Assad gillade inte att få delar av sitt luftförsvar utslaget av Israel och varnar för farliga konsekvenser

Source: After IAF strikes anti-aircraft battery, Syria warns of ‘dangerous consequences’ | The Times of Israel

Syrian military claims it fired at Israeli jets that penetrated its airspace, but IDF maintains they were over Lebanon

The Syrian military on Monday threatened Israel with “dangerous consequences” for the airstrikes it has carried out in the country, after Israeli Air Force jets bombed an anti-aircraft battery near Damascus earlier in the day.

On Monday morning, the Syrian air defense battery fired an interceptor missile at Israeli reconnaissance planes. In response, a second IAF sortie, reportedly made up of F-16 fighter jets, attacked the SA-5 missile defense system that launched the interceptor, some 50 kilometers (31 miles) east of the Syrian capital.

In a statement published in official state media, the Syrian military warned Israel of “dangerous consequences for its repeated attempts of aggression.”

The Syrian military claimed the IAF aircraft entered its airspace, prompting the anti-aircraft attack. But IDF spokesperson Lt. Col. Jonathan Conricus said, both initially and in response to the Syrian assertion, that the reconnaissance planes “were in the skies over Lebanon, and not in Syria.”

According to the Syrians, the planes were flying near the Lebanese city of Baalbek, which is located near the Syrian border, approximately 50 kilometers (31 miles) north of Damascus.

The IDF would not confirm where the reconnaissance aircraft were flying when they were targeted.

Conricus said the reconnaissance planes were not struck by the interceptor missile, but the Syrian military claimed one Israeli plane was “directly hit” and “forced to flee.”

An SA-5 interceptor missile on display at the Ukrainian Air Force Museum. (George Chernilevsky/Wikimedia/CC BY-SA 3.0)

In response to the anti-aircraft missile, the IAF sent out a second sortie, which targeted the anti-aircraft system and “incapacitated” the offending SA-5 battery, the IDF said.

The SA-5, also known as the S-200, is a Russian-designed anti-aircraft system that has been in use since the late 1960s.

According to the Syrian statement, the anti-aircraft battery targeted the Israeli planes at 8:51 a.m., and the IAF retaliated approximately three hours later — which basically matched the timeline described by the Israeli military.

The Syrian military said the Israeli strike caused “material damage” to the battery, but did not report any casualties.

The exchange of fire was out of the ordinary for a number of reasons, notably that the Syrian military launched its interceptor missile not in response to an Israeli airstrike but to a more mundane reconnaissance mission, and that the IDF did not retaliate immediately but waited several hours before bombing the Syrian battery.

Analysts ascribed the former to Syrian dictator Bashar Assad’s battlefield successes, which may have prompted him to take a more aggressive approach toward Israel.

The delay in Israeli response, meanwhile, was seen as coming from the impending visit of Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, who is due to arrive in Israel on Monday afternoon.

The Russian military is allied with Assad and operates extensively in the war-torn country, and so an airstrike against Syrian forces hours before Shoigu lands in Tel Aviv would likely require a more serious consideration and approval process.

According to Conricus, the Russians were notified of the Israeli airstrike on the SA-5 battery “in real-time.”

The spokesperson said that when Shoigu arrives in Tel Aviv, “he will get a full briefing on the matter.”

Conricus acknowledged the sensitivity of the timing of the incident and the potential for it to cause tension during Shoigu’s visit, but said the military was “confident it won’t influence anything else.”

“This was obviously not a preplanned event,” he added.

In order to avoid unwanted clashes with the Russian troops in Syria, Jerusalem and Moscow have maintained a communication system over the past two years.

Israeli officials do not typically discuss the full extent of the coordination between the two militaries, but stress that the IDF does not seek Russian permission before carrying out airstrikes in Syria.

In general, Israel’s operation in Syria consist of bombing sites that are used to develop, store and transport advanced weaponry to the Iran-backed Hezbollah terrorist group. There have also been cases of the IAF responding when mortar shells and rockets “spillover” into Israel from the fighting in Syria.

Conricus said that while the army will continue to defend itself, it was not looking to “destablize” the situation with Syria.

“Preserving the relative stability is a common interest,” the lieutenant colonel said.

According to Conricus, this was the first time that Israeli aircraft were targeted by Syrian anti-aircraft missiles over Lebanese airspace since the start of the Syrian civil war. However, it was not the first time that IAF jets had been attacked by an SA-5 system.

