Russian Nuclear Submarines Approach Aleppo

EXCLUSIVE: Russian submarines spotted off BRITISH COAST in latest Putin offensive
RUSSIA is sending three powerful submarines capable of bombing the besieged Syrian city of Aleppo.

PUBLISHED: 00:01, Sun, Oct 30, 2016 | UPDATED: 21:21, Sun, Oct 30, 2016
Russian submarine and Syrian city, Aleppo
Russian submarines have been spotted on their way to join action against rebels in Aleppo
While the world condemns the flotilla of Russian surface battleships on its way to the east Mediterranean, it is the submarines that will unleash deadly metal rain on Syria’s last rebel stronghold, experts warn.
The news comes as tensions between London and Moscow escalate following Britain’s decision to deploy tanks, fighter aircraft and up to 800 troops to Baltic war games.
A Royal Navy nuclear submarine was last night tracking two of the boats in the Irish Sea.
They are expected to join the task force, headed by Russia’s only aircraft carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov, on Monday.
In December last year its Military Maritime Fleet successfully trialled the first firing of cruise missiles from a submarine, when the Kilo-class ‘Rostov-on-Don’ launched four Kalibr missiles, with a 4,000 km range, on ISIS targets.
It is not ISIS, however, that is expected to be the target of this newest deployment, but rather Aleppo, where 270,000 civilians remain trapped with no hope of escape.
Sources revealed that two Akula-class attack submarines, armed with the same Kalibr land attack cruise missile system, were “pinged” by a Royal Navy Trafalgar-class submarine as they sailed through the Irish Sea.
The boats, made famous by the blockbuster “Hunt for Red October” starring Sean Connery, are usually based at Severmorsk, near Murmansk.
They sail as part of the Northern Fleet, formerly known as the “Red Banner” fleet after an honour it was bestowed during the height of the Cold War in 1965.
Syrian city, Aleppo
Submarines are passing through the Irish Sea to reach the Syrian city of Aleppo
A third, a Kilo-class submarine from the same fleet, crept through the English Channel after being spotted by a Norwegian P3 Maritime Patrol aircraft while it surfaced.
While slower than their nuclear-powered counterparts , Russia’s Kilo class submarines are said to be the quietest diesel-electric submarines in the world, and are primarily designed for anti-submarine warfare.

US Has Created the Terror of the Endtimes

Babylon The GreatUS is institutionalizing the terror it promised to end in the Middle East

MELIH ALTINOK  @melihaltinok
The U.S., which set foot in the Middle East following the atrocious terrorist attack of Sept. 11, 2001, is still present in the region. The ground for this mandatory visit is still the same. Ending terrorism at its roots and protecting the U.S. from afar.It is highly questionable if the source of terrorism is the “natural” political condition of the region or the oppressive and exploitative policies of countries such as the U.S.
For the sake of our purpose, let us assume for a moment that the justifications of Washington are true. Let us focus solely on what is happening in the field and examine whom the U.S. acted with in the last few years to introduce “stability and democracy” to Syria and Iraq.
The Democratic Union Party (PYD) is one of Washington’s allies in Syria. As is already known, this group is the Syrian offshoot of the outlawed PKK, which is listed as a terrorist group by Turkey, the EU and the U.S. This relation is official. So the PKK and the PYD do not even need to conceal the fact that they are strategically and administratively the same organization.
Nevertheless, while legitimate groups, such as the moderate Free Syria Army (FSA) are present in Syria, the U.S. government chose to ally with PYD militants. Moreover, they did this explicitly before the eyes of Turkey, which has been an ally of the U.S. for a half century and lost innumerable citizens to PKK terror.
Sadr’s supporters, who gathered in Baghdad yesterday in turbans and cloaks, did not even mention the U.S. at the protests they made.
So, is it possible for the U.S. to end terrorism by acting with terrorist groups and radical components of religious conflicts in the region?
Of course not.
No matter how insistently the U.S. denies this scenario, it is commonly accepted by the people of the Middle East. The U.S. clearly reveals its true intentions by acting with questionable formations instead of acting with NATO member Turkey, which is determinedly fighting against the PKK, the PYD and Daesh.
What I really wonder is when will U.S. citizens and intellectuals start to react against the spending of taxes to support terrorist organizations and radical religious groups located thousands of kilometers away.

