Amir’s commentary on how Turkey turned from an ally to an enemy of Israel


“a great nation, a great power”—the recent Fourth General Congress of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s AKP party proclaimed” this ambitious goal for 2023, the hundredth anniversary of the founding of the Turkish Republic. The Congress celebrated Erdogan’s leadership and reelected him as party chairman.

With his party’s backing, and through a prospective new constitution that will create a powerful “presidential system,” Erdogan expects to preside over the anniversary celebrations as president of a transformed Turkey that dominates the Middle East.

Would Turkey be a moderating influence on political Islam, in particular on the Muslim Brotherhood parties now dominant in much of the new Middle East? Will Erdogan make the country a unique Islamic liberal democracy that will reconcile the Muslim world to the West?But what would be the shape of Erdogan’s golden age?

Or is he presiding, as a growing number of observers fear, over an Islamist transformation of Turkey that would put it at odds with the West as it consolidates a “neo-Ottoman” regime? Those who worry about such an outcome find a portent in his remarks—well noted in Turkey but not elsewhere—at his party’s recent Congress. There, Erdogan urged the youth of Turkey to look not only to 2023, but to 2071 as well.

This is a date that is unlikely to be meaningful for Westerners, but is evocative for many Turks. 2071 will mark one thousand years since the Battle of Manzikert. There, the Seljuk Turks—a tribe originally from Central Asia—decisively defeated the leading Christian power of that era, the Byzantine Empire, and thereby stunned the medieval world. At the battle’s end, the Seljuk leader stepped on the Christian emperor’s throat to mark Christendom’s humiliation. The Seljuk victory began a string of events that allowed the Seljuk Turks to capture the lands of modern Turkey and create an empire that would stretch across much of Palestine, Iraq, Syria, and Iran.

In evoking Manzikert, Erdogan recalled for today’s Turks the glories of their aggressive warrior ancestors who had set out to conquer non-Muslim lands and, along the way, fought off the hated Shias of their day to dominate much of the Middle East. Manzikert is thus not an image of a peaceful and prosperous liberal state that sways others by its example of tolerance, virtue, and goodwill.

Rather it indicates that as part of his vision of Turkish power and glory, Erdogan seeks to reverse the broad legacy of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who founded modern Turkey in 1923. The recent AKP Congress aimed to celebrate Erdogan as a new and powerful kind of leader—now prime minister, later president—of Turkey, one ready to abandon Ataturk’s secular state structures and Western orientation. The warrior Ataturk warned against the allure of military victories; the politician Erdogan invokes them.

But for all Erdogan’s domestic problems, his grasp has most outstripped his reach in foreign affairs. Here, too, his agenda and failures seem to reflect a fundamentally Islamist vision, albeit one that he may be in the process of redefining.

Under Ataturk, Turkey insulated itself from troubled Middle Eastern politics and Islam’s anti-modern pull by associating with Europe and the West. Almost from the beginning of his rule, whatever the symbolism he offered the West, Erdogan has turned this legacy inside out, emphasizing Muslim solidarity and engagement with the Middle East as Turkey’s true destiny. Erdogan’s new direction was partially embodied in the AKP’s now famous, if often ridiculed, policy of “zero problems with neighbors.” Under this approach, Turkey would embrace not only the Sunni-led states of Turkey’s former imperial realm, but also the broader Islamic world. This included most notably Shiite-led Iran and Alawite-led Syria, the two neighbors most identified with ideological hostility to the West. Erdogan has met with mixed results in the Sunni realm, and disastrous rebuffs elsewhere.

Erdogan’s reorientation of Turkish foreign policy led to an early embrace of forces hostile to Israel. Previously, Turkey had maintained close relations with Israel and a distance from the Palestinian “movement.” As early as 2004, Erdogan had declared his sympathies with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, even though it was opposed by the more secular and nationalist Palestinian Authority, led by Western favorites Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad. In 2006, after Hamas won the Palestinian elections, Erdogan welcomed its senior leadership to Turkey in a celebratory fashion. With his shift came a steadily increasing rhetorical assault on Israel’s Palestinian policies. After the Gaza war of 2008–2009, Erdogan publicly insulted Israeli President Shimon Peres at the Davos Conference, calling him a “killer.” In 2010, he conspired to provoke the “flotilla” incident, which aimed to delegitimize Israel’s maritime embargo of Gaza. More recently, he called Israel a terrorist state and threatens to escalate this schism with Israel.

Erdogan’s hostility to Israel and sympathy with its terrorist enemies has not only proven popular in domestic politics, but is also broadly consistent with his eager embrace of Sunni Islamism and especially the Muslim Brotherhood, as became clear in the position he took on the “Arab Spring.” As authoritarian rulers fell in Tunisia and Egypt, Erdogan was quick to embrace as comrades the Muslim Brotherhood parties that moved into the power vacuum. Having first opposed a Western intervention in Libya, he soon claimed a leadership role in that conflict. In his so-called “victory tour” of the Arab Spring countries in mid-2011, Erdogan was received as a rock star.