In March, Assad’s military fired multiple interceptor missiles from an SA-5 system at Israeli jets flying over Jordan on their way back from a bombing run in Syria. The IAF jets were unharmed, but one Syrian missile seemed to be on a trajectory that took it toward an Israeli community and so it was shot down by the Arrow 2 air defense system, in the first reported use of the system.

However, in that case, Israel did not respond to the anti-aircraft attack on the IAF jets with a retaliatory airstrike on the SA-5 battery that launched it.

Annonser
Publicerat i Iran, Syrien, Israel, Islamister / Jihadister, USA, Hot mot DEMOKRATI, Ryssland, Islamska Staten | Lämna en kommentar

Nord Korea varnar sina grannar att kärnvapenkrig kan bryta ut när som helst

North Korea: ‘Nuclear war may break out any moment’
Published October 16, 2017
FoxNews.com
North Korea told other countries on Monday to avoid participating in military action with the U.S. to avoid retaliation and warned that
a “nuclear war may break any moment.”
The threat was issued at the United Nations where North Korean Deputy U.N. Ambassador Kim In Ryong prepared remarks for a
talk on nuclear weapons at a U.N. committee. He ended up not reading the threat out loud.
“As long as one does not take part in the U.S. military actions against the DPRK (North Korea), we have no intention to use or
threaten to use nuclear weapons against any other country,” read the North Korean ambassador’s prepared remarks, according to
Reuters.
“The entire U.S. mainland is within our firing range and if the U.S. dares to invade our sacred territory even an inch it will not escape
our severe punishment in any part of the globe,” the statement said.
The confrontation between the U.S. and North Korea has peaked following a number nuclear missile tests threatening U.S. allies in
the region and hostile exchanges between President Donald Trump and North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un.
Kim told a U.N. disarmament committee that his country is the only state threatened by “such an extreme and direct nuclear threat”
from the U.S. and accused the U.S. government of trying to stage a “secret operation aimed at the removal of our supreme
leadership.”
“Unless the hostile policy and the nuclear threat of the U.S. is thoroughly eradicated, we will never put our nuclear weapons and
ballistic rockets on the negotiation table under any circumstance,” the North Korean official told the committee.
The Associated Press contributed to this report

Publicerat i Iran, Islamister / Jihadister, USA, Hot mot DEMOKRATI, Korea / Nordorea, Islamska Staten | Lämna en kommentar

Rädda NATO från Turkiet!

Saving NATO from Turkey

Member states must break with Erdogan’s Islamic extremism

Illustration on NATO’ difficult situation with member nation Turkey by Greg Groesch/The Washington Times more >
– – Monday, October 16, 2017

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, known as NATO, faces an existential problem.

No, it’s not about getting member states to fulfill agreed-upon spending levels on defense. Or finding a role after the Soviet collapse. Or standing up to Russia’s Vladimir Putin. Rather, it’s about Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Islamist, dictatorial ruler of Turkey whose policies threaten to undermine this unique alliance of 29 states that has lasted nearly 70 years.

Created in 1949, NATO’s founding principles ambitiously set out the alliance goal “to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilization of [member states’] peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law.” In other words, the alliance exists to defend Western civilization.

For its first 42 years, until the USSR collapsed in 1991, this meant containing and defeating the Warsaw Pact. Today, it means containing and defeating Russia and Islamism. Of these latter two, Islamism is the deeper and longer-lasting threat, being based not on a single leader’s personality but on a highly potent ideology, one that effectively succeeded fascism and communism as the great radical utopian challenge to the West.

Some major figures in NATO appreciated this shift soon after the Soviet collapse. Already in 1995, Secretary-General Willy Claes noted with prescience that “Fundamentalism is at least as dangerous as communism was.” With the Cold War over, he said, “Islamic militancy has emerged as perhaps the single gravest threat to the NATO alliance and to Western security.”

In 2004, Jose Maria Aznar, Spain’s former prime minister, warned that “Islamist terrorism is a new shared threat of a global nature that places the very existence of NATO’s members at risk.” He advocated that NATO focus on combating “Islamic jihadism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction” and called for “placing the war against Islamic jihadism at the center of the allied strategy.”

But, instead of a robust NATO on the Claes-Aznar model leading the battle against Islamism, it was internally hobbled by Mr. Erdogan’s opposition. Rather than assert the fight against Islamism, the other 28 members dismayingly deferred to the Islamist within their ranks.