US Bringing World to the Brink of Nuclear War

By: Cindy Sheehan
What’s happening in Syria has been going on for over five years and it’s not a civil war. The conflict began as a U.S.-funded effort to depose President Bashar Assad and install a puppet government in Damascus friendly to U.S. interests. I am sure there are some legitimate forces in Syria who oppose the government of Assad, but the U.S. does not care about democracy—afterall Assad was elected by his people.
Also in Syria, approximately one dozen militias are not only trying to overthrow the Assad government but they are also fighting amongst themselves . The ranking Democrat on the U.S. Congressional House Intelligence Committee, uber-Zionist Adam Schiff of California, said of the phenomena of CIA-funded militias fighting in places like Aleppo, “It’s part of the three-dimensional chess game.” This chess game, played by empires for millennia, profit the wealthy and as always, the people pay the heavy price.
Today we learned that China is contemplating joining Russia and Syria in their alliance to protect the sovereignty of Syria and for stabilization in the Middle East.
The U.S. has long invaded and provoked weaker countries like Afghanistan and Iraq which have little hope of retaliating but nonetheless use what resources they have to fight off U.S. imperialism. However, provoking Russia in places like Syria and Ukraine seems to be the height of arrogance and stupidity on the part of the U.S.
For many years, Russian President Vladimir Putin has been the rational actor in this insane U.S. provocation, but Russia is getting ready to fight back—reportedly holding civil defense drills, warning Russians abroad, and even testing nuclear missiles.
US Foreign Policy: Killing People to Save Them
Some of us see no hope for the mis-leaders here in the U.S. to provide some sanity in its foreign policy. In the last U.S. presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the war criminal Clinton reaffirmed her hardcore stance to go to war with Russia, through Syria, if necessary. Clinton also declared her support for a “no fly zone” over Syria, which the chair of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph Dunford said would require 70,000 U.S. troops to maintain and would definitely mean war with Russia.
Even though Russia has been invited into Syria by the government—as rational people who are filled with apprehension over the reality of this danger—we should be calling on all world leaders to pause in their rush to war.
But the only thing that can really stop imperialist carnage is an international working-class force, refusing to be used as cannon-fodder for capitalism, and instead fighting for socialism.
Our very survival as a species depends on international solidarity.

Iran continues to build the Shia horn (Daniel 8:8)

Asharq Al Awsat
Beirut- An independent Shi’ite politician said that Iran has received in the past few months parliamentary and party delegations and officials from Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces for the sake of “restoring the national coalition.”
The politician told Asharq al-Awsat that “Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei received some prominent leaders such as Ammar al-Hakim, head of the National Coalition and head of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, and some leaders of armed forces that have built tight relations with Iran including Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba (HHN).”
“HHN has members in Syria and this is triggering criticism especially after some of the fighters were taken captive while the families of those killed were not being appreciated,” said the politician. He continued, “These fighters claim that they are going to Syria to defend Sayeda Zeinab shrine but this excuse is no more applicable after it has been proven that many of them are fighting in Aleppo.”
The Shi’ite politician stated, “Some meetings were held with Mohammad Ali Jafari, Iranian commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), General Qasem Soleimani, commander of Iran’s Quds force, or with Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani … Ammar al-Hakim started to hint on formation of a trio bloc from Sunnis, Shi’ites and Kurds.”
According to the politician, “In light of this trio bloc, Shi’ites who represent the majority of Iraq’s population (more than 50%) and the majority in the parliament (184 deputies) will have one third of shares which is equal to that of the Sunnis and Kurds. This actually indicates the death of the Shi’ite leadership in Iraq.”
The politician sees that the issue is complicated; it’s not only a matter of conflict among Shi’ite leaders which Iran is trying to control along with its attempts to prevent the debriefing of Iraqi Foreign Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari.
Asharq Al-Awsat
Asharq Al-Awsat is the world’s premier pan-Arab daily newspaper, printed simultaneously each day on four continents in 14 cities. Launched in London in 1978, Asharq Al-Awsat has established itself as the decisive publication on pan-Arab and international affairs, offering its readers in-depth analysis and exclusive editorials, as well as the most comprehensive coverage of the entire Arab world.

US Plans Nuclear Offensive Against Russia And Korea

A B-52H Stratofortress taxis down the runway during Prairie Vigilance 16-1 at Minot Air Force Base, N.D., on September 16. As one leg of U.S. Strategic Command’s nuclear triad, Air Force Global Strike Command’s B-52s at Minot AFB, play an integral role in nation’s strategic deterrence. Photo by Airman 1st Class J.T. Armstrong/U.S. Air Force
According to Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, who was meeting with airmen at Minot Air Force Base, N.D., on Monday, the plan would deter against Russia’s “nuclear saber-rattling and building of new nuclear weapons systems,” in addition to North Korea’s nuclear provocations, The Los Angeles Times reported.
“In today’s security environment – one that’s dramatically different from the last generation, and certainly the generation before that – we face a nuclear landscape that continues to pose challenges, and that continues to evolve…in some ways less predictably than during the Cold War,” Carter said.
The defense secretary also said that the Pentagon is “beginning the process of correcting decades of underinvestment in nuclear deterrence,” referring to problems that have beset the country’s nuclear force.
Minot in particular was singled out as a “special case” for attention after widespread drug abuse and test cheating led to the firing of dozens of launch officers.
Minot retains B-52 bombers and nuclear-tipped Minuteman III missiles.
During his visit, Carter said the purpose of nuclear preparedness was to stand ready to deter the enemy who intends to use nuclear weapons against the United States and its allies, South Korean news agency Yonhap reported.
North Korea has become increasingly belligerent in the past few months, conducting two nuclear tests in 2016 and dozens of missile test launches.
The provocations have increased concerns internationally, but North Korea’s Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho defended the tests and also said Pyongyang has no plans to be compliant with United Nations Security Council sanctions resolutions, Japanese news network NHK reported on Tuesday.
Ri allegedly said he “does not even care” after the U.N. Security Council requested North Korea, as well as the United States, to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which was formed 20 years ago.

