Eastern Mediterranean Natural Gas a Potential Windfall for Israel and Lebanon– And of Course Hezbollah Wants It

But there's a catch. There's always a risk of war when two nations are trying to vie for the same resources under a similar border/sea. Think August 1990 at the Iraqi-Kuwaiti border. Of course, Hezbollah is sounding the war alarms in an attempt to gain more power for themselves:

"Lebanon's need for the resistance has doubled today in light of Israeli threats to steal Lebanon's oil wealth," Hezbollah's Executive Council chief Hashem Safieddine said last month. The need to protect the offshore wealth "pushes us in the future to strengthen the resistance's capabilities."

According to the article, Israel is going to start producing natural gas in two years and will have enough energy for the next twenty years.

Of course there's talk of Lebanon also developing these waters. Without significant foreign help, it does not appear like Beirut will be able to do so. And furthermore, Hezbollah definitely will not be able to develop and maintain such an infrastructure if it ever took over the country. That being said, it follows that we should prevent those terrorists from getting a hold of such a lucrative resource.

Cross-posted at World Threats.
Don't forget to comment and to bookmark our site!

Consider advertising on our site!

Interview: Richard Radcliffe on International Threats to the United States

Jumping in Pools is proud to present its twenty-first interview in our series. This interview is with Richard Radcliffe. Radcliffe is a retired Air Force officer living in Apple Valley California. Richard graduated from the University of Southern California in 1968 with a Bachelor of Arts in History. Richard accepted an assignment to Kunsan Air Base, Korea flying the F-4D as a Weapons Systems Officer. He was also the Air Show Coordinator and in 1986 the Project Officer for the Ramstein Air Base Open House: Flugtag. He retired August 1, 1990. Since then Richard has kept busy with his own small computer business. He has maintained his interest in foreign affairs and occasionally posts on the Asia Times on Line blog: The Edge. Richard also writes on a site that I contribute to, World Threats.

1. President Obama stated on Friday that Iran was cheating on nuclear obligations. Do you believe that Iran is likely to stop building the facility near Qom?

No. They do not care if their facility is public or not other than it becomes a known target. The Iranians have a goal and a plan to get there. They believe that nobody will challenge them because of the threat threat they pose to 40 percent of the World's oil and support from Russia and the People's Republic of China. I believe the Iranians are wrong.

2. Do you believe that the Obama Administration will approve extra combat troops for the NATO mission in Afghanistan?

This is a tough call. Both the Army and the Marines are suffering from continued deployments with no end in sight. Units are being deprogrammed from Iraq and reprogrammed for Afghanistan. They all need a rest. They all need to get their equipment fixed. The huge backlogs at Anniston and Barstow of vehicles requiring total refurbishment is a whole lot larger than it should be. They all need to retrain to be combined arms soldiers and not cops.

My personal answer is to leave Afghanistan.

3. Do you believe that Russia will now back strong sanctions against Iran?

No. We haven't given them enough yet. They want Ukraine and Georgia. They may be talking about tougher sanctions but that is what we bought with the cancellation of the missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic.


4. Do you believe that Venezuela's nuclear program is for nuclear weapons?

Yes. I don't believe that they will get to it.

5. What is the largest relatively-unknown threat to American security in the next ten years?

I won't talk about a relatively unknown threat but a roundly ignored threat: Hezbollah. As we found out in the last few days, there are illegal aliens here from the Middle East. Smadi, the Dallas bomber, is from Jordan. We have no idea who is in this country. The good news is that the FBI managed to find this guy before he found a real terrorist cell and used real C-4 instead of modeling clay. Anybody remember the Holy Land Foundation? They were located in Dallas.

Hezbollah is Iran's Ace in the Hole. They are worldwide. They are being allowed into Nicaragua without documents. They have been in South America in the tri-border area of Argentina, Paraguay and Brazil since before the Jewish Center in Buenos Aries was allegedly bombed by a group including the current Defense Minister of Iran. They are now able to freely roam Venezuela.

Cross-posted at World Threats.

Bookmark our site!

Consider advertising on our site!

President Obama's Lackluster Foreign Policy

President Obama promised a new approach to foreign policy.So far, he's delivered on his promise, with results to show. After lambasting the Bush Administration's 'unilateralism,' he hasn't wooed our allies, and in fact, has inadvertently annoyed South Korea, Britain, and Japan.

