WAR 01-02-2016-to-01-08-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-new-nuclear-proliferation-age-1452125881

Opinion | Review & Outlook

The New Nuclear Proliferation Age

North Korea’s test shows the continuing failure of arms control.

Jan. 6, 2016 7:18 p.m. ET
18 COMMENTS

The temptation in most world capitals will be to denounce North Korea’s Wednesday nuclear test but do little beyond attempting to bribe dictator Kim Jong Un with more cash in return for more disarmament promises. The more realistic view is to see this as another giant step toward a dangerous new era of nuclear proliferation that the world ignores at its peril.

Pyongyang says the explosion, its fourth so far and first since 2013, was a “completely successful” test of a miniaturized hydrogen bomb. That would represent a technological leap, as H-bombs can be thousands of times stronger than the atomic weapons that North Korea tested previously. Pyongyang often lies, and the White House said Wednesday the initial U.S. analysis suggests it wasn’t an H-bomb.

But even an upgraded atomic bomb using boosted fission would give Kim a more powerful weapon than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Kim is estimated to have enough uranium and plutonium production for 50 to 100 bombs by 2020.

This threat is growing well beyond Asia as the North makes progress on warhead miniaturization and missile delivery. U.S. Admiral Bill Gortney of the North American Aerospace Defense Command said last year that Pyongyang has “the capability to reach the [U.S.] homeland with a nuclear weapon from a rocket.”

The North conducted an apparently successful submarine missile test last month. Pyongyang helped Syria build a secret plutonium reactor that the Israeli air force destroyed in 2007, and it has worked with Iran on long-range missiles and possibly nuclear technology.

The larger story here is the rapid fraying of the world’s antinuclear proliferation regime, assisted by the illusion of arms control. The failure with North Korea goes back to Bill Clinton’s 1994 Agreed Framework, which he hailed as “a good deal” because “North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program” in return for food and energy aid. The North took the cash and kept working toward a plutonium and uranium bomb.

The Bush Administration tried a tougher approach at first but lost its nerve in the second term and also went the bribery route. We’ve praised President Obama for not doing the same, but the Administration mustered no response to the North’s 2013 nuclear test and only light sanctions after its 2014 cyberattack against Sony. The North has now escalated.

The West wants to believe the Iran nuclear deal is an antiproliferation triumph, but Iran’s neighbors view it as a delaying action at best. They think it guarantees that Iran will eventually build a weapon. Over time this will encourage others in the Middle East to seek their own nuclear deterrent.

In Asia, too, the question is whether North Korea’s growing nuclear arsenal will now cause Japan and South Korea to get their own deterrent. South Korean President Park Geun-hye warned in 2014 that after a fourth North Korean test “it would be difficult to prevent a nuclear domino from occurring in this area.”

North Korea’s latest test should spur a new global resolve against Pyongyang, but it probably won’t. China once again expressed its disapproval but it has never been willing to squeeze its client state.

The U.S. could revive the targeted economic sanctions that in 2005 hit Macau’s Banco Delta Asia and forced others to cut ties with Pyongyang, squeezing its supplies of arms and luxury goods. The U.S. also hasn’t designated the North as a “primary money-laundering concern” despite its racket in counterfeit currency and drugs. The North Korea Sanctions Enforcement Act, long stalled in Congress, would fix such oversights.

At the very least the U.S. and South Korea could finally deploy the missile-defense system known as Thaad, for Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense. Beijing has pressured Seoul not to use the U.S.-built platform, which would integrate with U.S. and Japanese defenses. But Thaad is the strongest system available, and China’s patronage of Pyongyang is a main reason the region is under threat.

The only real solution is to put regime change at the heart of U.S. policy. This would mean stronger defenses in the South, stepped-up sanctions and enforcement to undercut Pyongyang’s illicit trade and access to foreign goods, as well as expanded efforts to facilitate the flow of refugees out of the North.

The Obama Administration has shown no inclination to do any of this, and it is unlikely to start now. The result is that while Mr. Obama entered office promising to pursue “a world without nuclear weapons,” he will leave having set loose a new era of nuclear proliferation.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-nuclear-idUSKBN0UK0G420160107

World | Thu Jan 7, 2016 5:07am EST
Related: World, United Nations, South Korea, North Korea

South Korea seeks U.S. strategic weapons after North's nuclear test

SEOUL | By Ju-min Park and Se Young Lee


South Korea is in talks with the United States to deploy U.S. strategic weapons on the Korean peninsula, a South Korean military official said on Thursday, a day after North Korea said it successfully tested a hydrogen nuclear device.

South Korea also said it would resume propaganda broadcasts by loudspeaker into North Korea from Friday, which is likely to infuriate its isolated rival, in response to its fourth nuclear test.

The United States and weapons experts voiced doubts the device North Korea tested on Wednesday was a hydrogen bomb, but calls mounted for more sanctions against it for its rogue nuclear program.

The underground explosion angered China, which was not given prior notice although it is North Korea's main ally, pointing to a strain in their ties.

The test also alarmed Japan. Its prime minister, Shinzo Abe, agreed with U.S. President Barack Obama in a telephone call that a firm global response was needed, the White House said.

Obama also spoke to President Park Geun-hye of South Korea to discuss options.

A South Korean military official told Reuters the two countries had discussed the deployment of U.S. strategic assets on the divided Korean peninsula, but declined to give further details.

After North Korea last tested a nuclear device, in 2013, Washington sent a pair of nuclear-capable B-2 stealth bombers on a sortie over South Korea in a show of force. At the time, North Korea responded by threatening a nuclear strike on the United States.

South Korea, technically in a state of war against the North, said it was not considering a nuclear deterrent of its own, despite calls from ruling party leaders. The United States is highly unlikely to restore the tactical nuclear missiles it removed from South Korea in 1991, experts said.

The test was a "grave violation" of an August agreement by the two Koreas to ease tension and improve ties, a South Korean national security official, Cho Tae-yong, said in a statement.


Related Coverage
› Behind North Korea's nuclear weapons program: a geriatric trio
› South Korea to resume loudspeaker propaganda broadcasts against Pyongyang

"Our military is at a state of full readiness, and if North Korea wages provocation, there will be firm punishment."

The United States is limited in its military response for fear of provoking an unpredictable regime in Pyongyang, said Anthony Cordesman, a defense policy expert at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies think-tank.

"Any escalation in this region, any over-reaction can easily lead to not only a conflict between South and North Korea, but drag China and the United States and Japan into a confrontation," Cordesman said.

A Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman called for a resumption of so-called six-party talks between the two Koreas, China, the United States, Japan and Russia aimed at curbing North Korea's nuclear ambitions.

"We are worried about how things are developing," the spokeswoman, Hua Chunying, told a briefing when asked if U.S. weapons to South Korea risked inflaming the situation.

Asked about a suggestion from U.S. Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump that China could do more to rein in North Korea, Hua said: "What constructive efforts have they made?"
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-security-idUSKBN0UL0XE20160107

World | Thu Jan 7, 2016 6:15am EST
Related: World, Libya

Truck bomb kills 65 at Libyan police training center

MISRATA, Libya


At least 65 people were killed on Thursday when one of Libya's worst truck bombs in years exploded at a police training center in the town of Zliten, local officials and hospital sources said.

