MURSI AND  THE SINAI:

The verdict is still out on who was responsible for the attack a few weeks ago, but it is very apparent how the event has been molded into the " Master Plan" for the MB.

 Getting Israel's consent to move forces into the restricted Sinai under the auspice of countering a proven threat to not only Egypt but Israel as well, was a clever move.

Moving more than you were given permission to, such as Tanks, is brilliant opportunity not lost by the MB.

Does anyone really think these forces will be removed, even if  the supposed threat is removed?

Don't bet on it.

With these troops already in place, why would Egypt / the MB / not raise the subject of reviewing "treaty statuses" with Israel?

Would the argument not be, " it is obvious that times have changed and Egypt must be given the ability to keep 'everyone' in the region safe from Terrorist acts"?

You can bet Mursi will frame his argument in a manner close to this.

How will Israel respond?

Does Israel already have too much on it's plate with Iran to spend energy and political capital on the subject of the Sinai; at least for now?

My bet is they do.

MURSI'S / MB / MOVE ON THE EGYPTIAN MEDIA:

Almost completely off the radar, something the MB is very good at, is the topic of Mursi's government moving on the media of Egypt.

If you have not been following this story, you are not alone.

Syria is the sexy, crisis for the media right now and that will be backed up by Iran and Israel.

When the smoke clears, the media of Egypt will be just as tightly controlled as Mubarak ever could have dreamt of.

Let not forget who we are dealing with here.

When the Muslim Brotherhood makes the statement, "we are a new, more passive, more compassionate organization", that is the equivalent of the Mob stating they are opening a community center for the good of the neighborhood.

It's like Putin saying, " I feel your pain"!!!

The problem obviously continues to be, the rest of the Western world is just too tired or too preoccupied by crisis called the Middle East to confront what they know is taking place.

The Muslim Brotherhood is the slow cancer that no one pays attention to until it's too late.

Smiling as he lies to the "Infidels" is a key tool in Mursi's leadership style.

He is about to use it when he visits the Persians next week.

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2012/1111/eg5.htm

SO; DOES IRAN REALLY....REALLY BELIEVE THEY ARE READY?

As I stated yesterday, it is puzzling to me that Iran would truly attempt to prod Israel into a war.

For over a year now I have wondered if Iran was so frightened of the Tunisian Virus / Arab Spring / that it would contemplate warfare with Israel as an alternative.

In the past, I have commented on the concept of " Limited Warfare vs Total Warfare and how Iran could easily blunder into an event far beyond what they anticipated.

Prodding Israel with Hezbollah with the intention of Israel attacking Lebanon territory is a plot the Israelis have long figure out.

So, why the push for warfare?

Why a desire for a probable end state that leaves Iran in ruins?

Let's disregard the idea of Iran believing they can defeat Israel.

They know that is completely impossible; at least at this point in time.

If we accept this premise, then what other conclusions are out there?

Here is the one I fear and have feared for some time now.

Iran has watched with absolute horror the destruction of Syria town by town, city by city.

Iran has witnessed a population that is disintegrating into uncontrollable, mindless violence and they know this could easily be  their fate!

Is Iran willing to risk the fallout from what they hope would be a "Limited War" with Israel rather than the " Total Warfare" destruction of an Arab Spring in Iran?

Would Iran's leadership rather risk the loyalty of the Iranian public fighting the Zionist, then to turn it's own weapons on it's own people?

Simply put; is Iran more afraid of the Arab Spring than they are a war with Israel?

I think the answer might just be yes!!!

Here is the nightmare of my theory.

If I am right, then the pending war between Iran and Israel must take place and Iran knows it.

Hence; the constant push for Israeli response to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

If Lebanon slides into civil crisis because of Syria, the window of opportunity for Iran to utilize Hezbollah as the launching pad  is gone and the hope of a limited war with a enemy who will be pushed for "limits" will also be gone.

Iran's war of words is one last desperate attempt to convince the Iranian public they don't have time for their version of the Arab Spring.

If it doesn't work, Iran is left with one option; Total Warfare!

Time will have run out for Limited Warfare.

All countries strive to shape the future of their existence.

Iran has all but lost their ability to do so.

Israel holds the cards, for now.

WAR OF WORDS. NOTHING NEW.. .OR IS IT?

Iran and Israel using inflammatory language towards each other is nothing new.

I've even said this before in on this blogg site.

So, is this most recent round of "words" anything new?

yes!

"Chicken Little" is the attitude of the average American right now, but some of the more ominous signs are out there.

