off the U.S. coast; and it is in the midst of a huge buildup of nuclear warhead-capable missiles.
One prominent Russian military observer and analyst is convinced that "Russia is getting ready for a big war which they assume will go nuclear, with them launching the first attacks."
Welcome to the end-times!
You snicker when I say that, but consider this. Ezekiel 38 describes one of the pivotal moments in the end-times scenario. The scripture says that Magog and Persia will lead a confederation of nations in a massive invasion of Israel.
Magog and Persia are modern-day Russia and Iran.
Once antagonists, Russia and Iran are now thick-as-thieves. In fact, Iran did something it has not done since it has been the Islamic Republic of Iran. It allowed a foreign military to base assets on an Iranian military base.
Until just weeks ago, Russia had strike bombers based at Hamedan air base, just west of Tehran. They were flying bombing sorties through Iraqi airspace into Syria in support of Bashar al-Assad's government.
Unprecedented. But precisely as predicted for these days by the Bible thousands of years ago! .........
Hamas Is ISIS's Deadly New Best Friend - M.G. Oprea - http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/23/hamas-is-isiss-deadly-new-best-friend/
Despite the Obama administration's fervent desire not to be embroiled in sectarian or regional conflicts in the Middle East, inaction and indecision are making things worse.
Hamas has a new ally in the Middle East. The ISIS affiliate in the Sinai Peninsula, known as ISIS Sinai Province or simply Sinai Province, is helping Hamas smuggle arms and other supplies into the Gaza Strip from Egypt. This new relationship is one of the many unforeseen consequences of the Arab Spring and the growing instability in the Middle East, bringing a fresh threat to America's Egyptian and Israeli allies. It's also more evidence of Iran's ambition to become a regional hegemon.
Hamas and Sinai Province are coordinating in a number of ways. Hamas is purchasing arms from the ISIS affiliate and giving the group military training (specifically on the use of antitank missiles). Hamas has also provided medical care for ISIS fighters in Gaza. Sinai Province occupies the territory where entrances to the smuggling tunnels to Gaza are located, thus making the ISIS affiliate a necessary strategic ally for Hamas. The two groups have also coordinated on attacks in the north of the Sinai Peninsula near the border with Israel, according to Egyptian officials. Hamas, of course, denies any such relationship.
There's more to this story than just the convenience of right time, right place. Hamas and ISIS have found their way to one another in the wake of the Arab Spring and a rearranging of allies and allegiances. To understand how we've gotten here, we need to sift through the chain reaction sparked by the instability that followed the Arab Spring.
The Arab Spring Rearranged Hamas' Allies
Prior to the Arab Spring, Hamas looked to Syria as one of its key allies, locating its external headquarters there and receiving aid in the form of funding and weapons. Iran, a Syrian ally, was also a major funder of the Sunni group. But when the Syrian uprising began in 2011, Hamas had to decide whether to side with the regime or the Sunni rebels who allied with Hamas' own close allies, the Muslim Brotherhood. Ultimately, Hamas sided with the rebels, declaring its support for the Syrian people and removing its external headquarters to Qatar in 2012. This, in turn, damaged Hamas' relationship with Iran, which was aiding Syrian President Bashar al Assad, and led to a falling-out between the two.
Meanwhile in Egypt, longtime authoritarian ruler Hosni Mubarak was ousted in a coup in 2011 following 18 days of protests. Mubarak had had a good working relationship with Hamas' rival Palestinian political group Fatah, but was at odds with Hamas. Once Mubarak fell and the Muslim Brotherhood was elected in 2012, Hamas leaders hoped they would now have friends in high places. Hamas, after all, has its roots in the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood. Mohamed Morsi's positioning as president could only benefit them, especially when it came to the blockades on their tunnels to Egypt. Or so they thought.