The Shia Horns of Prophecy (Daniel 8:3)

Militant Clergy—the Future of Shia Islam?

Published on July 28th, 2016 | by Guest
by Saeid Golkar

Mohammad Aqamiri might be the first-ever Shia cleric from Iran who martyred himself in Syria after the Syrian uprising. While studying and teaching at Qom Seminary in 2013, Aqamiri enlisted in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and died defending the holy shrine in Syria.

He is not alone. Some 400 Iranians have been killed so far in Syria fighting for Bashar al-Assad and against the Islamic State (ISIS or IS). Iran has identified 18 of these as Shia clergymen. These clerics have a dual identity, claiming the status of religious leaders yet at the same time participating in and even leading a violent, religious struggle. Their militarization is a new development that threatens to further radicalize Shia Islam.

Shia Islam was once a religion of quietism. Historically, Shia clergy disagreed with coupling politics and religion. However, in 1970 Shia Islam started to become more involved in politics under the influence of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who overthrew the Pahlavi dynasty. After the Iranian revolution and the establishment of the Islamic Republic in 1979, clergy also became involved in the state’s bureaucratic affairs and some began to join military and security apparatuses.

In 1988, Iran’s supreme leader died, and Ali Khamenei became the new supreme leader. He was middle-ranked clergy and did not enjoy too much legitimacy among the higher-ranking clerical establishment. To compensate for this lack of legitimacy, he tried to control the seminary school system (howzeh). Shia seminary schools were traditionally independent from the state, but Khamenei tried to bureaucratize the schools and bring them under state control. He expanded the presence of clergy in the military and security establishment, mainly drawing from the younger generation of clergy. This younger generation in the seminaries is the social base of Ayatollah Khamenei, who controls the clergy and the military at the same time.

After reformists took power in 1997, Ayatollah Khamenei relied more on this group to block reform and consolidate his power and authority when challenged. Since hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took power in 2005, the power of this clergy militia has expanded, particularly among the political elite. These clergy militants are notable for their loyalty to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, and their numbers have skyrocketed since 1988. About 4,000 serve with Iran’s armed forces; no fewer than 2,000 work for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. These officers have studied at Iranian seminaries. They are known to wear clerical clothes on duty but work in security and the military. They work mainly for the armed forces’ ideological political bureaus and counter-intelligence branches to indoctrinate and oversee military personnel. Their position of influence and power can, in essence, be compared to a Communist political commissar.

Not only are these new militant clergy joining the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, another 140,000 of the 400,000 clergy and seminary students in Iran are members of the Basij, a branch of the state militia. Although a majority is lower ranked, some have advanced military and security training. The clerical Basij is mainly responsible for controlling seminary schools, but many have also become involved in military combat units set up to help the Islamic Republic suppress social or political riots and defend the regime in a possible civil war.

Since the beginning of the uprising against Assad, some of these new clerical militia have been deployed to Syria and Iraq and have joined in fighting the Salafi groups, or Sunni radicals. The phenomenon has even spread outside Iran, ensnaring some international students studying at Iranian seminaries to become clergy, particularly in the Qom and Mashad seminaries. These seminary students comprise the core of Shia militia groups in the Middle East. The examples are numerous:
Several members of the Fatemiyoun Brigade, an Afghan Shia militia allied with Assad, are Afghan seminary graduates of Al-Mustafa International University in Qom. As a clergy militia, this group has a connection with the masses and can recruit Afghan immigrants in Iran to be deployed to Syria to fight with the Assad regime. These include Ali Reza Tavassoli, also known as Abu Hamed, the late former commander of the Fatemiyoun Brigade, and his deputy, the late Reza Bakhshi, also known as Faateh. Mohammad Rezai, another Afghan member of Fatemiyoun, later killed in Syria, studied at a branch of Al-Mustafa University in Mashhad.

The Zeynabiyoun Brigade has recruited Pakistani Shia seminary students who are studying in Iran. Some have been killed inSyria and buried in Qom. At least three of seven Pakistanis killed in Syria and buried in Qom in April 2015 were students from the Al-Mustafa International University. Most of these students were native to Pakistan’s Parachinar region, a Shia area in Pakistan known for the close ties between its seminaries and Iranian seminaries and an increasing source of both male and female seminary students in Iran.