But Erdogan’s ambitious vision of reaching out to and leading the Middle East even beyond its Sunni core soon ran into natural contradictions. Iran, in particular, as it sought nuclear weapons, domination of Turkey’s neighbor Iraq, and regional leadership, could be seen as a natural state rival of Turkey. Yet Erdogan, in accord with his ideas about his—and Turkey’s—grand status in the region, undertook at crucial moments to undermine Western initiatives to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program and opposed sanctions against the mullahs’ regime. As the Arab Spring reached into Syria, Erdogan initially positioned himself to defend Syrian Alawite dictator Bashar al-Assad. Erdogan prematurely announced Assad’s agreement to reform, only to be given the back of Assad’s hand as the Damascus regime turned increasingly violent and the Alawite-Shiite alliance hardened. As the conflict has deepened, Erdogan’s interests have been repeatedly thwarted and his proposals pushed aside, to his embarrassment and disadvantage. Erdogan tried to retake a leading role by hosting the Syrian National Council, a body claiming to represent the internal opposition against Assad, but also known to be dominated by the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. That body has now been displaced by a new coalition of Syrian opposition forces that has been internationally recognized. At the same time, Iran mocks Erdogan as a tool of the West and Israel, and Assad’s forces and Turkey’s exchange artillery fire.

Seen in the light of these regional problems, Erdogan’s evocation of the Battle of Manzikert during the AKP’s Fourth Party Congress this past fall takes on an additional coloration. While Manzikert was a great triumph over that era’s leading Christian power, the Christians were not the primary focus of Seljuk Turk policy. Instead, the Sunni Seljuks were mainly focused on their primary religious and temporal enemies, the main Shiite and Arab power of the time, the Egyptian-based Fatimid Caliphate (in the eleventh century, Iran was not yet Shiite and was part of the Seljuk Turk empire). Indeed, not long before Manzikert, the Seljuks had readily accepted a truce with the Christians so they could attack the Fatimid-controlled city of Aleppo, in today’s Syria.

Thus, the historical symbolism of Erdogan’s speech may have artfully highlighted for Turks an age-old agenda, one held by modern Turkey’s ancestors and now by Erdogan. Turkey must outstrip the growing influence of today’s leading Shia power, Iran; beat back the Christian world; and surmount the incipient military and economic power of Egypt, the historic champion of the Arabs. As in the distant past, the most immediate obstacle to these ambitions is the Shiite power Iran and its allies; and Syria is once again a front in that conflict.

An early sign of this policy shift against Iran came in the spring of 2012, when Erdogan described his party’s historic mission in a way that excluded Shiite Iran: “On the historic march of our holy nation, the AK Party signals the birth of a global power and the mission for a new world order. This is the centenary of our exit from the Middle East . . . whatever we lost between 1911 and 1923, whatever lands we withdrew from, from 2011 to 2023 we shall once again meet our brothers in those lands.”

At the party Congress a few months later, Erdogan may have invoked Manzikert to signal that he would not just distance Turkey from its Shiite challengers, but actively oppose them.

The Syrian crisis, then, has exposed weaknesses in Erdogan’s early claims and weighs heavily on his reputation, at home as well as abroad. By a large majority, the Turkish public is now dissatisfied with and opposed to Erdogan’s Syrian policies. The critiques come not only from opposition parties, but from within previously supportive groups. Indeed, Erdogan finds himself and his grand design for Turkey confronted not only by Syria’s tyrant, but by an alliance made up of Russia, Iran, and the latter’s allies in this matter, Hezbollah and the Shiite government of Iraq. He finds himself dependent upon others—the United States, NATO, even the head of the Iraqi Kurdish Regional Government—for assistance. Before he had belittled the relative importance of the US and others in the region; now he complains sourly about their lack of activity and welcomes their support. In response to Syrian attacks on Turkey, Erdogan called for emergency meetings of NATO, invoking provisions for common defense. He is now receiving on Turkish soil US-made Patriot missile batteries manned by American, Dutch, and German troops. While he has made periodic shows of military force, he has clearly pulled back to the edge of history, allowing Saudi Arabia and Iran to move into the foreground, respectively, by arming the Syrian rebels and the Syrian tyrant.

In short, concrete successes in foreign policy have eluded Erdogan’s grandiose claims. The region’s vast troubles seem impervious to his remedies. Turkish elites—both from the opposition and among many who had been supporting him—have noticed the gap between rhetoric and reality; and Erdogan now finds himself mocked in the Turkish press for his frustrations.

During his visit to Israel in March, US President Barack Obama compelled Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to apologize to his Turkish counterpart for the actions of IDF Naval Commandos aboard the Mavi Marmara terror ship in May 2010.

The Mavi Marmara was sent by the IHH, a Turkish- government supported, al-Qaida-aligned group, to try to break Israel’s lawful maritime blockade of the Gaza coast. When the lightly armed naval commandos boarded the ship they were attacked by terrorists wielding knives and iron pipes. They were stabbed and bludgeoned. In the violence, nine Turkish terrorists were killed.

By forcing Israel to apologize to Turkey, Obama took the side of the aggressor against the victim.

Netanyahu apologized to Turkey’s pro-Hamas Prime Minister Recep Erdogan in a phone call that Obama participated in. Obama promised that Turkey would accept Israel’s apology and restore full diplomatic relations.