No group immediately claimed the attack, but the bombing was one of the deadliest since Islamist militants started expanding their presence in the chaos that followed the fall of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011.

Mayor Miftah Hamadi said the bomb detonated as recruits were gathering at the police center in Zliten, a coastal town between the capital Tripoli and the port of Misrata.

Witnesses said residents were ferrying victims to Misrata hospitals in ambulances and cars, many with shrapnel wounds. Medical sources said 65 people had been killed, including some civilians, though one official said between 50 and 60 had died.

Since the NATO-backed revolt ousted Gaddafi, Libya has slipped deeper into turmoil with two rival governments and a range of armed factions locked in a struggle for control of the North African state and its oil wealth.

In the chaos, Islamic State militants have grown in strength, taking over the city of Sirte and launching attacks on oilfields. Islamic State fighters this week attacked two major oil export terminals.

In February last year, three car bombs hit the eastern Libyan city of Qubbah, killing 40 people in what officials described as a revenge attack for Egyptian air strikes on Islamist militant targets.

Western powers are pushing Libya's factions to back a U.N.-brokered national unity government to join forces against Islamic State, but the agreement faces major resistance from several factions on the ground.


(Reporting Ayman El Sahli in Misrata and Hani Amara in Tripoli; Writing by Aidan Lewis and Patrick Markey; Editing by Giles Elgood)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-security-idUSKBN0UL0OQ20160107

World | Thu Jan 7, 2016 5:59am EST
Related: World, United Nations, Yemen

Heaviest air strikes yet strike Yemeni capital Sanaa: residents

CAIRO


Dozens of air strikes hit the Yemeni capital Sanaa on Thursday, in what residents described as the heaviest aerial attacks there in nine months of war, days after a Saudi-led coalition trying to restore a Saudi-backed government ended a fragile ceasefire.

The strikes pounded the presidential palace and a mountain military base to the south of the city, causing children and teachers in several schools to flee for their lives.

"My classmate and I were at recess when a huge explosion hit the neighborhood. We ran to the side and she fell to the ground in fear," said Maha, a tenth grader in a Sanaa school. "Everybody was screaming and the administration got us together and called our parents to take us out - all the students were in a panic." There were no immediate reports of casualties.

A coalition led by Saudi Arabia and its Sunni Muslim allies has been fighting the Shi'ite Houthi movement, which controls the capital.

While Riyadh sees the Houthis as a proxy for Iran, Saudi Arabia's bitter regional rival, to expand its influence, the Houthis deny this and say they are fighting a revolution against a corrupt government and Gulf Arab powers beholden to the West.

Almost 6,000 people have died in the conflict, nearly half of them civilians. United Nations-backed peace talks have yet to produce any substantial progress.


Related Coverage
› Iran accuses Saudi warplanes of attacking its embassy in Yemen


NEW FRONT

A new front opened in the nine-month-old civil war when forces loyal to the embattled Saudi-backed president, Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi, landed by sea at the Red Sea port of Maydee near the border with Saudi Arabia late on Wednesday, according to residents. Northern Yemen is a Houthi stronghold.

Hadi's forces attempted to push out from Maydee's port, pounded for weeks by air strikes and naval shelling, into the surrounding city, but ran into heavy Houthi resistance and landmines, residents told Reuters by telephone.

Major General Adel Qumairi of the pro-government forces told Saudi-owned Arabiya TV that his forces had "completely taken control" of the city.

But Yemen's state news agency Saba, run by the Houthis, quoted Sharaf Luqman, a spokesman for forces allied to the group, as saying the advance had been met by "heroic resistance" that caused them "great material and human losses".

Saudi Arabia on Saturday announced the end of a truce that had reduced fighting but had been repeatedly violated by both sides.

The Saudi spokesman for the coalition, Brigadier General Ahmed Asseri, told Al Arabiya that a Houthi ballistic missile aimed at the kingdom overnight had exploded on launch.


(Reporting By Mohammed Ghobari; Writing by Noah Browning; Editing by Kevin Liffey)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/china-flies-commercial-jets-man-made-island-36136382

China Flies 2 Commercial Jets to Man-Made Island

By Christopher Bodeen, Associated Press · BEIJING — Jan 7, 2016, 4:11 AM ET

A pair of Chinese civilian jet airliners landed at a newly created island in a disputed section of the South China Sea in a test to see whether its airstrip was up to standard, state media reported Thursday.

The China Daily newspaper said the two planes on Wednesday made the two-hour flight to Fiery Cross Reef from Haikou on the southern island province of Hainan.

It said the test flights proved the runway's ability to safely handle large civilian aircraft. Photos showed one of the planes to be a China Southern Airlines Airbus A319-115.

The flights followed an earlier test flight on Saturday that drew an angry protest from rival claimants Vietnam and the Philippines.

China's creation of seven new islands by piling sand on reefs and atolls has been condemned by its neighbors and the United States, which accused China of raising tensions in an area where six governments maintain overlapping maritime territorial claims.

The U.S. State Department responded to Saturday's flight by reiterating calls for a halt to land reclamation and militarization of outposts in those waters.

In Manila, visiting British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said Thursday that freedom of navigation and overflight in the South China Sea was non-negotiable and urged rival governments to avoid provocative steps.

"They are red lines for us," Hammond said, adding that as a major trading nation, Britain expects to continue exercising those rights.

Philippine Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario warned that China may next impose an air defense identification zone above the contested region, as it did over the East China Sea, and said such a move would be "unacceptable."

China has rejected calls for a halt in island construction, saying its claim of sovereignty over the entire area gives it the right to proceed as it wishes. It says the new islands are principally for civilian use but also help defend Chinese sovereignty.

China's robust assertions of its claims have sparked a series of tense exchanges, mainly among China, Vietnam and the Philippines, over long-disputed and potentially oil- or gas-rich offshore territories also claimed by Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei.

That's also creating new tensions with the U.S., which has refused to recognize the new islands as geographic features deserving of territorial waters and other aspects of sovereignty.

While Washington takes no formal position on the various sovereignty claims, it insists that disputes be settled peacefully and that freedom of navigation be maintained in waters through which more than 30 percent of global trade passes.

Fiery Cross Reef is the largest of the seven new islands that in total compose more than 800 hectares (2,000 acres) of reclaimed land. Its 3-kilometer (10,000-foot) airstrip is long enough to handle any plane operated by the Chinese military.

Another runway is being built on Subi Reef, with signs of similar work underway on nearby Mischief Reef. If all are completed, China would possess four airstrips in all on its South China Sea island holdings.

———

Associated Press writer Jim Gomez in Manila, Philippines, contributed to this report.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...bia-of-Missile-Attack-on-Its-Embassy-in-Yemen

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...saudi-missile-attack-damages-embassy-in-yemen

Iran Accuses Saudi Arabia of Missile Attack on Its Embassy in Yemen

by Nafeesa Syeed
January 7, 2016 — 3:40 AM PST

- Embassy guards injured in Sana'a attack, Press TV reports
- Saudi Arabia cut diplomatic ties with Iran this week

A missile attack by Saudi Arabia damaged Iran’s embassy in the Yemeni capital, Sana’a, Iranian state-run Press TV reported, fanning the tensest standoff between the regional powerhouses in decades.

