Real to increase Modric bid

By Harry Harris, Football Correspondent

ESPN understands Real Madrid are prepared to increase their bid for Luka Modric to £33 million but are unwilling to match Tottenham's £40 million valuation of the midfielder.

GettyImagesLuka Modric of Tottenham Hotspur celebrates scoring the opening goal against Liverpool

• Kranjcar slams Levy 'lies' over Modric
Modric's future at Tottenham has been the subject of conjecture for the second summer running, after he was linked with a move to Chelsea last year.
Spurs dug their heels in despite the Blues' interest, yet again their Croatia international is the subject of interest, with Real Madrid favourites for his signature this time around.
Tottenham chairman Daniel Levy is seeking at least £35 million for Modric, with the club uninterested in a cash plus player deal - after it was suggested Nuri Sahin could be used as a makeweight.
Affluent side PSG have also been mooted as candidates for Modric's signature, but it is understood the former Dinamo Zagreb player has his heart set on Madrid.
An ESPN source said: "Real Madrid have now indicated they will increase their offer because they can see that Spurs are not interested in the players in part exchange. Andre Villa Boas has said he is not interested in Sahin.
"Real are back with a bid of £33 million but they do not value Modric at £40 million and in any case they don't have so much money.
"With Daniel Levy insisting the price has to be more than £35 million and close to £40 million this will drag on and maybe Levy will wait until the very last minute before making a final decision."
Modric, 26, was recently fined by Tottenham for not training his team-mates and then failing to attend their pre-season tour of America. He has since apologised for his actions.

Bikinis?

An anti-Obama ad, featuring a Jewish Democrat

• >

“I was a big Obama supporter. I had a fundraiser in my home, gave money to his campaign. I really believed in him and believed in what he stood for. When he gave the speech about the ‘67 borders, it was nothing that had come up in his campaign originally. That really changed my mind about him. When he had the prime minister of Israel, [Benjamin] Netanyahu, to the White House…he was disrespectful to him to the point that I’d never seen.”
— Disillusioned Obama voter Michael Goldstein, in an ad by the Republican Jewish Coalition
The Republican Jewish Coalition is launching a $6.5 million campaign to convince Jewish voters — among the most loyal segments of the Democratic coalition — that it is okay to vote against President Obama because of his stand on Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian issue. The campaign is aimed at key Jewish areas in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, where the RNC hopes to swing just enough votes to tip those states in Mitt Romney’s electoral vote column.
 RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks told us that the ad push will be accompanied by a Web site, www.mybuyersremorse.com, in which people can upload videos expressing their own thoughts on Obama and Israel. Brooks said the remarks by Goldstein were edited down from a 25-minute conversation.
 Democrats are planning to fight back with their own operation. The National Jewish Democratic Council has launched a Web site that includes a quiz that invites visitors to guess which president said what about Israel. (Hint: Obama didn’t do any of the negative stuff.)
 We obviously can’t fact-check opinions, but this is a fascinating example of how relatively incremental moments in the course of a presidency — and how they are portrayed by the media — can solidify into “facts” that erode support for that president. We spoke to Goldstein, who lives in East Brunswick, N.J., to gain a better understanding of how the two events he mentioned — the 1967 borders and the meeting with Netanyahu — turned him against the president.