But nothing of the sort occurred. Last week, Turkish President Abdullah Gul told Yediot Aharonot that the apology came too late. And this week, Erdogan hosted Hamas chief Khaled Mashaal for the third time in the past year. Commentators have raised the prospect that Hamas may be hoping to transfer its headquarters from Qatar to Turkey.

Under these circumstances, Erdogan’s embrace of Mashaal was a sign not only of support for Hamas and ill will toward Israel. It was a sign of animosity toward Egypt.

It is notable that the same day Erdogan welcomed Mashaal to Turkey, the Obama administration announced it is scaling back US military assistance to Egypt. The administration claims it is freezing the transfer of major military platforms to Egypt to show its dissatisfaction with the government’s crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood government, and its impatience with the military’s refusal to date to call elections after deposing the elected Muslim Brotherhood government in July.

The administration’s declared concern for democracy is apparently limited to Egypt. One finds no trace of such concern for instance in the administration’s relationship with Turkey. There, as Michael Rubin reported in Commentary, the Justice and Interior ministries just announced that people can now be jailed if they think about protesting against the government. In other words, NATO member Turkey is not merely considering becoming the official sponsor of a terrorist organization. The regime of the man Obama praised as his closest friend in the region has criminalized thought.

Not only has the administration refused to take any action against Turkey for its authoritarian governance and its pro-terror policies. Last month the US and Turkey along with Qatar announced a $200 million program under which Turkey and Qatar will develop materials aimed at promoting the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamist agenda. The stated aim of the Global Fund for Community Engagement and Resilience will be to convince Muslims to adopt the totalitarian Muslim Brotherhood version of Islam, but at the same time, to convince them not to join al-Qaida. The official launch of the initiative took place at the US-Turkish Global Counterterrorism Forum last month in New York.

When the forum was founded two years ago, the Obama administration bowed to Turkey’s demand and barred Israel from participating in it.

Obama’s success in forcing Netanyahu to apologize to Erdogan was the culmination of years of US pressure on Israel. Obama began gunning for an Israeli apology to his friend Erdogan almost immediately after the incident.

NOTABLY, IDF commanders led by then-defense minister Ehud Barak were early supporters of the move. They claimed that an apology would enable the US to restore Israel’s strategic alliance with Turkey, and that the alliance with Ankara was too valuable to squander simply to defend the honor of our soldiers.

As Turkey’s embrace of Hamas, its cultivation of the al-Qaida- and Muslim Brotherhood-dominated Syrian rebel forces, and its general hostility toward Israel at every turn show, Israel’s military brass’s hope to restore Israel’s strategic alliance with Turkey was based a critical misreading of Turkish intentions. Barak and the generals failed to understand who Erdogan is. They failed to understand that by persecuting his political opponents through summary arrest and imprisonment without trial of leading members of the military, state bureaucracy, business community and media, Erdogan was transforming Turkey from a strategic ally into an enemy of Israel.
Now, that Turkey is an enemy, with a crumbling economy – attacking Israel is a great way to make a come back. Ezekiel’s Gomer and the House of Togarma is Turkey of today, and it is more than ready for some action!


Libya is slipping off the hands of the USA and Russia is ready to be there for them – Ezekiel 38:5


Chaos and Horror in Libya were not born after Colonel Gaddafi was executed: it was invented by him.

Soraya was just fifteen, a schoolgirl in the coastal town of Sirte, when she was given the honor of presenting a bouquet of flowers to Colonel Gaddafi, “the Guide,” on a visit he was making to her school the following week.

This one meeting—a presentation of flowers, a pat on the head from Gaddafi—changed Soraya’s life forever. Soon afterwards, she was summoned to Bab al-Azizia, Gaddafi’s palatial compound near Tripoli, where she joined a number of young women who were violently abused, raped and degraded by Gaddafi. Heart wrenchingly tragic but ultimately redemptive, Soraya’s story is the first one of many that is just now beginning to be heard. But sex and rape remain the highest taboo in Libya, and women like Soraya (whose identity is protected by a pseudonym here) risk being disowned or even killed by their dishonored family members.

However, the chaos became more of a reality and common behind closed doors once the regime collapsed.

Al-Qaeda Senior Leadership (AQSL) and al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) have sought to take advantage of the Libyan Revolution to recruit militants and to reinforce their operational capabilities in an attempt to create a safe haven and possibly to extend their area of operations to Libya. Reports have indicated that AQSL is seeking to create an al-Qaeda clandestine network in Libya that could be activated in the future to destabilize the government and/or to offer logistical support to al-Qaeda’s activities in North Africa and the Sahel. AQIM has reportedly formed sleeper cells that are probably connected to an al-Qaeda underground network in Libya, likely as a way, primarily, to secure the supply of arms for its ongoing jihadist operations in Algeria and the Sahel.

For a case study of why America’s influence has receded in the Middle East, consider the example of Libya. Some simple steps over the past two years might have limited the country’s descent toward anarchy. But Libya became so toxic after the Benghazi attack that the United States has been slow to provide help.