Tehran holds Saudi Arabia responsible for the damage caused to its embassy in Yemen, Press TV said Thursday, adding that an unspecified number of embassy guards were wounded. Tehran condemned the attack as a violation of international law, the station said.

Saudi Arabia severed diplomatic ties with Iran this week after an Iranian mob attacked the Saudi embassy in Tehran Jan. 2 to protest the execution of a prominent Saudi Shiite cleric. The events between Sunni-majority Saudi Arabia and Shiite-led Iran have exacerbated tensions across the Muslim world.

A Saudi-led coalition began carrying out airstrikes last March against Shiite Houthi rebels in Yemen in support of allied President Abdurabuh Mansur Hadi. Gulf Arab nations accuse the rebels of being tools of Iran, a charge the Houthis deny.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
So they finally got another "sale". Follow the geopolitics.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2016/01/sri-lanka-to-buy-eight-sino-pak-jf-17-fighter-jets/

Sri Lanka to Buy Eight Sino-Pak JF-17 Fighter Jets

Sri Lanka and Pakistan agreed to the deal on the second of day of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s visit to Colombo.

By Franz-Stefan Gady
January 07, 2016

5 Shares
0 Comments

thediplomat_2015-11-13_14-52-06-386x257.jpg

http://thediplomat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/thediplomat_2015-11-13_14-52-06-386x257.jpg

During a three-day state visit to Sri Lanka, Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena and Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif sealed a landmark deal for the purchase of eight Pakistan Aeronautical Complex/Chengdu Aircraft Industry Corporation (PAC/CAC) JF-17 Thunder combat aircraft.

This defense deal would make Sri Lanka the first international customer of the fighter jet, although reports have also emerged this week that Nigeria will likewise acquire three PAC/CAC JF-17 Thunder multirole fighters in 2016, based on information obtained by a Nigerian newspaper.

As of now, there is no official confirmation of the deal, which might imply that a legal contract has yet to be signed. Pakistan has sought deeper defense ties with Sri Lanka for some time. “I conveyed our desire for more frequent port calls, participation in military exercises and defense seminars and training of military personnel,” Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif purportedly said while in Sri Lanka this week, according to Defense News.

The agreement over the procurement of the JF-17 fighter jets happened despite fierce Indian opposition. As I reported in October 2015, in an attempt to outdo Islamabad, New Delhi has been trying to sell its Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) to Sri Lanka (See: “Outwitting Pakistan: India Offers Sri Lanka Its Newest Fighter Jet”).

However, Sri Lankan defense officials were hesitant and, among other things, allegedly pointed out that the Tejas LCA is not even in service yet with the Indian Air Force (IAF). Indeed, only one fighter aircraft has been delivered to the Indian Air Force so far and the aircraft, developed by the Aeronautical Development Agency in cooperation with Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), only achieved initial operational clearance in December 2013.

Pakistani defense officials repeatedly announced over the past year that an unnamed Asian country has become the JF-17’s first customer. For example, during last year’s Dubai Air Show, Pakistan Aeronautical Complex officials revealed that an unidentified Asian country purportedly had signed an aircraft procurement contract, but failed to produce details (See: “Groundhog Day: China-Pakistan JF-17 Has its First Buyer”).

Up until June 2015, Sri Lankan officials adamantly denied that a weapons deal with Islamabad has been signed. Back then, a Sri Lankan Air Force spokesperson said that “although both Pakistan and China have indicated the availability of the fighter jet and proposals have been submitted on the availability of the aircraft, SLA has not made any decision on purchasing them.”

The (PAC/CAC) JF-17 Thunder combat aircraft is manufactured at the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC) west of Islamabad, which has the capacity to produce 25 aircraft per year. Pakistan produces 58 percent of the airframe and China 42 percent respectively. Islamabad claims that the aircraft are assembled without any Chinese technical assistance.

Nevertheless, as I noted in April 2015 (see: “China Will Supply Pakistan With 110 New JF-17s”), Pakistan’s military aircraft industry appears unable to keep up with domestic demand for the aircraft: Pakistan’s military ordered 110 additional JF-17 aircraft from China, which calls into question the true export capacity of the country.

A number of air forces are currently considering acquiring the JF-17, including Argentina, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, the Philippines, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe. No delivery date for the first batch of JF-17 aircraft to Sri Lanka has been announced yet.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2016/01/how-will-china-respond-to-north-koreas-nuclear-test/

How Will China Respond to North Korea's Nuclear Test?

Looking back at history to predict how Xi Jinping will respond to Pyongyang’s latest provocation.

By Shannon Tiezzi
January 07, 2016

557 Shares
32 Comments

North Korea (also known as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, or DPRK) claims to have conducted a successful thermonuclear test on Wednesday morning. While experts are already contesting the claim that a thermonuclear device was detonated, it does appear that North Korea tested a nuclear device of some kind, with a yield similar to the previous test in February 2013. Now the question is how the international community will respond – and that response will largely be dictated by the way China, North Korea’s traditional partner and a veto-wielding permanent member of the UN Security Council, chooses to react.

The official position from China’s Foreign Ministry was crystal clear – China “firmly opposes” the nuclear test, spokesperson Hua Chunying said in a routing press conference. “China is steadfast in its position that the Korean Peninsula should be denuclearized and nuclear proliferation should be prevented to maintain peace and stability in Northeast Asia… We strongly urge the DPRK to honor its commitment to denuclearization, and to cease any action that may deteriorate the situation,” Hua continued.

Hua also emphasized that China had not known about the test in advance. She said “experts” were conducting analysis to verify whether or not the device was a hydrogen bomb, as North Korea claimed.

Hua hinted at the possible ill effects on China, saying that China’s Environmental Protection Ministry would be monitoring radiation data along the China-North Korea border to ensure the safety of Chinese citizens. The Punggye-ri nuclear test site, close to where the test was conducted, is in northeastern North Korea, roughly 100 kilometers (62 miles) from the Chinese border.

Foreign Minister Wang Yi also referenced China’s “stern position” on the nuclear test in a speech given at the ministry’s annual New Year reception. He described the test as “in disregard of international opposition” and reiterated that China is “firmly committed to upholding the international nuclear non-proliferation regime.”

North Korea’s last nuclear test, in February 2013, sparked a similarly stern response from Beijing. Yang Jiechi (then serving as foreign minister) summoned North Korea’s ambassador to China for a dressing-down over the test. Reports indicated that China’s government had actively tried to persuade North Korean leader Kim Jong-un not to move forward with the nuclear test, as China was still in the midst of its once-in-a-decade leadership transition (Xi Jinping and Li Keqiang, who had taken up the Chinese Communist Party’s top leadership roles in November 2012, would not be officially named president and premier until the National People’s Congress in March 2013).