But no matter, at the NATO Summit, the President was supposed to show that President Bush was unable to build meaningful coalitions. He conveniently forgot that, in terms of countries sending troops, President Bush commanded the first and second-largest coalitions in history. But no matter.

Instead, we got a small amount of non-combat troops for the ISAF mission in Afghanistan. While this is a positive development and the President had the right idea, it goes to show that the world will not take him as seriously as our former President. President Bush was able to get the world to send over 80,000 troops to Iraq, Afghanistan, Darfur, Somalia, and Lebanon. Without a convincing rationale (to Europeans) for the Afghan Surge, the President's agenda is falling flat.

In North Korea, the People's Republic has decided to push the envelope by launching a Taepodong-2 ballistic missile. It crashed unceremoniously in the sea. But the President did not order the shooting down of the missile or for strict sanctions. Instead, the UN will meet....

The President needs to realize that calling our country 'arrogant' sometimes feeds into anti-US propaganda. Fahreinheit 9/11 was watched by Hezbollah and shown in Cuba. We need to stand forthright. If our goals are noble, we must not diminish them.

So, Mr. President, take some advice from our last Commander in Chief and show the world some backbone. The self-depreciating phoniness will only go so far.

Consider advertising on our site!
Also, if you need to search anything on Google, please use the bar below:

Proof of Saddam's WMDs

This is a copy of something I wrote on the Investor's Iraq Forum. Enjoy.

Bush never stated that Iraq was a direct or imminent threat to us. In fact, he stated the opposite during one of his biggest speeches before the war. From the 2003 State of the Union:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

As for chemical weapons that were a threat to us, we're forgetting the potential of Saddam's WMD. Contrary to popular belief, most of his WMD capacity was NOT given or sold to him by the United States. In fact, the vast majority was provided by Russia (his number one arms partner), East Germany, and Poland. The United States, under President Reagan allowed biological weapons components to be sold to the Iraqi regime, but was not the primary seller.

Sarin nerve gas was produced in the tons by Saddam's government in the 1980s. One liquid drop of this could kill an adult male. The Iraqi regime created and stockpiled even more deadly nerve gases, like cyclosarin and VX. Even ten shells filled with these chemicals could kill hundreds, or thousands in an enclosed ventilation system. And Saddam admitted to having at least 30,000 in 1991. The Iraqis had a bad habit of not labeling their chemical weapons shells. Of all of the millions of shells safely detonated by ordinance personnel, hundreds or thousands could have been VX, Sarin, Tabun, or Cyclosarin.

Sarin and mustard gas are fairly easy to construct, and considering the Iraqis had the blueprints and experience, it was only a matter of time that the stockpiles were rebuilt. These were seen as vital as a bulwark against Iran and Israel.

And Saddam's WMD stockpile wouldn't be used against us directly. Duh. With various bases in the region, the Kurds, Israel, and Saudi Arabia nearby, there was no reason to risk transporting the materials 11,000 miles. He could easily hit Americans in his own back yard. Or more likely, complete the Anfal Campaign when we weren't looking.

Of course oil is a major factor in the war. You don't invade a country with either the 2nd or 3rd biggest oil reserves in the world and not factor that in. And considering the fact that almost all of Iraq's oil is either in the Kurdish region or close to the Kuwaiti border (in the desert where no one lives), if oil was the only or chief concern, it could be secured and held even without toppling Saddam. Besides, these wells haven't been given to American or British petroleum corporations, which could have easily paid for the war. You cannot leave a dictator who invaded three of his neighbors and shot ballistic missiles at two others in control of this vast oil wealth. And considering that he was funding Hamas, Hezbollah, and Ansar al-Islam (to name just a few), this money was directly funding the deaths of Israelis and Lebanese.

If Bush really lied (or even really exagerrated) claims about WMD, it would be in short order that American chemical weapons from the Cold War (which we're disposing of anyway) would be sent as stand-ins. Considering if Bush and his Administration would know ahead that they were lying, this would have been done before the troops entered Baghdad.

This isn't about Bush. If Clinton or Gore were President, toppling Saddam would have been the right thing. It just so happened that Bush was the person who did it. Considering the threat that Saddam held for the region, it was by far a great decision. To deny that would fly in the face of fact, not opinion.