In Iraq, the Heydarian Brigade, made up of Iraqi Shia militias, includes several militant clergy members. Such clergy also belongs to other militia groups, such as the Popular Mobilization Forces, formed under Hash’d al-Sha’bi, a militia umbrella organization. Muqtada al-Sadr, leader of Saraya al-Salam and the former head of the Mahdi Army, who currently lives in Qom, is a former student of a Qom seminary school. And Qais al-Khazali, an Iraqi who is predominantly known for his departure from the Mahdi Army to form Asaib Ahl al-Haq, studied in Qom as well.

In brief, while traditional Shia clergy have stayed out of government, the militant Shia clergy have become a tool for the Islamic Republic to implement its domestic and regional policies. Due to their military and religious authority, these clerical militia are becoming more powerful and influential in seminaries than their traditional and non-political counterparts, who are more supportive of the traditional separation of Islam and politics. By undermining traditional clergy, this new wave of militant Shia clergy has the power to radicalize future followers of Shia Islam, snowballing the growth of militarized Shia clerics and perhaps even triggering a counter-militarization of Sunni clerics in response.

Saeid Golkar is a lecturer for the Middle East and North African Studies Program at Northwestern University, a visiting senior fellow for Iran policy at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, and a consulting senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

There Are 15,000 And It Only Takes One


There Are 15,000 Nuclear Weapons Still Posing an Intolerable Threat to Humanity

By Mayor Frank Cownie

We members of Mayors for Peace, an international organization of cities dedicated to eliminating nuclear weapons, are keenly aware that these devices were designed to wipe cities off the map. As the mayor of Des Moines, I can expect that my city is an unlikely target, but the same cannot be said for many of my counterparts. Cities around the world are utterly unprepared to respond to a catastrophe of that scale. Prevention is the only cure. Yet the presidential candidates have said little about how they would address the existential threat posed by nuclear weapons.

Motivated by growing concern about rising international tensions and a disquieting presidential campaign, the United States Conference of Mayors (USCM), at its recent annual meeting in Indianapolis, unanimously adopted a strong resolution put forward by members of Mayors for Peace, warning that “the nuclear-armed countries are edging ever closer to direct military confrontation in conflict zones around the world,” and calling on the next president of the United States “to pursue new diplomatic initiatives to lower tensions with Russia and China and to dramatically reduce U.S. and Russian nuclear stockpiles.”

The USCM is the nonpartisan association of American cities with populations over 30,000, and resolutions adopted at its annual meetings become official policy. The USCM has annually adopted resolutions introduced by Mayors for Peace since 2006. This resolution was cosponsored by 22 of my counterparts, including New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and Washington, DC, Mayor Muriel Bowser. (See below for full list of sponsors.)

Cautioning that “more than 15,000 nuclear weapons, most orders of magnitude more powerful than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, 94% held by the United States and Russia, continue to pose an intolerable threat to cities and humanity,” and that “the largest NATO war games in decades, involving 14,000 U.S. troops, and activation of U.S. missile defenses in Eastern Europe are fueling growing tensions between nuclear-armed giants,” the USCM resolution “calls on the next President of the United States, in good faith, to participate in or initiate…multilateral negotiations for the elimination of nuclear weapons as required by the 1970 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.”

The resolution commends President Obama for visiting Hiroshima and concluding negotiations with Iran, but notes that “the Obama Administration has laid the groundwork for the United States to spend one trillion dollars over the next three decades to maintain and modernize its nuclear bombs and warheads, production facilities, delivery systems, and command and control,” and that “federal funds are desperately needed in our communities to build affordable housing, create jobs with livable wages, improve public transit, and develop sustainable energy sources.”

The USCM resolution “calls on the next President and Congress of the United States to reduce nuclear weapons spending to the minimum necessary to assure the safety and security of the existing weapons as they await disablement and dismantlement, and to redirect those funds to address the urgent needs of cities and rebuild our nation’s crumbling infrastructure.”

The USCM resolution also commends Mayor Denise Simmons and the City Council of Cambridge, Massachusetts, “for demonstrating bold leadership at the municipal level by unanimously deciding on April 2, 2016, to divest their one-billion-dollar city pension fund from all companies involved in production of nuclear weapons systems and in entities investing in such companies.”

Mayors for Peace, founded in 1982 and led by the Mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, aims through its 2020 Vision Campaign to achieve the global elimination of nuclear weapons by 2020. Mayors for Peace membership is growing rapidly; as of June 1, the organization includes 7,063 cities in 161 countries and regions including 207 US members, representing in total some one billion people—one-seventh of the world’s population.