The 28 stay mum about the near-civil war the Turkish regime wages in southeastern Anatolia against its own Kurdish citizens. The emergence of a private army (called SADAT) under Mr. Erdogan’s exclusive control seems not to bother them.

Likewise, they appear oblivious to Ankara’s unpredictably limiting access to the NATO base at Incirlik, the obstructed relations with friendly states such as Austria, Cyprus and Israel, and the vicious anti-Americanism symbolized by the mayor of Ankara hoping for more storm damage to be inflicted on the United States.

Maltreatment of NATO-member state nationals hardly bothers the NATO worthies: Not the arrest of 12 Germans (such as Deniz Yucel and Peter Steudtner) nor the attempted assassination of Turks in Germany (such as Yuksel Koc), not the seizure of Americans in Turkey as hostages (such as Andrew Brunson and Serkan Golge), nor repeated physical violence against Americans in the United States (such as at the Brookings Institute and at Sheridan Circle).

NATO seems unfazed that Ankara helps Iran’s nuclear program, develops an Iranian oil field, and transfers Iranian arms to Hezbollah. Mr. Erdogan’s talk of joining the Moscow-Beijing dominated Shanghai Cooperation Organization ruffles few feathers, as do joint exercises with the Russian and Chinese militaries. A Turkish purchase of a Russian missile defense system, the S-400, appears to be more an irritant than a deal-breaker. A mutual U.S.-Turkish ban on visas fazed no one.

NATO faces a choice. It can, hoping that Mr. Erdogan is no more than a colicky episode and Turkey will return to the West, continue with the present policy. Or it can deem NATO’s utility too important to sacrifice to this speculative possibility, and take assertive steps to freeze the Republic of Turkey out of NATO activities until it again behaves like an ally. Those steps might include:

• Removing nuclear weapons from Incirlik.

• Closing NATO’s operations at Incirlik.

• Canceling arms sales, such as the F-35 aircraft.

• Exclude Turkish participation from weapons development.

• Refuse to share intelligence.

• Refuse to train Turkish soldiers or sailors.

• Reject Turkish personnel for NATO positions.

A unified stance against Mr. Erdogan’s hostile dictatorship permits the grand NATO alliance to rediscover its noble purpose “to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilization” of its peoples. By confronting Islamism, NATOwill again take up the mantle it has of late let down, nothing less than defending Western civilization.

• Daniel Pipes is president of the Middle East Forum.

Publicerat i EU Europa, Hot mot DEMOKRATI, Iran, Islamister / Jihadister, Islamska Staten, Turkiet, USA | Lämna en kommentar

Iran är som Hitler med atomvapen

“The best way to understand Iran,” said Israeli lawmaker Avi Dichter, is to imagine Hitler with a nuclear bomb during World War II.

“Iran is a regional superpower. They see themselves not as North Korea, but as the [2,500 year old] historic Persian kingdom. That is their model, that’s what they want to become in our region,” said former Shin Bet head and current Head of the Defense and Foreign Affairs Committee,  Member of Knesset (MK) Avi Dichter on Monday.

Speaking at the 2017 International Christian Media Summit in Jerusalem, Dichter laid out for the audience what he views as Israel’s biggest security challenges with a general briefing about the unique challenges facing Israel in its war on terror, but devoted the bulk of his lecture to speaking about Iran and its nuclear capabilities.

“Over the last 15-20 years, every single development in the Iranian nuclear project was revealed by the western intelligence services, and not once did Iran put on the table that their plan was to have nuclear bombs”, Dichter said, addressing the fact that Iran has never willingly shared information about its nuclear plans, and that there is no reason to expect them to do so moving forward.

Dichter spoke of two corridors in the Middle East which comprise Iran’s regional strategy – the northern corridor – which consists of Iraq, Lebanon and Syria – all three of which suffer from heavy Iranian involvement in each country’s in-fighting with the help of proxies such as Hezbollah, and the southern corridor – consisting of Oman and Yemen, where Iranian proxies are constantly battling Saudi backed forces for influence.

Iran’s Dangerous Proxies

Dichter also pointed at Hamas in Gaza as an Iranian proxy, despite the former being Sunni and the latter Shiite.

“If Iran succeeds [in obtaining nuclear warheads], it will not only be an Israeli problem –  other countries in the Middle East understand that Iran is developing long range missiles, that can carry nuclear warheads for a distance of up to 2500 KM. Everyone knows that is twice their distance from Israel… Egypt understands they are targets, and Saudi Arabia understands they are targets, and they want to block Iran by all means.”