In response to the 2013 test, China backed a new round of UN sanctions on North Korea. On March 7, less than a month after the test, the UN Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 2094, expressing “the gravest concern” at the nuclear test and condemning it “in the strongest terms.” The resolution applied sanctions to North Korean financial institutions, laid down travel restrictions on certain North Korean leaders, and limited the import of luxury goods.

The groundwork is laid for a more robust reaction in 2016. In the three years since North Korea’s last nuclear test, China has simultaneously grown closer to South Korea and farther away from North Korea. To cite just one example, Xi and South Korean President Park Geun-hye have held six summit meetings in those three years, while Xi has never met North Korea’s Kim Jong-un.

In fact, the China-North Korea relationship seems to have never quite recovered from the 2013 nuclear test. Ties just seemed to be getting back on track in the fall of 2015, with Choe Ryong-hae’s attendance at China’s military parade in September 2015 and Liu Yunshan’s visit to Pyongyang in October. But then in December, the two countries had another spat over a series of planned musical performances, resulting in two North Korean groups packing up and going home.

Despite tensions, however, Beijing is far from ready to ‘abandon’ North Korea. Ultimately, China still remains committed to seeking a solution to the North Korean nuclear problem through dialogue (either a return to the Six Party Talk or an as-yet unclear alternative grouping), rather than punitive measures. Beijing has gone on the record numerous times against the concept of sanctions in general; though China has proven willing to hold its nose and go along with UN Security Council sanctions in the wake of North Korean nuclear tests, that’s likely to be the limit to China’s cooperation.

And history indicates that if the response to North Korea’s nuclear test is simply more sanctions, it’s unlikely to have any real impact on the regime. In 2013, the United States was pleased with China’s cooperation at the UN; then-U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice told reporters, “These sanctions will bite and bite hard.” But, as demonstrated by Wednesday’s test, the sanctions haven’t been able to stem the slow but steady development of North Korea’s nuclear program – in part because they aren’t being enforced fully, particularly by China.

Whether this represents a deliberate government effort to secretly back North Korea, or whether Chinese bureaucrats simply aren’t equipped to catch profit-minded companies willing to flaunt the sanctions is unclear. Regardless, experts agree North Korea has had little issue getting access to supposedly banned Western technologies via Chinese companies. As Joel Wit of the U.S.-Korea Institute put it in a presentation on North Korea’s nuclear futures last year, there’s little evidence that sanctions have actually affected Pyongyang’s ability to access nuclear technologies.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2016/01/north-koreas-nuclear-test-the-fallout-for-japan/

North Korea's Nuclear Test: The Fallout for Japan

The latest nuclear test underscores the challenges of Japan’s relationship with North Korea.

By Yuki Tatsumi
January 07, 2016

44 Shares
23 Comments

On January 6, North Korea announced that it had conducted its fourth nuclear test. Its state media broadcast a statement signed by Kim Jong-un that celebrated “opening the year with exciting noise of the first hydrogen bomb.”

If confirmed, this means a great leap forward for North Korea’s nuclear program. With its ongoing missile programs, it would pose a grave direct threat not only to its neighbors in East Asia but also vis-à-vis the United States. Even if the test turns out to be a regular nuclear test, it still is a clear violation of numerous UN Security Council Resolutions that have been adopted against North Korea, including UNSRES 2049 adopted on March 7, 2013 in response to North Korea’s third nuclear test on February 12, 2013.

What made North Korea decide to carry out a nuclear test? Some say Pyongyang was frustrated that it is increasingly isolated in Northeast Asia, particularly with the improving relationships between Japan and China as well as Japan and South Korea. Others point to the upcoming Korean Workers Party convention in May and explain yesterday’s test as a part of an overall attempt by Kim Jong-un to assert his position as the supreme leader of the hermit kingdom.

Ultimately, the world will probably never know the real motives behind the test. This much is clear — North Korea under Kim Jong-un has grown to be more provocative and unpredictable than under his father Kim Jong-il. That is not only a grave threat to the security of Northeast Asia, but also a serious challenge to the existing international disarmament and nonproliferation regime.

Japan, along with the United States and the rest of the international community, reacted strongly to this development. In a statement issued shortly after the North Korean announcement, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe condemned the test as “totally unacceptable” and lodged “a serious protest against North Korea.”

However, as the Security Council convenes for an emergency meeting at the United Nations, with an eye on adopting a resolution to impose additional sanction against North Korea, Japan found itself in a challenging diplomatic position.

First, despite strong condemnation by Abe, Japan has very little bilateral leverage over North Korea with which to influence Pyongyang’s behavior. Its economic ties with North Korea are already close to nothing, so there is not much pain it can uniquely impose on Pyongyang with additional sanctions. Its political circles no longer have a meaningful unofficial communication channel with Pyongyang, as the Social Democratic Party dwindles into irrelevance.

Worse, Japan’s North Korea policy for the last decade or so has been held hostage by the abduction issue. Currently, talks on the issue have stalled due to the lack of North Korean follow-up on the commitment it made in a May 2013 bilateral agreement with Japan to resume an investigation on abduction survivors. Should North Korea come back with pertinent information that would honor its commitment, however, Japan would find itself torn between its desire to align its position with the United States and the rest of the international community against North Korea’s provocation and the urge to engage with North Korea to seek further progress on the abduction issue.

For the moment, though, there is some good news for Abe: Japan’s relationships with China and South Korea — both of which are critical in addressing the security threat posed by North Korea — have finally turned positive in the last year. In particular, the agreement on the so-called “comfort women” between Tokyo and Seoul on December 28, 2015 removed the principal stumbling block in Japan-South Korea relations. Given the seriousness of the current developments, defense officials in both countries can now move full steam ahead to enhance bilateral defense ties, as well as accelerating trilateral cooperation with the United States. In this context, the Memorandum of Understanding signed in December 2014 by Washington, Tokyo, and Seoul on intelligence exchanges on North Korea would serve as a extremely useful tool.

Most of all, North Korea’s provocation yesterday was yet another reminder that the security environment surrounding Japan remains unstable and is possibly worsening. Hopefully, this will encourage political leaders, some of whom continue to emotionally criticize Abe as “militaristic” and “war-mongering” for leading the government’s effort to boost the country’s national defense, to rethink their rhetoric and participate in the national security discourse in a more realistic and constructive way.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://johnbatchelorshow.com/schedules/tuesday-5-january-2016

Hour Two
Tuesday 5 January 2016 / Hour 2, Block A: Stephen F. Cohen, Prof. Emeritus of Russian Studies & eastwestaccord.com; in re: Russia’s dangerous underwater nuclear drone
Editorial Board / #NATO to deploy #AWACS aircraft to #Turkey on.rt.com/70gq pic.twitter.com/vky2wJWP4U / Ready to start the year with the ever-more-threatening Kiev?
Kiev and Damascus and Moscow and Washington, the new cold war, with nukes!