Addressing the USCM International Affairs Committee on June 25, Yasuyoshi Komizo, Secretary-General of Mayors for Peace, explained:

One common challenge we face is that many countries continue to maintain that their national security depends on nuclear deterrence. Yet nuclear deterrence is based on mutual distrust and attempts to maintain peace through the threat of indiscriminate mass killings. Such a system cannot be sustainable. We must also note that nuclear weapons cannot offer any effective solutions to the global security challenges of the 21st century. They also consume budgetary and technological resources needed for economic development, including the welfare of the world’s cities.
Mayors are primarily responsible for public safety. When it comes to nuclear weapons, the next president should listen to America’s mayors and let us help set sensible priorities with the aspiration that our collaboration puts the hopes, dreams and possibilities of future generations ahead of war. Let peace be the stage for our future!

The USCM resolution was sponsored by: T. M. Franklin Cownie, mayor of Des Moines, Iowa; Nan Whaley, mayor of Dayton, Ohio; Joy Cooper, mayor of Hallandale Beach, Florida; John Dickert, mayor of Racine, Wisconsin; Roy Buol, mayor of Dubuque, Iowa; Mark Stodola, mayor of Little Rock, Arkansas; Marcus Muhammad, mayor of Benton Harbor, Michigan; Alex Morse, mayor of Holyoke, Massachusetts; Kitty Piercy, mayor of Eugene, Oregon; Chris Koos, mayor of Normal, Illinois; Laurel Lunt Prussing, mayor of Urbana, Illinois; Salvatore J. Panto, Jr., mayor of Easton, Pennsylvania; Geraldine Muoio, mayor of West Palm Beach, Florida; Frank Ortis, mayor of Pembroke Pines, Florida; Ardell F. Brede, mayor of Rochester, Minnesota; Muriel Bowser, mayor of the District of Columbia; Christopher L. Cabaldon, mayor of West Sacramento, California; Miguel A. Pulido, mayor of Santa Ana, California; Charlie Hales, mayor of Portland, Oregon; Patrick L. Wojahn, mayor of College Park, Maryland; Paul Soglin, mayor of Madison, Wisconsin; Denny Doyle, mayor of Beaverton, Oregon; and Bill de Blasio, mayor of New York City, New York.

The Eminent Risk of Nuclear Confrontation (Daniel 7)

 
U.S. can’t ignore rising nuclear danger

Nickolas Roth is a research associate at the Project on Managing the Atom in the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard Kennedy School. Follow him on Twitter: @Nickolas_Roth. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his.

(CNN)Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are once again trading barbs over who has the right disposition to be president — including who is best suited to have a “finger on the button.”
It is, of course, not unusual for candidates to critique each other’s qualifications. But there is a good reason why assessing the candidates’ judgment and temperament is particularly important: The president of the United States has complete authority over more than 1,000 nuclear weapons ready to launch.

The reality is that miscalculation or miscommunication with another country could result in catastrophe. This is true at any time, but whoever is elected in November will assume office during a period when the risk of nuclear confrontation between the United States and Russia may be higher than it has been in decades.

Both NATO and Russia have significantly bolstered their military presence and activities in Eastern Europe, increasing the likelihood of a direct conflict between the two sides. Indeed, every military exercise and every near miss between a Russian jet and a U.S. warship is potentially a crisis in the making.

Nuclear codes: A president’s awesome power

The United States and Russia have a long history of negotiated arms control agreements designed to manage nuclear weapons risks. But they also continue to pose an existential threat to one another. Each country targets the other with hundreds of nuclear weapons that can be fired minutes after the order is made and, during a crisis, both sides have strong incentives to be the first to launch a nuclear strike.

Further compounding the danger is the fact that Russia lacks effective early-warning systems to help identify whether a nuclear attack is actually occurring. If this sounds like a Stanley Kubrick fantasy, it isn’t. In 1995, Russian radars indicated a Norwegian weather rocket might be a nuclear missile heading for Russia, and staff prepared Russian President Boris Yeltsin’s nuclear command briefcase for possible retaliation (which fortunately did not occur)

If this had happened during a major crisis, there is no telling what could have happened. The probability of a substantial false alarm coming in the midst of a major crisis may be low, but the potential consequences are the destruction of most of human civilization, so action to reduce even low probabilities is justified.

Given such risks, the next president will need to find a balance between assertively protecting U.S. interests against Russian encroachments and exercising restraint so as to avoid potentially nuclear crises and itchy Russian trigger fingers. Getting the balance wrong could mean stumbling into unintended nuclear confrontation. This is a dauntingly difficult task, and will require new thinking.
Further compounding the danger is the fact that Russia lacks effective early-warning systems to help identify whether a nuclear attack is actually occurring. If this sounds like a Stanley Kubrick fantasy, it isn’t. In 1995, Russian radars indicated a Norwegian weather rocket might be a nuclear missile heading for Russia, and staff prepared Russian President Boris Yeltsin’s nuclear command briefcase for possible retaliation (which fortunately did not occur).

If this had happened during a major crisis, there is no telling what could have happened. The probability of a substantial false alarm coming in the midst of a major crisis may be low, but the potential consequences are the destruction of most of human civilization, so action to reduce even low probabilities is justified.