Dichter hypothesized that should Iran obtain nuclear weapons, or other “dirty” bombs, that they would give them to one of their proxies such as Hezbollah or even Hamas, and that way avoid responsibility and blame for any potential outcome.

“In Israel, we assess threats by two factors – intent and capability. Their intentions are very clear – they say publicly that they aspire to wipe Israel out, once they get the capabilities. That’s a [serious] threat.”

“Israel may be a regional superpower, but it is not a global superpower,’ he continued. “Iran should be taken on as a project by the global superpowers, with America leading.”

To drive his point home, Dichter told the crowd to imagine Hitler with a nuclear bomb during World War II – “That’s the best way to understand Iran,” he declared.

By: Yona Schnitzer/TPS

Publicerat i Iran, Israel, Islamister / Jihadister, Hot mot DEMOKRATI, Islamska Staten | Lämna en kommentar

Slaget om Kurdernas oljefält i KIRKUK har börjat

 

Iraq-Kurd Fighting Starts to Impede Oil Output at Kirkuk Fields

 
  • Kurds stop pumping crude at two Kirkuk deposits: NOC official
  • Iraq government troops advance on Kurds in disputed Kirkuk

Crude output in Iraq’s oil-rich Kirkuk province tumbled when two fields halted production as government troops clashed with Kurdish forces on the first day of an Iraqi offensive to regain control in the disputed area.

The Kurdish KAR Group stopped pumping crude at the Avana and Bai Hassan deposits after technicians failed to report for work and some security guards left amid the fighting, an official at the central government-run North Oil Co. said on Monday. While the KAR Group operates the fields, NOC staff work with the Kurds at both sites, said the official, asking not to be identified as they’re not authorized to speak to the media. Phone calls to the KAR Group went unanswered.

The halt could affect 275,000 barrels a day in output, according to estimates compiled by Bloomberg. Kirkuk’s oil fields, together with deposits in Iraq’s semi-autonomous Kurdish region, were exporting about 600,000 barrels a day through a Kurd-controlled pipeline to Turkey, a different person familiar with the matter said earlier Monday. Oil was still flowing through the export pipeline, the KRG’s Ministry of Natural Resources said later on Twitter.

“The most likely scenario is that some exports will continue, with repeated low-intensity disruptions to the pipeline,” said Jaafar Altaie, managing director of Abu Dhabi-based consultant Manaar Group.

Kirkuk, home to Iraq’s oldest-producing oil fields, has emerged as a tinderbox in the power struggle between the central government in Baghdad and the Kurdistan Regional Government. Tensions in the northern province flared into open conflict between the central government and the KRG following a Kurdish referendum on independence from Iraq on Sept. 25. The KRG included Kirkuk in the vote, despite competing claims to the area.

Iraqi forces said they had seized the headquarters of Kirkuk’s provincial administration, as the government in Baghdad dramatically escalated its efforts to prevent a Kurdish state in the country’s north. The offensive helped push oil to a two-week high. Brent crude gained as much as 2.3 percent and was 57 cents higher in London at $56.74 a barrel at 5:26 p.m. local time.

Second in OPEC

Iraq, the second-largest producer in OPEC, pumps most of its 4.47 million barrels a day from fields in the south and ships it from the Persian Gulf port of Basra. But with Iraq supplying about 14 percent of total production from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, a deepening conflict in the north could roil crude markets.

Of the 275,000 barrels a day in production at disputed Kurdish-run fields in Kirkuk, the Bai Hassan field has been pumping 195,000 barrels a day while the Avana Dome — the central part of the giant Kirkuk field — has been producing 80,000.

The Baghdad-controlled North Oil Co. operates the Baba Dome — the southern part of the Kirkuk field — along with the nearby Jambur and Khabbaz fields, for a combined output of around 90,000 barrels a day, according to a map published in February by Western Zagros, a company operating in Iraq’s Kurdish region.

Baghdad piggybacks its exports from Kirkuk with Kurdish shipments through the KRG-run pipeline to Turkey, which runs to the Mediterranean port of Ceyhan.

The latest hostilities flared after the central government and the KRG combined forces to expel Islamic State militants from most of northern Iraq earlier this year. Kurdish fighters occupied much of Kirkuk province in June 2014, after Iraqi troops fled ahead of militants advancing at the time into the area. Baghdad refuses to recognize Kurdish control of Kirkuk.