Chess master Garry Kasparov equates Putin with Don Corleone
The Ukrainian government has banned Russian food imports, in the latest round of a tit-for-tat trade war sparked by Kiev’s adoption of a trade deal with the European Union. The ban on imports including beef, tobacco, chocolate, and alcohol products comes after Russia closed its own borders to a range of Ukrainian foods. The embargo, which comes into force on January 10, will stay in place until August 5 or “until the cancellation of the ban on imports of agricultural products, food, and raw materials produced in Ukraine into the customs territory of the Russian Federation,” according to a decree signed by Arseniy Yatsenyuk, the Ukrainian prime minister.
Russia closed its borders to a range of Ukrainian meat, fish, dairy and vegetable products on Friday as part of pre-announced response to Ukraine's decision to implement a free trade pact with Brussels. The pact, part of a wide-ranging association agreement with the European Union, will see Ukraine and Europe lift import tariffs to create a single free-trade zone. Russia strongly opposed the free trade pact and says its ban on Ukrainian imports is necessary to protect its own internal markets. Russian officials have also described the embargo as retaliation for Ukraine joining European economic sanctions designed to punish Russia for annexing Crimea and supporting the separatist war effort in eastern Ukraine. (1 of 4) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/12078921/Ukrain...
Tuesday 5 January 2016 / Hour 2, Block B: Stephen F. Cohen, Prof. Emeritus of Russian Studies & eastwestaccord.com (2 of 4)
Tuesday 5 January 2016 / Hour 2, Block C: Stephen F. Cohen, Prof. Emeritus of Russian Studies & eastwestaccord.com (3 of 4)
Tuesday 5 January 2016 / Hour 2, Block D: Stephen F. Cohen, Prof. Emeritus of Russian Studies & eastwestaccord.com (4 of 4)

Hour Three
Tuesday 5 January 2016 / Hour 3, Block A: Gordon Chang, Forbes.com, and Bruce Bechtol, Angelo State U (Texas), in re: geological event in North Korea consistent with the explosion of a nuclear bomb, DPRK agitprop says "hydrogen bomb." Will scientists and intell collection people be able to analyze particles to see if it's HEU, U, or a hydrogen test? In 2013, our people could not make that determination. I agree with Gordon that Iranians are likely to have been at the test – thus a problem for the Obama Adm. And how big was this test - >4 to 6 kilotons? Making gains faster than predicted? Look for another long-range missile test in the near future – The KN08 can hit the West Coast of the US; if the bomb is miniaturized, we have a lot to worry about. Musudan can hit Guam; others can hit farther. Is this Kim Jong-un's debut? More likely that North Korea and Iran working on TaePoDong together. It might be ready now. Implications for South Korea others? Disappointed Pak govt in South Korea – greater engagement with the North no longer possible; more sanctions coming, aid likely to go away.
Tuesday 5 January 2016 / Hour 3, Block B: Bob Collins, ex-DOD; DPRK expert; and Gordon Chang, Forbes.com, and Bruce Bechtol, Angelo State U (Texas); in re:
5.1 event. Everybody worldwide confirms except Washington. [Unintentional comedy.]
. . . nuclear physics, missile physics, seismics – all areas of expertise of DPRK. Kim has executed 90 to 120senior officials; Kim Jong-eun's legitimacy. Regime ahs a stability problem or it wouldn't execute so many Making himself looks strong is applied to everything the regime does. . . This props up Kim's image as sovereign of the state. Nuclear technology with Iran. The fact that they're working in an 80-ton superrocket for Taepodan: look for a long-range missile test in the next few mos, or the KN0 [k-n-zero]. Is this aggression by Beijing? They must have known; note that NK withdrew its pop group from China recently. Friction between the two in the last 30 days.

For podcast see site....
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/01/06/incoming_the_forgotten_ocean_108866.html

January 6, 2016

Incoming: The Forgotten Ocean

By James Stavridis

Global discussions about maritime issues tend to focus on the Atlantic Ocean, with its attached Mediterranean Sea, and the Pacific Ocean, with the South China Sea. Endless conversations take place about the emerging conflicts, the flow of refugees, the competition over vital hydrocarbons and the geopolitical impact of the two “major oceans.” Yet the 21st century will be more about the Indian Ocean than either of the other two—and the sooner we fully realize that in the United States, the better.

The Indian Ocean, while admittedly smaller than the Atlantic or the Pacific, consists of nearly a quarter of the waters on the globe. Across its vast expanse moves 50 percent of all shipping and containers and 70 percent of all oil, making it quite literally the crossroads of globalization. Nearly 40 nations, with more than a third of the world’s population, border it. Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the Arabian/Persian Gulf states all have coastal access to the Indian Ocean; more than 90 percent of the world’s Islamic population is in this massive catchment basin.

It also is highly militarized and always in a state of tension.The greatest potential for nuclear conflict in the world today is between Pakistan and India, which have two huge, capable, professional and nuclear-armed militaries. Iran is an adventurist state with an innovative and battle-trained military force. Many of the other nations along the littoral have internal conflicts and significant chaos along their borders. Piracy, while reduced over the past several years, remains a threat both along the coast of East Africa and in the Strait of Malacca, which connects the Indian Ocean with the Pacific.

The history of the Indian Ocean certainly does not inspire confidence in the potential for peaceful governance in this turbulent 21st century. Its trade routes have inspired competition and conflict since East met West with the arrival of Portuguese explorer Vasco da Gama in 1497. The British conquest of India and the commercial muscle of the British East India Company dominated for a time in the 19th century, but the breakup of the Ottoman Empire and great power maneuvering during World War II led to the Cold War, when American, Soviet, Chinese and Indian vessels played cat-and-mouse.

Today, the principal conflict centered in the Indian Ocean is India and Pakistan. There also is no love lost between China and India in the region, particularly as China continues to expand its commercial influence and basing throughout the Indian Ocean littoral. Pirate activity is taking place along the East African littoral and throughout the western Indonesian archipelago. In the Arabian/Persian Gulf, the Sunni-Shia conflict continues to play out at sea as it does ashore. Yemen is on fire in a manifestation of Sunni-Shia conflict as Houthi rebels seek dominance of the poverty-stricken nation.

The salient questions for the United States are: What is our role? How can we help create U.S. security and stability in the global oceanic commons we depend on for so much of our international trade?

First, we must recognize the vital importance of the Indian Ocean itself. On our maps and globes, it tends to be split to give primacy to “our” oceans, the Atlantic and Pacific. Our strategic and geopolitical “mental map” reflects this, and in all our thinking—from the Pentagon to Fortune 500 companies to academic and humanitarian institutions—we should consciously acknowledge the importance of this vast body of water and its littoral nations.

Second, we must consider India. It soon will overtake China as the world’s most populous nation; it is led by a dynamic and globally oriented leader in Prime Minister Narendra Modi; its lingua franca is English; and, above all, it is a vibrant, legitimate democracy that shares fundamental values with the United States. Too often during the international conferences I attend, we end up discussing China, the United States and the European Union—important, to be sure—but never India. In this 21st century, the rise of India may be the single most important geopolitical driver, and India’s engagement in the Indian Ocean will be an enormous part of that.

Third, the United States must deploy and operate in the region with all its forces. This most obviously requires a strong and deployable Navy and Air Force, but the Army and Marines have work to do as well. The Defense Department should be building more exercises in the region like the recently completed Exercise Malabar that brought together U.S., Indian and Japanese forces in naval exercises.