First off, the US stock market was weak at best this last week and all the talk was about a continuing "weak" market.

That is not the type of news or movement that moves the price of oil up, yet the price did go up... all week.

Those that run the oil markets and oil industry know no political or ideological boundaries.

Their ability to get the "ground facts" from those who are in the know is common knowledge.

Short answer, when you see the market going down or staying weak, but the price of spec market oil is going up, that's a sign of interpreted tension.

Now, a great deal of the hot air coming out of Iran and it's Puppet Hebollah this week had to do with the celebration of " CUD", a trumped up 1979 gimmick by the old Iranian regime to promote violence.

In the next few days, I will go back and revisit just how devastating this conflict could be, but before I do that I will ask one simple question; an important issue that sets the tone for the entire region.

Is Iran truly ready for the level of destruction that could be about to fall on them?

Do the leaders in Iran truly believe their own hype?

Last but not least; do the people of Iran understand what might be about to happen to them?

If Iran responds to a limited Israeli strike with a disproportionate counter assault, the results for Iran will leave them in a crisis they will not climb out of for a decade.

But then again, will Israel strike first?

That is a point I will once again revisit in the next few days.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/08/201281717556151270.html    

SO... IS SAUDI WILLING TO KEEP THE STATUS QUO????

An interesting concept by the author and one several have contemplated ever since hearing of the strange invite by Saudi to the Iranians.

Could it be the Saudis are really willing to keep things just the way they are even when it comes to Iran just to keep the " Sectarian / Arab Spring / from continuing it's take over of the region?

Is that what they are really afraid of?

Does that mean Iran is willing to go along with this concept?

My bet is no!

As tempting as it would be for both of them to strike a deal that holds off the Arab Spring, the author's theory has one fatal flaw.

The Arab Spring is just as much about the Sunni / Muslim Brotherhood as it is a sectarian movement of governance.

The MB's desire to change the government of Saudi / the GCC and Iran is concept far more dangerous than a sectarian ideology and both the Saudis and the Iranian's know it.

So, it's an interesting concept to think the "old guard" is trying to agree on keeping the old status quo, but I really don't anticipate that "plan" holding water.

Never the less, it is obvious the King is worried about his and his families future and he would not have made such a bold move if he didn't think it had a chance of bringing about some level of results.

The problem is, it may have just shown the Iranians, just how worried the Saudis are and that is something Iran can exploit.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NH18Ak02.html

SUPPRESSION OF  SYRIAN AIR POWER.. DOES IT TAKE AIR POWER?

for a several weeks now I've been asking some of my old friends a simple question.

Does it take air to air superiority to insure air dominance.

Now, without going into to some long boring War College level discussion on Air Power and Air Dominance, lets look at the question I'm asking.

If you need to insure your enemy can't attack your location from the air, do you need to patrol the air itself or do you need to be able to deny your enemy the ability to fly safely in the air space above your location?

The flying community will tell you, " absolutely.. you need air to air superiority to insure air dominance"... It's what I refer to as "Job Security".

Is it possible to deny your enemy air space operations from the ground?

Let me give you a "hint"...

How many times did the US and the West provide a " no fly zone" in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation?

What was the major contributing factor to breaking the Soviets will to stay in Afghanistan? Hint. The loss of helicopters and "leaders" inside them was extremely high.

Ok, let me get to my point.

The West doesn't need to provide the Syrian rebels with the  coveted " No Fly Zone".

What needs to happen seems to already be underway.

The rebels can be armed to deny the airspace over rebel held land.

The Syrian air force is not the advanced juggernaut the media makes it out to be.

Have anyone seen the MiG or attack helicopters tossing flairs as they conduct their attack runs on the rebels? I don't think so!!!

The Air suppression process for the rebels can be achieved without Western / NATO / air to air operations.

Why go on a high risk mission to attack SAM sites in Syria when you can simply deny the air space of the Syrian air force over held territory?

Why fight at a "force on force" level when you can continue what has been successful for  months, hit and run unconventional tactics?

As I said two days ago, the ability to make the Syrian air force and army plan for air interdiction, something they had to start doing as soon as they lost the MiG, is a process that only slows their offensive operations.

The rebels do not need the skies of Syria clear of  Assad's planes and helicopters.

What they need is the ability to deny air space in the area they are operating.

Asking for NATO " No Fly Zones" is the wrong request.

Asking for anti air weapons and the training to use them; that is the right answer.