When Libyan Prime Minister Ali Zeidan visited Washington in March, he made a straightforward request: He needed U.S. help in training a “general-purpose force” that could protect officials of the democratically elected government and safeguard Libya’s basic services. He explained that, without such protection, government officials couldn’t move safely around the country to do their work.

Helping Libya should be a no-brainer. The United States and its NATO allies spent billions toppling the regime of Col. Moammar Gaddafi in 2011, and they have a big investment in creating a secure state. Instead, Libya has become a nation of lawless militias. Zeidan’s government can’t even hold meetings safely. The United States should have begun training security forces immediately after Gaddafi was toppled. Every day of delay is a mistake.

The Obama administration has approved, in principle, a plan to train 6,000 to 8,000 Libyans outside the country. But the situation in Tripoli is so chaotic that Libyans haven’t yet made a formal request for this assistance. U.S. officials said it wouldn’t start until the spring, at the earliest.

President Obama is said to have decided at a Cabinet meeting this month that “we have not been doing enough” as the chaos grew in Libya and that he wants to “accelerate” assistance, according to a senior administration official. That’s good — better late than never — but it’s an open question whether Congress will let Obama do what’s needed.

Here’s how bad the Libya phobia has become: When the Department of Homeland Security recently began drafting a rule that would allow Libyan students and workers to come to the United States for education and training, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) thundered that “it is shocking that the Obama administration is turning a blind eye to real terrorist threats that exist in Libya today.” And Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) denounced the move as “unbelievable.”

What continued in the Libya vacuum were secret U.S. counterterrorism operations. These culminated in the Oct. 5 raid that snatched al-Qaeda militant Anas al-Libi in Tripoli and brought him to New York for trial on charges stemming from the 1998 attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. This was a laudable operation, but counterterrorism is not America’s only interest in Libya.

The raid produced an embarrassing backlash: Zeidan, the pro-American prime minister, was kidnapped by angry militiamen from his hotel in Tripoli and held for hours. The gunmen released him partly because they didn’t want to fight other armed gangs for control of the hostage. Zeidan said he hadn’t approved the U.S. mission, but his cover of deniability was frayed when Secretary of State John Kerry insisted the operation was “legal and appropriate,” implying it had Libyan approval.

“We are seeing a defenseless government,” says Karim Mezran, a Libyan political scientist and senior fellow of the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East. Mezran says the situation in his country is so fragile now that NATO may have to send in its own security forces to keep order until the long-delayed training program is ready.

U.S. influence in the Middle East has been declining for many reasons. Some of them like America’s weariness after a decade of war, or the difficulty in stopping sectarian killing in Syria, don’t have a quick fix.

Ezekiel 38:5 tells us very clearly that Libya will be part of the Russian-led coalition that will come to attack Israel.

The Chaos within during Ghaddafi’s time was HIS problem; The Chaos today is Israel’s problem.

America lost Libya… Russia is around


Amir’s commentary on Russia


The United States has suspended deliveries of major military hardware and economic assistance to Egypt, following a deadly crackdown against protesters and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Aiming to signal its concern to Egypt’s military-led government about weeks of bloodshed, Washington said Wednesday it had stopped shipments of some large-scale military systems as well as halting US$260 million in cash aid to strife-torn country’s armed forces.
Although the US review of its decades-old policy would not be permanent, it would remain in place “pending credible progress toward an inclusive, democratically-elected civilian government through free and fair elections,” State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in a statement.

Marking a dramatic break with years of unqualified support to Cairo, the decision will prevent deliveries of big-ticket items, including Apache helicopters, F-16 fighter jets, M1A1 Abrams tank parts and Harpoon missiles, officials told reporters. They would not give specific figures, but said the value of the frozen contracts would run into “hundreds of millions of dollars in military assistance.”

Washington had already effectively shelved deliveries of expensive military hardware since the July 3 coup that ousted President Mohamed Morsi and a subsequent clampdown on his Muslim Brotherhood supporters.

Last week the Saudis called Washington and warned the administration that the decision to suspend arms delivery to Egypt at this very critical time will cause the Egyptians to go back to the arms of the Russians after 40 years.

The biggest achievement that the US had in the Middle East following the Yom Kippur war in 1973 was that Egypt abandoned Russia and became an ally of the USA.
Under President Obama, most American achievements in the Middle East policy over the last 40 years are gone and losing Egypt back to Russian hands would be of the biggest of all.

Russia so far has been playing the game with consistency and determination. Countries like Iran and Syria are well pleased with the way the Russians are staying faithful to their allies.

The other Arab countries are watching as well…..

No one deludes himself that the interests of Russia are the well being of these allies. It’s all about oil and gas and control in the region. But at least Russia is sticking through thick and thin with its allies.

Egypt, Saudi, Israel, Jordan and Turkey are asking themselves every day whether the USA is an ally at all.

Today, Russia is an economic powerhouse that is blessed with an abundance of natural resources. Their debt to GDP ratio is extremely small and they actually run a trade surplus every year. They have the second most powerful military on the entire planet. Anyone that underestimates Russia at this point is making a huge mistake. The Russian Bear is back, and today it is a more formidable adversary than it ever was at any point during the Cold War.