Given such risks, the next president will need to find a balance between assertively protecting U.S. interests against Russian encroachments and exercising restraint so as to avoid potentially nuclear crises and itchy Russian trigger fingers. Getting the balance wrong could mean stumbling into unintended nuclear confrontation. This is a dauntingly difficult task, and will require new thinking.
For the past 20 years, despite the end of the Cold War, the United States has maintained high-risk nuclear weapons policies in part because U.S.-Russian relations were relatively good and a nuclear crisis seemed implausible. This dynamic has now changed — there is significantly less margin of error for provocative nuclear policies today than at any time since the end of the Cold War.
With that in mind, policies that emphasize predictability, transparency and restraint are now needed to reduce the risk that a miscalculation or accident will lead to the use of nuclear weapons.

In practice, that means the United States and Russia should continue to observe and strengthen existing arms control agreements. But further steps are needed, as well. U.S and Russian nuclear weapons should be removed from “hair trigger” alert status, which currently allows both countries to launch a nuclear attack on short notice.

The decision to kill potentially millions in a nuclear strike requires careful thought, as much information as possible, and more than a few short minutes. This step should be taken in tandem with reciprocal pledges that neither side will be the first to use nuclear weapons against the other.
Don’t blink over North Korea

In addition, the United States and Russia should begin serious discussions of how each can defend itself from tiny missile forces from countries like Iran and North Korea without giving the other a motive to build up its own offensive forces to maintain its deterrent, or creating new incentives for striking first in a crisis.

In 2002, the United States withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty arguing it was no longer needed, in part, because the Cold War was over. It is now time to find a way to restore the stability that the treaty provided.
 
In the coming months, U.S. presidential candidates must articulate a comprehensive plan for nuclear risk reduction. Not only should this include ideas for decreasing the likelihood of nuclear conflict between the United States and Russia, but the candidates must also demonstrate that they have the judgment and thoughtfulness that will make disputes with Russia less dangerous when they inevitably arise.

Americans and Russians made it through the Cold War because of rational leadership, restraint, policies that increased predictability and transparency and a lot of luck. The next president will need to rely on all of these in order to avert a nuclear disaster with Russia. Sober judgment will be essential. That’s a fact that voters should keep in mind in November.

The Catalyst For Nuclear War (Revelation 15)

Vladimir-Putin-Set-To-Win-World-War-3-Says-Pravda-Russias-Nuclear-Weapons-In-Ukraine-Denied-As-Russophobia 
Syrian Crisis May End in Nuclear War