The Facts

 Obama entered office determined to finally achieve a historic agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians, even appointing a special envoy on his second day in office. As documented in the authoritative report this month by our Washington Post colleague Scott Wilson, Obama’s efforts quickly ran aground, and within six months the administration’s policies were in tatters. The administration never really recovered from its early stumbles.
A year ago, we had also looked at the question of whether the criticism of Obama’s record on Israel was justified — or if it was simply a matter of poorly executed diplomacy. (We left the conclusion up to readers, pleasing no one.) Since then, having apparently realized the Palestinian issue will not get resolved any time soon, the Obama administration has moved to firm up its public support of Israel. By virtually all accounts, the Obama administration has been especially strong in bolstering security ties between Israel and the United States.
 But old impressions linger, as demonstrated by Goldstein’s commentary in this video. Here are explanations of the two key issues.
“The speech about the ‘67 borders.”
In a May 19, 2011, speech about the Middle East, Obama made this comment: “The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”
As we wrote at the time, for people not trained in the nuances of Middle East diplomacy, the sentence might appear unremarkable — but it represented a significant shift in U.S. policy.  In part, it was a shift because of what Obama did not say. Obama made no mention of the need to accommodate Israeli settlements in a peace deal, as previous presidents had done, and he left out the usual balancing language about how Palestinian refugees need to give up any hope of returning to Israel.
 As Wilson documented, former Obama adviser Dennis Ross wanted Obama to give two speeches — fearing that remarks on Arab reform would be lost if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was mentioned — but he was overruled. Ross’s concerns were justified in retrospect. Now, the speech is barely remembered for its sections on the Arab Spring.
 Goldstein, in an interview, said he was horrified by Obama’s language. “I don’t think any president publicly made that [the 1967 boundaries] the starting point for negotiations,” he said in an interview, because Obama’s formulation appeared to lack balance in making similar demands of the Palestinians. “It changed my view of him,” he said. “That was not the man I voted for. I thought I was voting for a better version of Bill Clinton.”
 The speech was obviously carefully written and negotiated, and some of Obama’s decisions on the language appear to have led to the resignation of special envoy George Mitchell. This episode shows how such word choices can have consequences.
The irony, of course, is that the Israeli-Palestinian negotiating track has been dead for almost two years. Obama uttered these words in a desperate hope that they might spur some movement — but at the moment the consequences are political, not diplomatic.
“He was disrespectful to him [Netanyahu]”
 The video suggests that Obama was disrespectful to the Israeli prime minister after he gave the speech on 1967 boundaries, but in reality the perceived snub had come more than a year earlier — after the Israeli government had diplomatically embarrassed Vice President Biden, with an announcement on settlement housing starts during a trip to Israel.
 No photo was permitted of Obama’s follow-up March 2010 meeting with Netanyahu — in part, the White House suggests, because Obama had signed the health-care law that day, making it the administration’s message of the day.
 Goldstein rejects that as a “made-up” excuse, saying a snub was clearly intended.
 Netanyahu also has been publicly tough with Obama, especially after the president’s speech on the 1967 boundaries. He in essence lectured Obama in full view of television cameras, suggesting the president had an unrealistic view of the region.
There is clearly no warmth between the two men, but the ad somehow manages to elevate a diplomatic dispute into an insult against Israelis and even all Jews.
 Though it is not mentioned in the video, Goldstein told us that he is also miffed that Obama has not yet visited Israel. When it is pointed out that George W. Bush did not visit Israel until the last year of an eight-year term — and Ronald Reagan never did — Goldstein acknowledges those facts but brushes them aside. He said that because Obama initially spent so much time reaching out to the Muslim world, it was even more necessary for him to visit Israel rather than repeatedly assert that he has Israel’s back.

The Bottom Line

 This particular ad is very effective because Goldstein appears to be talking from his heart. He had shaken Obama’s hand in the 2008 campaign, and says he was thrilled when Obama won the election. Goldstein and his wife “bought Obama T-shirts and hats,” he recalls. “We were true believers and loved him.”
 Despite acknowledging counterarguments to the points he made in the video, Goldstein says “you have to go with your feelings.” He now is so distrustful of Obama’s handling of Israel that he is convinced Iran will get a nuclear weapon during Obama’s second term.
 Polling indicates that foreign policy is regarded as a strength for Obama. But this ad is cleverly designed to undermine support for Obama in the Jewish community — and to signal that it is okay for a Democrat to vote against him. Goldstein suggests that the impressions he has about Obama are widely shared among Jewish friends, though few want to admit it publicly. If that’s the case, the Obama campaign will have to work hard to overcome the perceptions that have taken root.
Source:WP

By Joby Warrick

Iran is rapidly gaining new capabilities to strike at U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf, amassing an arsenal of sophisticated anti-ship missiles while expanding its fleet of fast-attack boats and submarines, U.S. and Middle Eastern analysts say.
The new systems, many of them developed with foreign assistance, are giving Iran’s commanders new confidence that they could quickly damage or destroy U.S. ships if hostilities erupt, the officials say.
 