Fourth, we should continue the global counterpiracy campaign, which has shown success off the coast of East Africa. When we can unite not only NATO, European and Asian allies but also Russia, China, India, Pakistan and Iran, there are few things we cannot do successfully. Within the turbulence of the Indian Ocean, counterpiracy operations are something almost everyone can agree upon. We can help lead that effort. Fifth and finally, the key to unlocking the region’s potential is solving two difficult challenges: the Indian-Pakistani conflict, centered on the disputed Kashmir but truly the result of religious, cultural and historical differences; and the Shia-Sunni divide, which continues to make the Arabian/Persian Gulf volatile. These are long-term challenges, but whatever U.S. diplomacy can do to reduce tensions and avoid open confrontation will be helpful.

Above all, we simply need to factor the huge Indian Ocean into our thinking. It must not be forgotten as we sail into this 21st century.


This article originally appeared at AFCEA.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-deba...irstrip-is-the-future-of-americas-way-of-war/

The Great Debate

This small airstrip is the future of America’s way of war

By Joseph Trevithick
January 5, 2016

The Pentagon is quietly building up a small airstrip in a remote region of east Africa as part of its war against Islamic militants. More importantly, the airfield is a complex microcosm of how Washington runs military operations overseas — and how America’s way of war will probably look for the foreseeable future.

Chabelley Airfield is less than 10 miles from the capital of the small African nation of Djibouti. The small airport is the hub for America’s drone operations in the nearby hotspots of Somalia and Yemen.

But in spite of all of this, Chabelley isn’t what it might otherwise seem – at least not officially. You see, the site is not technically an American base.

“Chebelley [as the Pentagon likes to spell it] was categorized by the U.S. Global Defense Posture Report to Congress as an enduring Cooperative Security Location based upon the U.S. strategic interests in maintaining access for the foreseeable future,” U.S. Navy Lieutenant Commander Anthony Falvo, a public affairs officer with the Pentagon’s top command for operations in Africa, explained in an email..

In plain English, Washington does not own the site, sometimes referred to by the acronym CSL. In contrast to the big American bases in Europe and Asia during the Cold War, the Pentagon has favored cutting deals with countries for access to existing runways and ports in its fight against militants around the globe. And in an era of shrinking budgets, this all makes a lot of sense.

“The U.S. military is being pressured into considering the adoption of more of a lily pad basing model in the wake of so much turbulence and warfare across the region,” Dr. Geoffrey Gresh, an associate professor at the National Defense University said. “Djibouti is a small, relatively safe … ally that enables the U.S. special operators to carry out missions effectively across the continent.”

As per any agreement with the hosting nation, the Pentagon will often expand or improve the facilities to meet their requirements. In general, the deals benefit both sides. American troops will rotate in and out of these locations, training with local forces and performing other missions.

“For Djibouti, they stand to gain from investment in its infrastructure and port facilities, in addition to any other aid programs and [foreign direct investment] that arrives,” Gresh added. “The Djibouti government would also receive training and other equipment assistance, which is what many small developing nations desire.”

Officially a republic with free elections, opposition politicians and human rights groups describe President Ismaïl Omar Guelleh, the handpicked successor to his uncle and predecessor Hassan Gouled Aptidon, as a dictator. In 2011, Gulleh won a third term as head of the majority Muslim nation after most of his opponents boycotted the election over accusations of fraud and intimidation.

In September 2013, the Pentagon announced it was moving the pilotless aircraft from its main base at Camp Lemonnier to Chabelley with almost no fanfare. Ostensibly, American commanders agreed to make the move for safety reasons.

The only formal base Washington acknowledges in Africa, Camp Lemonnier occupies a part of Djibouti’s main international airport. After more than a decade of operation and numerous drone crashes, Djiboutian authorities worried the unmanned planes posed a danger to civilian air traffic and nearby residences.

For Chabelley, the situation is even more complex. More than just a bilateral deal between two countries, the site is true bureaucratic maze.

“Chebelley is a French-operated airfield, which our French allies use for training and as a divert location,” Falvo said. The U.S. Air Force’s 870th Air Expeditionary Squadron handles the American side of things.

So, American drones fly regular missions from an airstrip the French run with the approval of the Djiboutian government. Washington pays Djibouti for access to Paris’ outpost.

Part of the reason for this circuitous chain of responsibility could be the fact that the Pentagon’s drone missions are often controversial. Critics contend targeted strikes against militants are illegal under American and international law and tantamount to assassination.

But there’s more to it. Given the legacy of European colonialism, African governments worry about how regional allies and their own people view the sudden appearance of large numbers of foreign troops.

“The Chebelley base … [is] a reflection of the growing presence of the U.S. military in Africa,” Dr. David Vine, author of Base Nation: How U.S. Military Bases Abroad Harm America and the World, told Reuters in an email. “The [U.S.] military has gone to great lengths to disguise and downplay its growing presence in Africa generally in the hopes of avoiding negative attention and protests both in the U.S. and in African countries wary of the colonial-esque presence of foreign troops.”

The Pentagon does not list Chabelley in its annual Base Structure Report, the only official compendium of American military facilities around the world. The complicated accounting of CSLs and other such “non-bases” means the document does not have a full record of America’s military infrastructure.

With increasing competition for resources and economic markets, plus the continued threat of terrorism and regional strife around the word, Washington will no doubt continue to rely heavily on Chabelley and other small “non-bases.”
 

vestige

Deceased
Second, we must consider India. It soon will overtake China as the world’s most populous nation;

interesting fact
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realcleardefense.com/art...s_at_sea_and_sleepless_in_seattle_108865.html

January 6, 2016

Sleepless in Seattle: Chinese Nukes At Sea

By Peter Navarro

China is rapidly developing the capability to strike American cities with warheads launched from nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines. This is no secret. Simulations of such attacks – including an infamous one featuring a direct hit on the Statue of Liberty – have been repeatedly and patriotically broadcast on Chinese state media.

Just what is America’s largest trading partner trying to signal with public media behavior that seems abhorrent from a Western point of view? That’s a good question, and any answer must begin with this observation:

The concept of nuclear deterrence rests, first and foremost, on the reliability of a country’s “second strike” capabilities. To wit: If I can strike your major cities back with a devastating salvo of nuclear missiles after you strike my cities first, you will be far less inclined to launch that first strike to begin with.

Consider first the American side of this nuclear deterrence ledger. This is where radio talk show host and Republican loyalist Hugh Hewitt tried to ensnare the more moderate Donald Trump in a “gotcha moment” during the last GOP presidential debate. In that debate, Hewitt made a jargoned reference to “the triad” – not the Chinese mafia in this case but rather the three-legged stool of land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, long range bombers, and nuclear-powered submarines that America relies on for its second-strike capability.

Of the three, it is America’s nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) that provide the most assured destruction in America’s deterrent triad. This is because in today’s high tech Global Positioning Satellite world, America’s land-based missiles can now be far more easily destroyed in their fixed silos by precision strikes. At the same time, America’s aging bomber fleet has become more and more vulnerable to increasingly sophisticated air defense systems.