June 29, 2016 Written By: Sajjad Shaukat

If remained unresolved, Syrian crisis may end in nuclear war between Russia and the US.
Since September 30, 2015, the Russian-led coalition of Iran, Iraq, the Syrian army-the National Defense Forces (NDF) and Lebanon-based Hezbollah have broken the backbone of the US-CIA-Mossad assisted ISIS terrorists, Al-Qaeda’s Al-Nusra Front and the rebels who have been fighting to oust the Syrian President Assad’s regime and against the current Iraqi regime as part of America’s double game to secure the Israeli illegitimate interests in the Middle East.
Russian-led combatants have destroyed the strongholds, supply lines and installations of the US-led entities. These demoralized militants have fled most of the areas in Syria and Iraq, which have been recaptured by the NDF and Iraqi military. After strengthening the Assad regime, Moscow withdrew most of the Russian forces from Syria.
It is worth-mentioning that terror attacks in Paris and Brussels including shooting at the Orlando Pulse night club were attributed to the ISIS, based in Syria, as this outfit also claimed responsibility for these terror assaults. However, before these acts of terrorism, security and intelligence agencies of Europe and America were issuing warnings which were manipulated especially by the Israeli Mossad and as part of America’s double game.
After the terror attacks in Paris and Brussels, European leaders and their media created anti-Muslim phenomenon—exaggeration of Islamophobia, coupled with other developments such as expulsion of Muslims, particularly Syrian refugees from Europe, anti-Islam movement etc. Besides, in order to revive the global war on terror, the neo-conservatives, Zionists and Israel also needed the backing of the whole Europe against the Russian-led coalition.
It is notable that in the meantime, in March, this year, Syrian fighters with the support of popular volunteer combatants liberated more towns from the ISIS militants’ control like the Thayyem Oil Field, especially the ancient city of Palmyra, and may recapture the group’s self-proclaimed caliphate-capital in Raqqa.
In accordance with the US dual strategy, Syrian rebel groups on April 12, 2016 launched a major offensive the ISIS positions in Syria’s Aleppo province. So as to show to the international community and Western public that the US is fighting against the ISIS terrorists, America has accelerated air strikes on the ISIS-controlled regions.
As per CIA directions, in Aleppo city, shell and mortar attacks by the Al-Nusra Front, ISIS and the rebel groups have continued on the Kurdish neighborhood of Sheikh Maqsoud. ISIS has also continued firing rockets across the border into the Turkish town of Kilis. In the pretext, the Turkish military is retaliating with shell fire.
It shows that the US and Israel have created a very complicated situation in Syria and in the vulnerable countries of the Middle East including Turkey by making a vicious circle of terrorism; so that American-Israeli covert aims in Syria could be justified, which could also get the favour of the Western countries which are already biased against Assad’s government.
It is mentionable that the US-led West, especially Europe has already started a new Cold War with Russia. The US has decided to station permanently additional troops in Eastern Europe as part of NATO move to defend the continent against the presumed threat of Moscow. In response, Moscow also responded that it would send 30,000 Russian troops along its western and southern borders.
Although Cold War has revived between the US-led West and Russia, yet some recent developments have further disheartened the Zionist-Israeli-led America.
At the same time, Kerry changed American previous stance to keep Assad in power and warned Syria’s government on May 3, 2016 that they face an “August 1 deadline for starting a political transition to move President Assad out, or they risk the consequences of a new US approach toward ending the 5-year-old civil war.”
The US and Israel think that before Syrian forces-backed by Russia occupy more territories, especially Aleppo which is strategically important and is industrial capital of Syria, rebel groups and ISIS should be given a free hand to continue fighting.
In case, Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump becomes the US president, he will continue anti-Muslim policies to complete the unfinished agenda of Israel, as he has been directly or indirectly favouring Israeli policies, particularly against the Palestinians.
Trump manipulated the terror attacks in Paris and Brussels including shooting at the night club of Orlando to get the sympathies of a majority of the ordinary Americans and those of Europe, who do not have much time to go into depth-analysis and have been misguided by his emotional speeches, statements and false hopes.
After the shooting at the gay night club in Florida, He also criticized the US President Obama to resign, slamming him for having “disgracefully refused to even say the words “Radical Islam.” Calling on Clinton to get out of the general election race for the same reason, Trump said, “Because our leaders are weak, I said this was going to happen…we cannot afford.”
Trump again remarked that he would decrease immigration from the Middle East because “since 9/11, hundreds of migrants and their children have been implicated in terrorism in the United States.” He, once again, asked for the ban of any Muslims, entering the US. On June 19, 2016, during his interview with the CBC News, he called for racial “profiling of Muslims inside the United States to combat terrorism.”
In fact, the more Donald Trump speaks against the Muslims and the more he exaggerates Islamophobia, the more popularity he will get among the people who have been impressed by his stereotypes.
Trump promised to restore American prestige and to make America great again. Donald Trump seems to further strengthen the alliance between the US and the West, particularly Europe against Russia.
Meanwhile, on June 24, 2016, Britain has voted to leave the EU, compelling the British Prime Minister David Cameron to resign. UK itself could now break apart, with the leader of Scotland, where nearly two-thirds of voters wanted to stay in the EU, saying a new referendum on independence from the rest of Britain was highly likely.
President Barack Obama who was insisting upon London to keep aligned with the EU is trying to limit the fallout from Britain’s separation from the EU, which “threatens to harm the U.S. economic recovery and distract U.S. allies from global security issues”, as he said on June 24. 2016. On the same day, Donald Trump stated, British voters just shattered political convention in a stunning repudiation of the ruling establishment in a referendum…in November, the American people will have the chance to re-declare their independence.
Americans will have a chance to vote for trade, immigration and foreign policies that put our citizens first…people want to see borders. They don’t necessarily want people pouring into their country that they don’t know who they are and where they come from.”
Analysts have pointed out the political and economic implications of Britain’s separation from the EU, saying that some more countries could leave the EU, as there are also differences among the member states on the question of immigrant-laws and refugees.
But, political experts did no talk about expulsion of the Muslims, Syrian refugees, ISIS, European home-grown terrorists, as in the recent past, these analysts were metioning amounting threat by these entities.
However, now UK will fortify its political and economic relations with America to compete with the EU. If, EU member countries leave supporting American war in Syria, Britain will continue assisting Washington in this respect. Similarly, in case, the EU countries which are struggling to maintain the European Union reduce their support to America against Russia. Anglo-American military alliance could be made by superseding NATO, as noted during the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
That US-British coalition would accelerate Syrian war to thwart the Russian efforts for the political solution of the Syrian crisis, as both these countries want to overthrow President Assad’s government to obtain the goals of Tel Aviv. Nevertheless, this drastic situation may culminate into nuclear war between Russia and the US-British alliance.
It is noteworthy that after the World War II, nuclear weapons were never used, and were only employed as a strategic threat. During the heightened days of the Cold War, many crises arose in Suez Canal, Korea, Cuba and Vietnam when the US and the former Soviet Union were willing to use atomic weapons, but they stopped because of the fear of nuclear war which could result into political suicide of both the super powers. Therefore, the two rivals preferred to resolve their differences through diplomacy.
Political strategists agree that principle of deterrence also known as ‘balance of terror’ is a psychological concept which aims to affect an opponent’s perceptions. In nuclear deterrence, weapons are less usable, as their threat is enough in deterring an enemy who intends to use its armed might.
A renowned scholar, Hotzendorf remarks that nuclear force best serves the interests of a state when it deters an attack.
Notably, on July 31, 2006, the US declassified documents revealed, “During the past year, the Bush White House was seriously considering a nuclear option against Iranian nuclear sites understandably…these scenarios are not without historical precedent.
From time to time during the Cold War and after, American officials tried to find ways of making nuclear weapons usable, not only for deterrence against Soviet attack but as tactical weapons in local conflicts…recently declassified documents reveal that during Richard M. Nixon’s first year as president, advisers on his White House staff were willing to revisit the question of whether to employ nuclear weapons in Vietnam.”
A complete study of the declassified documents show that President Nixon’s national security adviser Henry Kissinger who believes in power or use of force including nuclear threat for bringing the adversary to favourable bargaining, had advised Nixon to use atomic weapons or its threat to compel North Vietnam and its Soviet allies to conclude peace on America’s terms.
In this context, Huntington’s book, “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order” which points out “the clash of civilizations” as the “battle lines of the future…the next world war” also mentions (In one way or the other) that any fault-line war could involve the major powers.
Nonetheless, the theory of balance of terror cannot be applied Syria in wake of skirmishes. Besides, non state actors like the ISIS could also exploit the situation with could result into atomic war. Most probably, Israel which is determined to avoid even two-state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian issue could avail the vicious circle of terrorism by taking advantage of the complicated situation of Syria through Mossad or ISIS.
Especially, America’s anti-Muslim and pro-Israeli Donald Trump’s success in the forthcoming presidential election is now predictable. If, he becomes American president, his lack of pragmatism—emotional, rational and rigid policies could cause atomic war, especially between Russia and the US, because he will continue American intervention in Syria and other Islamic countries like Libya.
It is also of particular attention that military and strategic experts have also been warning about a war between the US and Russia in wake of eastward expansion of the NATO In this regard, the Pravda disclosed on June 28, 2016, “The NATO has increased its presence in Eastern Europe 13 times for the latest years.
In order to stop Russia’s revival, the US unwinds military conflicts plots at every possible way…Colonel General Leonid Ivashov, President of the International Centre of Geopolitical Analysis explained in an interview to KP [Komsomolskaya Pravda]…if data on Russia-NATO power balance at the Western direction is analyzed, as well as military activity build-up rate at our borders, scale of combat equipment deployment, one can say that preparation to a real war is taking place…the Americans do everything possible today to clash Europe and Turkey with Russia and ignite a big military conflict. The problem from the US point of view is that Russia becomes not only a self-sustained state, but a global geopolitical player.”
Returning to our earlier discussion, the unsettled Syrian crisis may end in nuclear war between Russia and the US.