 Stringer/Iran/Reuters - Military personnel place a flag on a submarine during the Velayat-90 war games by the Iranian navy in the Strait of Hormuz in southern Iran December 27, 2011. Iran is rapidly gaining new capabilities to strike at U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf, amassing an arsenal of sophisticated anti-ship missiles while expanding its fleet of fast-attack boats and submarines.

 Although U.S. Navy officials are convinced that they would prevail in a fight, Iran’s advances have fueled concerns about U.S. vulnerabilities during the opening hours of a conflict in the gulf.
Increasingly accurate short-range missiles — combined with Iran’s use of “swarm” tactics involving hundreds of heavily armed patrol boats — could strain the defensive capabilities of even the most modern U.S. ships, current and former military analysts say.
In recent weeks, as nuclear talks with world powers have faltered and tensions have risen, Iran has repeated threats to shut down shipping in the oil-rich gulf region. Its leaders also have warned of massive retaliation for any attacks on its nuclear facilities, which the United States believes are civilian covers for an Iranian drive to acquire a nuclear-weapons capability.
Last week, Iran’s Foreign Ministry declared that the presence of U.S. warships in the gulf constituted a “real threat” to the region’s security.
Pentagon officials have responded by sending more ships, urged on by Congress as well as U.S. allies in the region. This month, the Navy announced that it would deploy the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis to the Middle East four months ahead of schedule. The shift will keep two carriers in the gulf region.
The United States also has announced new military exercises in the region, including a mine-sweeping drill in the gulf, and has moved to add new radar stations and land-based missile-defense batteries in Qatar.

Assessing the risks
The likelihood that Iran would risk an all-out attack on a vastly superior U.S. fleet is judged to be small. But Iranian leaders could decide to launch a limited strike if Israel or the United States bombed the country’s nuclear facilities. Analysts also cautioned that a conflict could be sparked by an Iranian attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz — the narrow passage through which about 20 percent of the world’s oil passes from the Persian Gulf into open seas — in retaliation for international economic sanctions.In either scenario, Iran’s ability to inflict significant damage is substantially greater than it was a decade ago. A Pentagon study in April warned that Iran had made gains in the “lethality and effectiveness” of its arsenal. The Pentagon declined to comment for this article.
Iran’s increased power to retaliate has led some military experts to question the wisdom of deploying aircraft carriers and other expensive warships to the gulf if a conflict appears imminent.
A 2009 study prepared for the Naval War College warns of Iran’s increasing ability to “execute a massive naval ambush” in the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway dotted with small islands and inlets and perfectly suited for the kind of asymmetric warfare preferred by Iran’s commanders.
Source:WP

West Ham in record bid for Carroll

By ESPN staff

West Ham have made a bid for Liverpool striker Andy Carroll that would shatter the club's transfer record.

GettyImagesAndy Carroll: Liverpool future is in doubt

Carroll, 23, is thought to be surplus to requirements at Anfield despite the £35 million spent on him in January 2011 and Liverpool could be ready to let him leave this summer.
The Hammers have offered £2 million to loan Carroll until the end of the 2012-13 season and will also meet his £80,000-a-week wage demands. The bid also contains a clause that would see Carroll join in a permanent deal for a further £16 million, if the club avoid relegation.
The total outlay of West Ham's bid is significantly more than the £7.5 million they paid Liverpool for Craig Bellamy in 2007 and Jack Sullivan, son of David Sullivan, the West Ham co-owner, virtually confirmed the news by tweeting: "Dad is working on the biggest signing in the history of the club - twice as big as anything the club have done before!"
Carroll himself, however, is thought to favour a return to Newcastle rather than a move to London, despite the presence of former Newcastle team-mate and good friend Kevin Nolan at Upton Park.
Newcastle are reported to have offered him a loan move for the season with the option of a £15 million deal next summer, but Liverpool rejected the proposal as it included them paying a significant portion of the England striker's wages.

Syria conflict:Assad days are numbered.

The former head of the UN observer mission in Syria says it is "only a matter of time" until President Bashar al-Assad's government falls.

But Norwegian Maj Gen Robert Mood, who left Syria last week, said Mr Assad's fall would not necessarily mean an end to the 16-month-old conflict.

Syrian forces renewed their assault on the northern city of Aleppo, Syria's most populous city, on Friday.