Just check out the following statistics:

#1 Russia produces more oil than anyone else on the planet. The United States is in third place.

#2 Russia is the number two oil exporter in the world. The United States is forced to import more oil than anyone else in the world.

#3 Russia produces more natural gas than anyone else on the planet. The United States is in second place.

#4 Today, Russia supplies 34% of Europe’s natural gas needs.

#5 The United States has a debt to GDP ratio of 101%. Russia has a debt to GDP ratio of about 8%.

#6 The United States had a trade deficit of more than half a trillion dollars last year. Russia consistently runs a large trade surplus.

#7 The United States has an unemployment rate of 7.4% Russia has an unemployment rate of 5.4%.

#8 Since Vladimir Putin first became President of Russia, the Russian economy has grown at a very rapid pace. The following is from Wikipedia:

Under the presidency of Vladimir Putin Russia’s economy saw the nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP) double, climbing from 22nd to 11th largest in the world. The economy made real gains of an average 7% per year (1999: 6.5%, 2000: 10%, 2001: 5.7%, 2002: 4.9%, 2003: 7.3%, 2004: 7.2%, 2005: 6.4%, 2006: 8.2%, 2007: 8.5%, 2008: 5.2%), making it the 6th largest economy in the world in GDP(PPP). In 2007, Russia’s GDP exceeded that of 1990, meaning it has overcome the devastating consequences of the recession in the 1990s.
During Putin’s eight years in office, the industry grew by 75%, investments increased by 125%, and agricultural production and construction increased as well. Real incomes more than doubled and the average salary increased eightfold from $80 to $640. The volume of consumer credit between 2000–2006 increased 45 times, and during that same time period, the middle class grew from 8 million to 55 million, an increase of 7 times. The number of people living below the poverty line also decreased from 30% in 2000 to 14% in 2008.

#9 According to Bloomberg, Russia has added 570 metric tons of gold to their reserves over the past decade. In the United States, nobody seems to be quite sure how much gold the Federal Reserve actually has left.

#10 Moscow is the second most expensive city in the world. Meanwhile, the United States actually has the unfriendly city in the world: Newark, NJ.

#11 More billionaires live in Moscow than in any other city on the globe.

#12 The Moscow metro system completely outclasses the subway systems in Washington D.C. and New York City.

#13 The United States has the most powerful military on the planet, but Russia is in second place.

#14 Russia has introduced a new “near silent” nuclear submarine which is far more quiet than anything the U.S. has:

The Borey Class submarine, dubbed Vladimir Monomakh, has a next generation nuclear reactor, can dive deeper than 1,200 feet, and carries up to 20 nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM).
Each of these “Bulava” ICBM’s can carry ten detachable MIRV warheads, what they call “re-entry vehicles,” capable of delivering 150 kiloton yields per warhead.

#15 While Barack Obama is neutering the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal, Vladimir Putin is working hard to modernize Russian nuclear forces.

#16 Russian missile forces will hold more than 200 drills during the second half of 2013.

#17 Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin made headlines all over the world when he climbed into the cockpit of Russia’s new “fifth generation” fighter jet and announced that it was far superior to the F-22 Raptor.

#18 It is estimated that Russia has more spies inside the United States today than it did at any point during the Cold War.

The prophet Ezekiel could see the rise of power of Rosh (Russia) to the point that it would lead a coalition of countries against Israel to plunder and take control.

Israel’s natural gas and oil that have been recently discovered could be very much so the hook-in-the-Jew of the awakening Russian Bear.


Israel is preparing for action with Iran


The Israeli Air Force conducted a joint exercise this week with the Greek Air Force assimilating a long distance flight, attack of a naval vessel, then mid air fuelling and return to Israel – all within 5-6 hours.

It is no coincidence that Greece was an easy partner.

Ever since Turkey changed phase and severed all military ties with Israel, Greece, its opponent became its natural partner. The advantage with Greece is the fact that it is as far as Iran is from Israel, thus any flight to Greece for a strike exercise is in fact the same as flight to Iran.

A couple of years ago a very important document was leaked from the Israeli military to liberal media hands and immediately was published. It was a detailed description of the action plan if needed to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat.

The Israeli attack will open with a coordinated strike, including an unprecedented cyber-attack, which will totally paralyze the Iranian regime and its ability to know what is happening within its borders. The internet, telephones, radio and television, communications satellites, and fiber optic cables leading to and from critical installations, including underground missile bases at Khorramabad and Isfahan, will be taken out of action.

The electrical grid throughout Iran will be paralyzed and transformer stations will absorb severe damage from carbon fiber munitions, which are finer than a human hair, causing electrical short circuits whose repair requires their complete removal. This would be a Sisyphean task in light of cluster munitions, which would be dropped, some time-delayed and some remote-activated through the use of a satellite signal.

A barrage of tens of ballistic missiles would be launched from Israel toward Iran. 300km ballistic missiles would be launched from Israeli submarines in the vicinity of the Persian Gulf. The missiles would not be armed with unconventional warheads [WMD], but rather with high-explosive ordnance equipped with reinforced tips designed specially to penetrate hardened targets.