Play Video

Oil Risks Short-Term Spike on Iraq, Says Sfakianakis

John Sfakianakis of the Gulf Research Center Foundation and a Bloomberg View columnist talks about the impact on oil.

Source: Bloomberg

— With assistance by Julian Lee, and Elaine He

Publicerat i Irak, Islamister / Jihadister, Hot mot DEMOKRATI, Kurdistan | Lämna en kommentar

USA inför hårda sanktioner mot Irans Revolutionära Garde

US Slaps Crippling Sanctions on Iran, Clarion ProjectMeira Svirsky, October 15, 2017

Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (Photo: © ATTA KENARE/AFP/Getty Images)

The new designation “freezes the IRGC out of the U.S. financial system” by making doing business with the IRGC (and essentially the entire Iranian military) forbidden.

Also included in the new designation are sanctions against three Iranian companies as well as a Chinese company that does business with the IRGC.

The new sanctions are expected to hit the Iranian economy hard and make other countries reluctant to do business with the IRGC as well, since foreign countries that do business with the IRGC also would be liable to stiff U.S. penalties.

The IRGC owns and controls much of the Iranian economy, from oil production to businesses and manufacturing.

**********************************

Acting on the direction of the Trump Administration, the U.S. Treasury slapped a new terror designation on Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) which will result in crippling new sanctions against the terror arm of the Iranian government.

“I am authorizing the Treasury Department to further sanction the entire Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps for its support for terrorism, and to apply sanctions to its officials, agents and affiliates,” U.S. President Trump said. “I urge our allies to join us in taking strong actions to curb Iran’s continued dangerous and destabilizing behavior.”

Watch U.S. President Trump’s speech outlining his new Iran strategy

A previous designation enacted in 2007 had only sanctioned the IRGC’s Qods Force, the special forces unit of the Revolutionary Guards responsible for their extraterritorial operations. As noted by the Treasuring Department, the Qods Force provides support to a number of terrorist groups, including Hezbollah, Hamas and the Taliban; the IRGC, in turn, provides material support to Qods Force by providing training, personnel and military equipment for it.

The new designation “freezes the IRGC out of the U.S. financial system” by making doing business with the IRGC (and essentially the entire Iranian military) forbidden.

Also included in the new designation are sanctions against three Iranian companies as well as a Chinese company that does business with the IRGC.

The new sanctions are expected to hit the Iranian economy hard and make other countries reluctant to do business with the IRGC as well, since foreign countries that do business with the IRGC also would be liable to stiff U.S. penalties.

The IRGC owns and controls much of the Iranian economy, from oil production to businesses and manufacturing.

Although the designation — which is based on Executive Order 13224 instituted by the Bush Administration – falls short of designating the IRGC as a foreign terrorist organization. Yet, analysts say the effect in practical terms will be the same.

“I think of it as a distinction without a difference in terms of what the impact will be and how the Iranians are going to read it,” said Suzanne Maloney, deputy director of the foreign policy program at the Brookings Institution and a former State Department adviser on Iran, speaking to Vox.

At a press conference, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson explained the strategy. “There are particular risks and complexities to designating an entire army [as a foreign terrorist organization], so to speak, of a country where that then puts in place certain requirements where we run into one another in the battlefield that then triggers certain actions that we think are not appropriate and not necessarily in the best interest of our military,” he said.

In imposing the new sanctions, Secretary of the Treasury Steve Mnuchin stated, “The IRGC has played a central role to Iran becoming the world’s foremost state sponsor of terror.  Iran’s pursuit of power comes at the cost of regional stability, and Treasury will continue using its authorities to disrupt the IRGC’s destructive activities.

“We are designating the IRGC for providing support to the IRGC-QF (Qods Force), the key Iranian entity enabling Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s relentless campaign of brutal violence against his own people, as well as the lethal activities of Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist groups. We urge the private sector to recognize that the IRGC permeates much of the Iranian economy, and those who transact with IRGC-controlled companies do so at great risk.”

Publicerat i Iran, Islamister / Jihadister, USA, Hot mot DEMOKRATI, EU Europa, Islamska Staten | Lämna en kommentar

Haley: Trump’s goal is to not let Iran become the ‘next North Korea’

Publicerat i Hot mot DEMOKRATI, Iran, Islamister / Jihadister, Islamska Staten, Israel, USA | Lämna en kommentar