Again; as I said two days ago, be careful what you ask for.

Dropping a MiG or a Hind is one thing; shooting down a airliner or another countries transport aircraft; that is a whole different issue.

If the "Friends" of the rebels / insert the GCC here / are going to support the rebels anti air capability, they better have a well thought out plan and limitations.

Someone better do a real good job of vetting the "rebels" who get the training and get access to these types of weapons.

Most of the world believes this process is already underway.. Perception is reality!

Air denial that makes it to the media is a level of bad news Assad and his supporters may react to severely.

 As I said months ago on the topic of " No Fly Zones", be very careful what you ask for.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/08/201281651250103232.html

FOR THE MB, EVERYTHING HAS A SCHEDULE.

We have seen this process with the MB before; trying to get Hamas and Fatah to come to some level of cohesion, but the event was not on the top of the MB list of things to do.

First they had to win the election in Egypt.

Second they had to neutralize the Egyptian military leadership.

My suspension will be the third priority will be to start the rewrite of the Egyptian Constitution; although Morsy may slow that process down now that he has centralized his own power.

Who cares about a new Constitution after you have gained all the power?

In the order of things, I would be willing to bet Morsy and the MB didn't anticipate dealing with the PA issue just yet.

The events of last week have pushed this issue back to the forefront and so he must at least calm the waters for now.

A meeting where he tells both sides to  "calm down" is probably about as far as this next meeting will get.

Behind closed doors, it would be interesting to who Morsy truly believes was behind the attacks last week.

Some speculate he may have arranged the event to justify the move on the Egyptian Military leadership, but I don't buy that.

Morsy knew he was one major event away from being able to pull off the removal plan.

If it wouldn't have been the events in the Sinai, it would have been something else.

Now, that is not to say, if the MB truly believes Hamas had something to do with the death of Egyptians, there will not be a price to pay.

The financial repercussions of the Egyptians closing off the tunnels into Gaza would be the death bell for Hamas and Fatah knows it.

How Morsy and the MB handle this event will become clear when the time comes.

Both Hamas and Fatah realize, deep down inside, they are nothing more than "Pawns" in the Egyptian game of regional chess.

How the MB plans to deal with Israel will decide the future of Hamas and Fatah.

Both will have no other "Daddy" to turn to if Iran and Syria are neutralized.

I said this over almost two years ago, but let me say it again.

In the Master Plan of the Muslim Brotherhood, The Palestinian "Weapon" is the final act for the move on the  " Holy Land".

When that move comes will be at the decision of the MB and I would still bet you that will be after the Iranian / Syrian events have come to pass.

Do not forget the one enduring virtue of the MB.

The patience of Job!!!!

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=281212

SYRIAN REBELS AND ANTI AIRCRAFT WEAPONS?? WHAT WOULD IT MEAN?

With all the talk of the downed MiG today, it brings to light a issue that needs careful consideration.

It's a point of history the inclusion of anti air weapons in Afghanistan was the key factor in the defeat of the Soviet military there.

If the statement today was, " anti air" weapons could change the course of the war in Syria, the person or persons saying this could be far more astute than they realize.

Anti SAM operations for the Syrian air force is most likely weak at best and the fact their pilots have not stayed proficient in this highly perishable skill for well over a year now could be a crisis Assad doesn't realize.

Forcing helicopters to realize they are no longer in controlled airspace is going to have a dramatic impact on assaulting city sites.

If the rebels gain the ability to secure or at least threaten the airspace over their heads, the impact will be dramatic.

So, is this potential game changer good news?

Maybe not!

If these weapons are now becoming available to the rebels, we have to ask the question; what are the guidelines?

It's one thing to bring down a tactical target such as a MiG or a attack helicopter, but what happens if the rebels or worse yet those who are not rebels take a shot at non tactical aircraft?

What stops the rebels from targeting non tactical aircraft?

What stops those who pretend to be rebels from obtaining these weapons in the name of the revolution?

Are these weapons in the rebels hands yet?

http://www.debka.com/article/22264/Clinton-Chemical-warfare-is-planned-for-Rebels-get-first-anti-air-Stingers

Lets assume they do and lets also assume the agreements on how they may be used can and will be violated; if there was an agreement!

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/syrian-opposition-leader-calls-fly-zone-16989496#.UCm7q52PV8E

At face value, this may sound like a good news story.

My fear is, this could be the event that truly turns Assad into a completely  desperate leader.

That fear is only compounded by my fear of what other targets may be chosen.