Although the Morsi government was certainly friendly to Hamas and made many overtures of support for them, it did little to materially help the group during its short time in power. In just more than a year, Morsi was ousted by a military coup and replaced by Fatah al-Sisi, who not only doubled down on the Mubarak-era repression of the Muslim Brotherhood, but has since aggressively worked to destroy Gaza's smuggling tunnels into the Sinai Peninsula. This has left Hamas hard up for supplies and hurt Gaza's fragile economy.
How ISIS in the Sinai Peninsula Grew Out of the Arab Spring
Another outcome of the Arab Spring was of course the rise of ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and its affiliated arm in the Sinai Peninsula. The Salafi jihadist group Ansar Beit al-Maqdis, based in the Sinai Peninsula, formed in 2011 in the wake of Mubarak's fall and the subsequent release of extremists from prison. It pledged allegiance to ISIS in November 2014 and is now commonly known as Sinai Province.
Sinai Province has now grown to about 1,000 members, with many coming from Bedouin tribes and former al-Qaeda members. However, they've also seen Egyptian recruits who were crestfallen when the military coup ousted Morsi. Having lost their faith that the political process could lead to Islamist rule, they radicalized and joined the jihadist group.
The ISIS affiliate in Sinai has been prolific in its attacks on Egyptian police, military, and civilians. They've fired rockets into southern Israel and attacked an Egyptian naval vessel. But perhaps most notably, they claimed responsibility for bringing down an Egyptian airliner in 2015, killing 224 people. Meanwhile, Al-Sisi's government has been aggressively fighting the group since the military coup in 2013.
Mubarak's fall, the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the coup that brought a hardline anti-Islamist to power all worked in concert with the instability in Iraq and civil war in Syria to create a perfect storm, putting Hamas and ISIS-Sinai Province in a position to help one another. In addition, the fall of Libya has allowed for more sophisticated weapons to flow into the region.
Hamas and ISIS Both Want to Destroy Israel
Officials say this is a relationship of convenience, pointing out that the two groups have little in common politically or ideologically. But this isn't entirely true. One important thing they share is that both Hamas and Sinai Province see Israel as their enemy and will look for opportunities to attack it. Hamas' position toward Israel is well known-their charter includes a call for destroying the Jewish state. But Sinai Province has its eyes on Israel as well.
According to the Jerusalem Post, the group is planning a big attack on southern Israel. A senior Salafist official in the Gaza Strip said Sinai Province is going to be a "pioneer" in confronting Israel, and that an attack is just a matter of time. The Israeli Defense Force confirmed they are expecting such an attack any day.
Although Sinai Province fighters had targeted Israel before pledging allegiance to ISIS, the directive to attack is now coming from ISIS headquarters as well. In recent weeks, ISIS has begun a propaganda push calling for recruits to come to the Sinai Peninsula and join the ISIS affiliate there with the promise of one day "liberating" Jerusalem and destroying Israel. They have put considerable resources into the coordinated release of 14 different videos meant to encourage people from Egypt and Sinai Peninsula to join the self-proclaimed caliphate's branch in the region. This indicates the extent to which ISIS views this affiliate as strategically important.
The alliance between ISIS and Hamas is a dangerous combination of forces, to be sure. ISIS-Sinai Province will no doubt take advantage of Hamas' years of experience attacking Israel, as well as their own experience before the fall of Morsi (when the Muslim Brotherhood was pushed out of power, the group switched its focus to the Egyptian state). But now that they have ISIS' backing, more recruits coming in, and Hamas' help, they will be better positioned once again to launch attacks into southern Israel. They will likewise surely utilize Hamas' drone technology. Hamas has already used drones to surveil Egyptian security forces in the northern Sinai Peninsula to secure its smuggling pipeline via ISIS, as well as on the Israeli-Egyptian border.
Hamas' cooperation with Sinai Province is also a way for Iran to support ISIS in the region. The Islamic Republic recommenced support for Hamas in 2015 and has since given millions of dollars to the group. Despite the sectarian differences between Shiite Iran and Sunni Hamas and ISIS, Iran is willing to help them both because of their joint interests in destroying Israel and destabilizing the Egyptian state. It is also another way for Iran to gain hegemony in the region and fight a proxy war against the United States.