The missiles will strike their targets—some exploding above ground like those striking the nuclear reactor at Arak–which is intended to produce plutonium and tritium—and the nearby heavy water production facility; the nuclear fuel production facilities at Isfahan and facilities for enriching uranium-hexafluoride. Others would explode under-ground, as at the Fordo facility.

A barrage of hundreds of cruise missiles will pound command and control systems, research and development facilities, and the residences of senior personnel in the nuclear and missile development apparatus. Intelligence gathered over years will be utilized to completely decapitate Iran’s professional and command ranks in these fields.

After the first wave of attacks, which will be timed to the second, the “Blue and White” radar satellite, whose systems enable us to perform an evaluation of the level of damage done to the various targets, will pass over Iran. Only after rapidly decrypting the satellite’s data, will the information be transferred directly to warplanes making their way covertly toward Iran. These IAF planes will be armed with electronic warfare gear previously unknown to the wider public, not even revealed to our U.S. ally. This equipment will render Israeli aircraft invisible. Those Israeli warplanes which participate in the attack will damage a short-list of targets which require further assault.

Among the targets approved for attack—Shihab 3 and Sejil ballistic missile silos, storage tanks for chemical components of rocket fuel, industrial facilities for producing missile control systems, centrifuge production plants and more.

Israel keeps exercising and all of our systems are ready for action if needed,
Prime minister Netanyahu made it VERY clear to the International community from the stage of the UN General assembly earlier this month:
“Israel will never acquiesce to nuclear arms in the hands of a rogue regime that repeatedly promises to wipe us off the map. Against such a threat, Israel will have no choice but to defend itself.

I want there to be no confusion on this point. Israel will not allow Iran to get nuclear weapons.

If Israel is forced to stand alone, Israel will stand alone. Yet in standing alone, Israel will know that we will be defending many, many others.”

In the meantime, While Iranian President Hassan Rohani tries to ease friction with the United States, chants of “death to America” on Friday may deepen doubts in the West that Tehran is ready for a deal as talks on its nuclear program resume next week.

“America is the great Satan,” Friday prayer leader Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami told worshippers at Tehran University, the main venue for Friday prayers in Iran.

Moderation I guess is only in the minds of the liberal media and politicians of the west. Here in the Middle East the sounds are different and one must be ready at all time.
We are getting ready!



Israel and the Iranian nuclear program: Facts that the world hates to hear.


In the mid-1980s, the Khomeini regime secretly decided to restart a nuclear program, including preparatory work for the acquisition of a nuclear weapon that had begun under the Shah. This decision is believed to have been influenced by the devastation inflicted on Iran by Iraq’s use of chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq War.
From about 1990 on, Iran worked to develop its own nuclear fuel cycle infrastructure- uranium mining, conversion, and enrichment as well as heavy-water production for a heavy-water reactor for the production of plutonium. In the mid-1990s, Iran began to secretly purchase and take delivery of uranium enrichment centrifuges from the A. Q. Khan network and began to test these centrifuges in 2000.

In 2001, Iran began to construct its main enrichment facility in Natanz, approximately two hundred miles south of Tehran. The plant was constructed to eventually accommodate fifty thousand centrifuges, giving Iran the ability to produce massive quantities of enriched uranium.

In 2002, secret Iranian fuel cycle activities were publicly revealed, fundamentally changing the diplomatic landscape. From this point on, Britain, France, and Germany (the EU3) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) began to play much more significant roles in the diplomatic effort to address the problem. The IAEA conducted limited inspections of Iran’s previously clandestine facilities and discovered additional evidence of Iran’s concealment of undeclared fuel cycle activities.

In late 2003, the EU3 persuaded the government of President Mohammad Khatami to suspend its enrichment program and accept the NPT Additional Protocol 3. Furthermore, the U.S. intelligence community assessed that in the fall of 2003, the Iranian government halted its clandestine research and development program for nuclear weapons, but not the nuclear fuel cycle systems, such as centrifuges, needed to produce the fissile material for a possible weapon. (British intelligence services surveying the same information concluded that though Iran halted weaponization activities in 2003, but subsequently resumed them.) In sum, the circumstantial evidence strongly suggests that Iran is, at a minimum, aiming to develop a nuclear weapons capability.

The U.S. military presence in Afghanistan, on Iran’s eastern border, and in Iraq, on Iran’s western border, was presumably a factor in Iran’s 2003–2004 nuclear decision-making.
The EU3’s agreement with the Iranian government collapsed after the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005.

In 2009, the government of Iran disclosed to the IAEA the existence of a new uranium enrichment facility at Fordow, outside Qom (this facility had already been detected by Western intelligence). The IAEA believes that enrichment operations began there in December 2011 and that the facility’s purpose is to enrich uranium beyond the 5 percent U-235 concentration achieved at Natanz, and that it is undergoing construction designed to further expand its capacity to eventually accommodate more than three thousand centrifuges. The Fordow facility is better protected than the Natanz facility, and thus less susceptible to destruction by air or missile strikes.