In contrast, America’s nuclear-powered submarine fleet suffers from no such vulnerabilities. With their supreme stealth capabilities and concomitant ability to travel long distances without surfacing, America’s SSBNs are able to lurk in deep waters, well within range of any country that may think about sending a first nuclear strike America’s way.

One looming problem, however, is that America’s SSBN fleet of Ohio-class subs are set to begin retiring within the next decade. As Commander Bud Cole of National Defense University notes:

The U.S. nuclear powered submarine feet as far as I know is far superior to the Chinese, anything the Chinese Navy can put to sea. On the other hand, the numbers within the U.S. nuclear powered submarine fleet are decreasing; and by 2020, we're only going to have forty or so submarines available, Navy-wide, not all of which of course will be in the Pacific fleet. So while a U.S. submarine is going to be far more capable than a Chinese submarine, numbers do count in the final analysis.

While America’s second-strike sub capabilities may well soon be declining, China’s are on the distinct uptick. This is not as it has always been.

Historically, China has been unable to field a modern nuclear submarine fleet and thus has lacked a credible, sea-based second strike. However, this strategic calculus radically changed in 2014 when China began deploying its new Jin-class ballistic missile submarine. Longer than a football field, this Type 094 sub is capable of launching up to 16 Ju Lang-2 missiles with a range of up to 7,500 miles.

China may have as many as five Jin-class submarines operational. If each of their 16 Julang-2 missiles can deliver up to four warheads each as some analysts suggest, this would give China a combined ability to deliver over 300 nuclear warheads to American soil – thus giving the phrase “sleepless in Seattle” a whole new twist.

As for the credibility of this SSBN threat, George Washington University Professor Amitai Etzioni has dismissed China’s naval arsenal in general as “junk” and discounts their submarines as “very loud.” In a more clinical fashion, Christian Conroy claims the Jin-class boats create “a detectable sonar signature” while Professor T.X. Hammes of America’s National Defense University just calls them “pretty noisy.”

A newer and quieter Tang class 096 model is, however, already in development – so China’s newfound ability to field a credible second-strike capability should therefore not be underestimated. As Seth Cropsey of the Hudson Institute warns: Although their submarines are not as good as ours, they're inventive, imaginative, ingenious and excellent at copying; and I expect that they will turn out better and better boats in the future.

The broader strategic question for the 2016 presidential campaign is whether China’s plans to nuke American cities – as broadcast on Chinese state media – is merely a second strike capability aimed at keeping the peace? Alternatively, and more ominously, will China’s SSBNs serve as a nuclear shield to keep American forces at bay should China seek to reclaim its so-called “renegade province” of Taiwan, wrest the Senkaku Islands from Japan, or seize additional land features and reefs in the South China Sea from neighbors like the Philippines and Vietnam?

On this latter possibility, Ashley Tellis of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace believes that “despite the presence of secure second strike capabilities on both sides, China and the United States could well find themselves in a serous military conflict in the years to come; and the risk of such conflict arises because China has now steadily acquired the capabilities to prevent the United States from coming to the assistance of its friends in Asia if Chinese political objectives demand such a campaign.”

Echoing this concern, Professor Toshi Yoshihara warns that “having nuclear weapons does not necessarily ensure that there will be no war. It simply opens up different avenues for different kinds of wars.” That is why the arrival of China’s SSBNs may indeed radically expand the possible theaters of war in Asia.

So let the presidential debate on this issue begin. What say ye Mr. Trump and Ms. Clinton? And where do you stand Senators Sanders, Rubio, and Cruz – all of whom have been part of the systematic shrinking of the US naval fleet in their roles in Congress.


Peter Navarro is a professor at the University of California-Irvine. He is the author of Crouching Tiger: What China’s Militarism Means for the World (Prometheus Books) and director of the companion Crouching Tiger documentary film series. www.crouchingtiger.net
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...vice-for-attack-on-indian-air-force-base.html

DOUBLE GAME

01.05.166:21 PM ET

Blame Pakistani Spy Service for Attack on Indian Air Force Base

Bruce Riedel

A days-long assault on a major Indian air force base is the work of a terror group created by Pakistan’s ISI, sources say—threatening to derail a potential thaw between the states.

The Pakistani intelligence service is behind the recent attack on a major Indian air force base in Punjab using a terrorist group it created 15 years ago, according to well-informed press and other knowledgeable sources. The attack is designed to prevent any detente between India and Pakistan after Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s surprise Christmas Day visit to Pakistan.

The escalating violence between the two nuclear-weapons states, which have already fought four wars, threatens to get worse. The Pakistani intelligence service has the capability to launch more attacks with little notice, at some point prompting a vigorous Indian response.

On Dec. 31, a team of terrorists infiltrated across the Pakistani border into India. On Saturday they assaulted the Pathankot air base, one of India’s largest air force installations near the border. At least seven Indian soldiers were killed in the fighting, which lasted for days. On Sunday, the Indian Consulate in Mazar-e Sharif in northern Afghanistan was also attacked by gunmen.

Both attacks are the work of the Pakistani terror group Jaish e Muhammad, according to reliable press reports. JEM was created in 2000 by Mualana Masoud Azhar, a longtime Pakistani terrorist leader. Azhar was captured in India in 1994 after taking western hostages in Kashmir. In December 1999 a group of terrorists hijacked an Air India jet flying from Nepal to India and diverted it to Afghanistan. They demanded the release of Azhar and his colleagues in return for the passengers and crew.

And they got it, thanks to help from the Pakistani intelligence service ISI and al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, according to accounts of the hijacking based on the Indian officials who negotiated with the terrorists for the hostages’ freedom.

The Afghan Taliban assisted the hijackers once they got to Afghanistan. Once Azhar was traded for the hostages, the ISI took him on a public victory tour through Pakistan to raise money for the jihad against India, and he announced the formation of Jaish e Muhammad, or the Army of Muhammad, in early 2000. JEM received training and weapons from the ISI and worked closely with al Qaeda.


In December 2001, JEM terrorists working with terrorists from another ISI-backed group, Lashkar e Tayyiba (LET), attacked the Indian parliament building in New Delhi. That attack prompted India to mobilize its military, and a tense standoff went on for nine months. Only intense mediation by President Bush’s national security team averted war.

Azhar kept a low profile for several years after LET’s 2008 attack on Mumbai, but he reappeared publicly in 2014, giving fiery calls for more attacks on India and the United States. His group is technically illegal in Pakistan but enjoys the continuing patronage of the ISI.

The ISI is under the generals’ command and is composed of army officers, so the spies are controlled by the Pakistani army, which justifies its large budget and nuclear weapons program by citing the Indian menace. Any diminution in tensions with India might risk the army’s lock on its control of Pakistan’s national security policy. The army continues to distinguish between “good” terrorists like JEM and LET and “bad” terrorists like the Pakistani Taliban, despite decades of lectures from American leaders.