The US state department says it fears a massacre by Syrian government forces.

The pro-government al-Watan newspaper warned that the "mother of all battles" was about to start.

'Reports of atrocities'
"In my opinion it is only a matter of time before a regime that is using such heavy military power and disproportional violence against the civilian population is going to fall," Maj Gen Mood told the Reuters news agency.

Continue reading the main story
Mood's mission

14 April: UN Security Council votes to send monitors to oversee implementation of ceasefire as part of envoy Kofi Annan's peace plan
20 April: Maj Gen Mood, former chief of staff of Norwegian army, appointed as mission head
28 May: UN observer team visits Houla area of Homs, counting at least 32 children among more than 90 bodies
16 June: Mood grounds observers after violence obstructs their work
20 June: Mood tells UN observers were deliberately targeted by hostile crowds and gunfire at least 10 times
20 July: UN votes to extend mission for final 30 days but Mood resigns
Separately, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay appealed to both sides to spare civilians, citing concerns of "the likelihood of an imminent major confrontation".

Ms Pillay said she had received "as yet unconfirmed reports of atrocities, including extra-judicial killings and shooting of civilians by snipers" in Damascus.

Saying she had also received more reports of opposition fighters torturing or executing prisoners, Ms Pillay stated her belief that "crimes against humanity and war crimes have been, and continue to be, committed in Syria".

UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said the people of Aleppo were threatened with a potential massacre.

"This utterly unacceptable escalation of the conflict could lead to a devastating loss of civilian life and a humanitarian disaster," he said.

He urged all permanent members of the UN Security Council - including Russia and China, who have vetoed three resolutions - to condemn the actions.

The BBC's Wyre Davies, on the Syria-Turkey border, says conditions in Aleppo are reported to be dire.

Thousands of government troops have been drafted in from other areas and are encircling the city, he says.

'Hopeless situation'
An activist based in Fardos in the city told the BBC at least 15 people had died on Friday morning during the military's bombardment of a building.

"We have medical supplies but no doctors or equipment to treat the injured. The situation feels hopeless," said the activist, identified only as Ramy.

"The people of Aleppo are not coping with this crisis. They are dying. It is a massacre. People can leave their homes and move around the city but who would really want to take the risk of being shot or bombed?"

He insisted that activists would continue to resist the government forces.

"Activists are prepared to engage in a guerrilla war, from street to street if necessary," he said.

The BBC has been unable to independently verify Ramy's comments.

The Red Crescent has suspended some of its operations in Aleppo because of the heavy fighting.

Rebels have been stockpiling ammunition and medical supplies in preparation for the expected assault.

Syrian troops fired from helicopter gunships on south-western neighbourhoods on Friday morning, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights told the AFP news agency.

A convoy of tanks from Idlib province, near the border with Turkey, arrived in Aleppo overnight and was attacked by rebels, the Observatory said.

Residents flee
The US State Department said the deployment of tanks, helicopter gunships and fixed-winged aircraft around Aleppo suggested an attack was imminent.

But the US would not intervene, said spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, except by continuing to channel non-lethal assistance (such as communications equipment and medical supplies) to the rebels.

A Syrian MP from Aleppo has fled to Turkey, Turkey's state-run Anatolia news agency says.

Ikhlas Badawi, a mother of six, said she was defecting in protest at the "violence against the people".

Meanwhile, another defector, Gen Manaf Tlas, has put himself forward as a possible figure to unite the fractious opposition.

In an interview with a Saudi newspaper, Asharq al-Awsat, he said: "I am discussing with... people outside Syria to reach a consensus with those inside."

However, some in the opposition regard Gen Tlas - who fled earlier this month - as a compromised figure too close to the government of President Assad.

For its part, Turkey has said it will not tolerate the creation of a Kurdish-run region in northern Syria.

This follows reports that Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq had formed an alliance with a Kurdish party across the border in Syria.

Turkey would strike against "terrorists" in northern Syria, warned Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in the same way it has attacked bases in northern Iraq used by militants linked to the Kurdistan People's Party (PKK).

Turkey is concerned that the creation of a Kurdish authority in the north of Syria could provide a sanctuary to Kurdish rebels fighting for self-rule in Turkey's southeast.