Since 2007, U.S. intelligence services asserted that no evidence suggests that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei had made the final decision to construct nuclear weapons, but it is clear that he was accumulating the necessary resources and technologies that will provide him with that option. “They are certainly moving on that path, but we don’t believe that they have actually made the decision to go ahead with a nuclear weapon,” stressed James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, in his testimony to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in February 2012. Although the acquisition of these fuel cycle capabilities could be justified under the same legal theory that Iran is entitled to the benefits of nuclear technology for civil, peaceful purposes, Iran elected to carry out this work secretly and often in violation of its nuclear safeguards commitments to the IAEA.

In September of 2012, in an interview published in the London-based daily Al-Hayat, Iranian Vice President Fereydoon Abbasi-Davani, who is also the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), said that misleading facts were used to protect his country’s nuclear program and to disguise some of the technical advances it has made

On August 28, 2013 The U.N. Atomic Agency reported that Iran upped its nuclear activity. The International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran has installed more than 1,000 advanced IR-2m centrifuges and is preparing to set-up 2,000 more. Iran has also increased the number of older IR-1 centrifuges to 15,000, most of which are operating. The IR-2m is estimated to be three to four times more effective at uranium enrichment than the IR-1.

In light of the above ,please read these portions from Prime Minister Netanyahu’s UN speech October 1st 2013:

“Rouhani tells us not to worry. He assures us that all of this is not intended for nuclear weapons. Any of you believe that? If you believe that, here’s a few questions you might want to ask. Why would a country that claims to only want peaceful nuclear energy, why would such a country build hidden underground enrichment facilities?
Why would a country with vast natural energy reserves invest billions in developing nuclear energy? Why would a country intent on merely civilian nuclear programs continue to defy multiple Security Council resolutions and incur the tremendous cost of crippling sanctions on its economy?

And why would a country with a peaceful nuclear program develop intercontinental ballistic missiles, whose sole purpose is to deliver nuclear warheads? You don’t build ICBMs to carry TNT thousands of miles away; you build them for one purpose, to carry nuclear warheads. And Iran is building now ICBMs that the United States says could reach this city in three or four years.
Why would they do all this? The answer is simple. Iran is not building a peaceful nuclear program; Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Last year alone, Iran enriched three tons of uranium to 3 1/2 percent, doubled it stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium and added thousands of new centrifuges, including advanced centrifuges. It also continued work on the heavy water reactor in Iraq; that’s in order to have another route to the bomb, a plutonium path. And since Rouhani’s election — and I stress this — this vast and feverish effort has continued unabated.

Underground nuclear facilities, heavy water reactors, advanced centrifuges, ICMBs. See, it’s not that it’s hard to find evidence that Iran has a nuclear program, a nuclear weapons program; it’s hard to find evidence that Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapons program.”

We all want to give diplomacy with Iran a chance to succeed, but when it comes to Iran, the greater the pressure- the greater the chance. Three decades ago, President Ronald Reagan famously advised, “trust but verify.” When it comes to Iran’s nuclear weapons program, here’s my advice: Distrust, dismantle and verify.

Ladies and gentlemen, Israel will never acquiesce to nuclear arms in the hands of a rogue regime that repeatedly promises to wipe us off the map. Against such a threat, Israel will have no choice but to defend itself.
I want there to be no confusion on this point. Israel will not allow Iran to get nuclear weapons.

If Israel is forced to stand alone, Israel will stand alone. Yet in standing alone, Israel will know that we will be defending many, many others.”


Amir’s commentary on Matthew 25:31-46. In light of the growing isolation of Israel around the world, and the possible attack on Iran that will cause many to blame us for the instability in the world, I felt that this is the right time to share this important message and cause the Sheep to stand up and declare that they are indeed different than the goats.


Years ago the Lord spoke to me regarding a very important issue. I heard the message very clearly: “He who rejects Israel as my people rejects me as their father, and Jesus as their brother”

Little did I know that life would take me to so many parts of the world.

As I travelled around the world, I always remembered one thing: wherever the theology of the churches I visited had a problem with Israel as God’s people – the problem was deeper with their view of Jesus and the authority of the Bible.
I literally saw how Israel became the litmus test to check the state of the churches that I used to visit.
I realized that this must be a pattern that is valid all over the world.
As a Jew who became a believer in Yeshua, knowing only the Old Testament portions with out having read the New Testament, I always was fascinated by the faithfulness of God to Israel and His zeal to not only defeat their enemies, but also to judge anyone who ever mistreated his land and His people.

If there is anything I learned early in my walk with the Lord, it is that He never contradicts His word, and that the best way to study His word is by using His word. One passage can help interpreting the other.

One of the most amazing passages in the books of the prophets is the one from Joel 3.

Joel 3:2
“…I will gather all nations and bring them down to the Valley of Jehoshaphat. There I will put them on trial for what they did to my inheritance, my people Israel, because they scattered my people among the nations and divided up my land…”

It speaks of the following:
Time: Second coming of Jesus
Place: Jerusalem (According to Zachariah 14)
Event: Trial of the Gentiles (ALL NATIONS)
Account: How they treated the People of Israel

Zachariah even goes beyond and tells us that those nations that will remain will come to Jerusalem every year to celebrate what…? Christmas? Easter? No!
It’s to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles.