Power Shifts Back to The Shia Horn (Daniel 8:8)

Political, military balance shifting in favor of Assad, Syrians: Iran
 

Sun Jun 12, 2016 1:51PM
Ali Akbar Velayati, a senior adviser to Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, speaks to reporters in Tehran on June 12, 2016. © IRNA
Ali Akbar Velayati, a senior adviser to Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, speaks to reporters in Tehran on June 12, 2016. © IRNA
The political situation in Syria is changing in favor of the Arab country’s government and nation, says a senior adviser to Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei.

“The political and military balance in Syria is shifting in favor of the country’s government, people and its allies,” Ali Akbar Velayati, who advises Ayatollah Khamenei on international affairs, told reporters on Sunday.

“We firmly believe that victory belongs to the Syrian government and nation,” he said.

Velayati emphasized that given the legitimacy of the Syrian government and the dire situation of the country’s people, “it is incumbent upon us to help them and this has been done.”

Iran, Russia and Syria all pursue a common objective and are united in the fight against terrorism, which poses a danger to the security of regional states, the senior Iranian official said, adding that the three countries have achieved positive results during recent years and months.

Velayati’s remarks came after Iran, Russia and Syria recently agreed to step up cooperation in their fight against Takfiri terrorist groups wreaking havoc in Syria and across the region.

Iran and Russia are Syria’s main allies against a multitude of foreign-backed armed groups, including Daesh terrorists, fighting to topple President Bashar al-Assad.

Moscow has sent warplanes and special forces in support of Syrian government troops, while Tehran has deployed military advisers in the fight against terrorists.

Syria has been gripped by foreign-backed militancy since March 2011. Damascus says Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar are the main supporters of the militants fighting the government forces.

On the battleground, Syrian troops established control over an oil pumping station and a power station in the northern city of al-Tabqa on Saturday as well as two oil fields in the western suburbs of Raqqah.

Syrian forces also shot down an unmanned aerial vehicle gathering information about army positions for Daesh over the Badiya desert in central Homs Province.

UN special envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura estimates that over 400,000 people have been killed in the Syrian crisis so far.