This is just one example of the unforeseen effects of instability in the region, and it shows how domino effects can quickly pick up speed there. The consequences that military coups, revolutions, and civil wars bring, which quickly stretch out across borders and sectarian divides, are real. Despite the Obama administration's fervent desire not to be embroiled in sectarian or regional conflicts in the Middle East, inaction and indecision are making things worse. Whoever is our next president, we should all hope that he or she understands this and is prepared to take action.
Israeli warplanes said to hit Hezbollah targets in Syria - http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-warplanes-said-to-hit-hezbollah-targets-in-syria/
Arab media reports airstrikes target military posts of Shiite terror group along near Lebanese border; Hezbollah denies, Israel mum
Syrian opposition figures said Israeli warplanes struck targets belonging to the Shiite terror group Hezbollah in the Qalamoun Mountains along the Syria-Lebanon border, on Wednesday, according to Hebrew news sites citing Arab media.
The reports gave few details, saying only that the targets had been hit from the sky three times.
The Israel Defense Forces said Wednesday night it "will not comment" on the reports of a strike in Syria.
A Twitter account linked to Hezbollah denied that there had been any attack on its headquarters in Qalamoun.
The Qalamoun range is considered a key stronghold for Hezbollah, linking Damascus to eastern Lebanon, and is suspected to be used as a supply route for arms transfers between the regime and Hezbollah, which is fighting alongside President Bashar Assad's forces.
Earlier this month, Lebanese media reported Israel struck a weapons convoy of four trucks belonging to Hezbollah near Maarba, north of Damascus.
No one was killed in the August 4 air strike, according to the Mulhak news website.
An IDF spokesperson at the time declined to comment on the report.
Since the start of the Syrian civil war five years ago, a number of airstrikes in Syria have been attributed to Israel.
Hezbollah has thousands of fighters in Syria, providing military might to help Assad's regime put down the insurgency.
In May, Hezbollah said its top commander in Syria, Mustafa Badreddine, was killed in a suspected Israeli airstrike.
In April, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed that Israel had carried out dozens of strikes against Hezbollah to prevent the group from obtaining advanced weapons - a rare Israeli admission of involvement in air attacks in Syria.
Israel has vowed to prevent Hezbollah from obtaining "game-changing" arms - in particular, advanced anti-aircraft systems of chemical weapons.
Hamas Threatens to Abduct IDF Soldiers: "Our Wrath Will Unleash a Volcano" - http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/74399/hamas-threatens-abduct-israeli-soldiers/#cv1fJtx1ku6e11Gq.97
"Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce, and their wrath, for it was cruel." Genesis 49:7 (The Israel Bible�)
Hamas on Sunday threatened to abduct Israeli soldiers, showcasing two "prison cells" built especially for future Israeli captives.
The Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas' military wing, held a rally in Rafah, a city in the southern Gaza Strip, on Sunday, honoring three senior operatives, Muhammad Abu Shamalah, Raed al-Attar and Muhammad Barhoum, killed during Operation Protective Edge waged in the summer of 2014.
Hundreds of armed Hamas terrorists participated in the rally, where weapons and rockets were put on display, as were the jail cells. Both "cells" included Hebrew writing indicating they were intended "for enemy prisoners."
"The siege will not prevent our brigades from developing their abilities," Hamas military wing spokesman Abu Obeida remarked, referring to a blockade imposed on the Gaza Strip by Israel. "It [the siege] will not help the current calm continue. Whoever awakens our wrath will unleash a volcano."
The brigades and the resistance, he said, are prepared to protect the Palestinian people.
Abu Obeida criticized Israel's treatment of Palestinian prisoners and promised Hamas-held Israeli prisoners will be treated in the same manner. "We will continue our struggle until we are victorious," he declared.
He reiterated the brigade's solidarity with "soldiers of the resistance," families of terrorists, Jerusalem, and Al-Aqsa mosque.