I realized then and there that if this is an event that speaks of the return of Christ and the judgment of the nations according to how they treat Israel, there must be at least one, if not more references to this future event in the New Testament.

Sure enough once I started reading the New Testament’s first Gospel Matthew, it already gave me the clear picture of that same event.
To many Christians worldwide the passage of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25 is about believers vs. non-believers.
Well, it’s partially right. It’s true believers vs. the rest of the world regarding the issue that was, is and will always remain hot and controversial: Israel.

What makes one a true believer is the uncompromised faith in the entire word of God and the conduct of life reflecting that which is required.
A false believer will call himself a believer, yet will not accept the entire Bible as the Word of God and will chose to believe some parts, yet ignore others- thus his life will NOT reflect that which God intended.

Israel is the litmus test God has in this world to test the nations of the world. “If you really love Me, then love that which is Mine”.

The most common confusion though is the identification of the brethren of Christ. Who are they?
The ONLY conclusion I came to after examining the different parallel portions from the OT is that the Jews (Israel) are the brethren of Christ.

The people of Israel, as well as the gentile believers in this world are known to be both part of the family of God. Romans 11 tells us that the gentiles are grafted into the olive tree, which is Israel.

Please note that Israel is likened to sheep rather to goats both in the Old and the New Testament.

In Jeremiah 50:6, God calls Israel His people and “lost sheep.” The Messiah, spoken of throughout the Old Testament, was seen as the one who would gather these “lost sheep” (Ezekiel 34:23-24; Micah 5:4-5). When Jesus presented Himself as a shepherd to Israel, He was claiming to be the fulfilment of Messianic prophecy (Mark 6:34, 14:27; John 10:11-16; see also Hebrews 13:20; 1 Peter 5:4; and Revelation 7:17).

Jesus was in the area of Tyre and Sidon, a coastal region in extreme northeastern Galilee (Matthew 15:21) when a Canaanite woman came to Him with a request to heal her demon-possessed daughter. For a while, Jesus did not respond to the woman’s entreaties, and she followed Him and continued to beg for mercy. Finally, the disciples, feeling that the woman was a nuisance, asked Jesus to send her away. Then Jesus said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 15:24).

The basis of this judgment in Matthew 25 is going to be anti-Semitism or pro-Semitism in verse 34-35. Individual gentiles will be judged on the basis of their treatment of the Messiah’s brethren, namely, the Jewish people during the tribulation. The term brethren here is used in the sense of “brethren in the flesh”. Some people have tried to make the term brethren in this passage refer to saints in general, but this would render the passage meaningless.

There are three specific groups mentioned in this passage: the sheep gentiles, the goat gentiles, and the brethren. If the brethren are saints in general, then who are the sheep, since, they too, have eternal life? It would be very confusing to make both the sheep and the brethren as saints of the same calibre. From this context alone, it should be very evident that the brethren must refer to Jewish people because the saints are the sheep and the unsaved are the goats. Furthermore, the parallel passage of Joel 3:1-3 makes it without a doubt that these brethren are the Jewish people of the tribulation.

(Matthew 25:31-46)

(31) “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. (32) All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. (33) He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. (34) “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. (35) For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, (36) I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
(37) “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? (38) When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? (39) When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
(40) “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

The sheep, which are the pro-Semites, are clearly stated to be the righteous ones. Will they be saved, then? Just because of their pro-Semitism? This cannot be, for that would mean their salvation was purely on the basis of works.

This passage is an example of James 2:14-26, proving one’s faith by one’s works. Because these gentiles are already believers in the Lord Jesus the Messiah, they will refuse to join the policy of the Antichrist in his attempt to destroy the Jews. So while Jews will undergo a great persecution, those believing gentiles will do what they can to help the Jews under those conditions. Their works towards the Messiah’s brethren will prove their faith. In this manner, they are the ones who will be watching, ready, and laboring in accordance with the admonitions of the parables. Because they are saved gentiles, they will be allowed to enter into the Messianic Kingdom, and they will be the ones who will populate the gentile nations during the messianic age.

(41) “Then He will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. (42) For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, (43) I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
(44) “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ (45) “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
(46) “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

On the other hand, the goats will be the anti-Semites, who, because of their unbelief in Jesus, will join the ranks of the persecutors under the Antichrist’s authority. They will show their lack of faith by their works; they are the ones who will not be watching, ready or laboring in violation of the five parables. For this reason, they will be killed at this point and will be excluded from the Messianic Kingdom.

The ultimate and final result after the Kingdom is in verse 46. The believing gentiles will enter into eternal life while the unbelieving gentiles will enter into eternal punishment.

Remember, in His first coming, Jesus, the Great Shepherd, came to save the world and not the church. Thus, both the sheep and the goats were under His care. He led the sheep, sent to the lost sheep and lived among the goats as well. Even on the cross, not wanting anyone to blame the Jews for His death he said “Father forgive them for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34)
Yet in His second coming, He will judge those who turned against His lost sheep, and will bless those who understood that “He who touches Israel, touches the Apple of God’s eye”. (Zachariah 2:8)