The army has long distrusted Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, who has advocated a detente with India since the 1990s. An army coup in 1999 sent him into exile in Saudi Arabia for a decade. His warm embrace of Modi on Christmas Day in his home in Lahore undoubtedly angered the generals.

Modi’s visit was the first by an Indian prime minister in more than a decade. It was also Sharif’s birthday and the birthday of Pakistan’s founder, Muhammad Jinnah. Modi’s decision to visit and the warm family greeting Sharif extended set the stage for a planned resumption of formal diplomatic negotiations between the two countries scheduled for later this month.

So far New Delhi has not canceled the planned talks. Modi’s advisers are well aware of the double game the Pakistani army plays and the differences inside the Pakistani establishment. After four wars with Pakistan and a nuclear arms race, Indian experts understand the complexity of the dynamics inside Islamabad. The Indians have accepted Prime Minister Sharif’s public condemnation of the attack and promised to provide evidence of JEM’s role to his government, including cellphones captured in the attack.
 

vestige

Deceased
From #94:


In contrast, America’s nuclear-powered submarine fleet suffers from no such vulnerabilities. With their supreme stealth capabilities and concomitant ability to travel long distances without surfacing, America’s SSBNs are able to lurk in deep waters, well within range of any country that may think about sending a first nuclear strike America’s way.

One looming problem, however, is that America’s SSBN fleet of Ohio-class subs are set to begin retiring within the next decade. As Commander Bud Cole of National Defense University notes:

The U.S. nuclear powered submarine feet as far as I know is far superior to the Chinese, anything the Chinese Navy can put to sea. On the other hand, the numbers within the U.S. nuclear powered submarine fleet are decreasing; and by 2020, we're only going to have forty or so submarines available, Navy-wide, not all of which of course will be in the Pacific fleet. So while a U.S. submarine is going to be far more capable than a Chinese submarine, numbers do count in the final analysis.


Comment: build more (pay for with: cut payments to unwed mothers, eliminate Obama phones, foreign aid etc.)


As for the credibility of this SSBN threat, George Washington University Professor Amitai Etzioni has dismissed China’s naval arsenal in general as “junk” and discounts their submarines as “very loud.” In a more clinical fashion, Christian Conroy claims the Jin-class boats create “a detectable sonar signature” while Professor T.X. Hammes of America’s National Defense University just calls them “pretty noisy.”

Comment: never underestimate your enemy (see below)

A newer and quieter Tang class 096 model is, however, already in development – so China’s newfound ability to field a credible second-strike capability should therefore not be underestimated. As Seth Cropsey of the Hudson Institute warns: Although their submarines are not as good as ours, they're inventive, imaginative, ingenious and excellent at copying; and I expect that they will turn out better and better boats in the future.


Side comment:

If missiles started to fly…. on a large scale… we have 300+ million population. Once that is gone we are only land mass.

If the Chinese lost 300+ million…. just a “few” losses to them.

Lottsa other impacts but they can spare a lot more population.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://in.reuters.com/article/india-attack-pakistan-talks-idINKBN0UL1NK20160107

Thu Jan 7, 2016 7:42pm IST
Related: Top News, World

Talks uncertain as India says Pakistan must first hunt militants

NEW DELHI | By Krista Mahr and Douglas Busvine


India called on Pakistan on Thursday to take "prompt and decisive" action against militants it blames for an attack on an air base, days before fraught peace talks between the nuclear-armed neighbours are scheduled to resume.

A meeting between the foreign secretaries of both nations had been tentatively scheduled for Jan. 15, but it is unclear if it will still happen after the weekend attack on the Indian Air Force base near the Pakistan border. India's foreign ministry said Islamabad has been given actionable intelligence that those who planned the assault came from Pakistan.

"As far as we are concerned the ball is now in Pakistan's court," spokesman Vikas Swarup told reporters when asked if the talks were on. "The immediate issue in front of us is Pakistan's response to the terrorist attack."

A senior Pakistani official said India provided intelligence that included telephone numbers, call intercepts, and locations where they believe the attackers or their handlers were.

Pakistan is following up the leads, the official said, and hopes that the talks would not be cancelled while it explores them.

Prime ministers Narendra Modi of India and Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan are struggling to keep their renewed dialogue on track after the militant attack killed seven Indian military personnel and wounded 22.Modi made a surprise stopover in Pakistan last month, the first time an Indian premier has visited in over a decade.


LATEST TALKS

The standoff after the apparent thaw is part of a pattern over the years. Attempts to restart talks have been frequently thwarted by attacks between the two countries, which have fought three wars since becoming separate nations in 1947.

With such an eventuality in mind, the national security advisers of the two countries agreed on a process during a meeting in early December to keep dialogue going in case of a potential disruption, the Pakistani official said.

As a result, Indian NSA Ajit Doval has spoken at least three times by phone with his Pakistani counterpart, Naseer Khan Janjua, since the attack, including last Saturday evening when the fighting was still ongoing, the Pakistani official said.

India's security establishment has blamed the attack on militant group Jaish-e-Mohammad, alleged to have been behind an assault on the country's parliament in 2001 that almost brought the two countries to war for a fourth time. The Pakistani official said Pakistan could temporarily arrest Jaish-e-Mohammad's leader Masood Azhar to appease India, but only if the leads checked out.

Pakistan also expects DNA evidence, bodies and other forms of identification from India "within days", the official said.Sharif met senior ministers and his national security advisers on Thursday and discussed "issues pertaining to national and regional security", according to a statement from his office.


(Additional reporting by Paritosh Bansal in New Delhi and Asad Hashim in Islamabad; Writing By Andrew MacAskill)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://geopoliticalfutures.com/iran-and-saudi-arabia-posturing-and-reality/

Iran and Saudi Arabia: Posturing and Reality

Jan. 4, 2016 Having failed to pacify Iraq, the United States has moved to a more complex strategy of trying to maintain a balance of power among major regional powers.

By George Friedman

Saudi Arabia executed a Shiite cleric. An Iranian crowd set part of the Saudi embassy on fire. Saudi Arabia then broke diplomatic relations with Iran, announcing their staff will leave Tehran within 48 hours. Given how this has escalated, we wonder if the Iranians contemplated an old trick – holding the Saudi embassy staff hostage. But perhaps not. Tehran’s next gesture might well be conciliatory.

In foreign affairs, it is important to distinguish between the gestures that are made and the underlying issues that are driving them. Clearly the Saudis wanted to challenge the Iranians by killing the cleric. Clearly Iran understood the challenge and responded in kind. There are those who would see these as events spiraling out of control. From my point of view, it is the underlying issue that is of importance. The gesture is simply an unpleasant way of trying to convince the other side that they should capitulate on the real, underlying issue.

The underlying issue between Saudi Arabia and Iran is often represented as a conflict between two Muslim sects, Shiite and Sunni. That is certainly part of the equation, but the fundamental tension goes back to the question of the name of the Gulf which separates them. Iran calls it the Persian Gulf. The Saudis call it the Arabian Gulf. That issue was quite important in the 1970s when the Sunni-Shite was dormant.

In the 1970s, the stakes were enormously high. The Shah wanted Iran to become the dominant power in the Persian Gulf. Following the 1973 Arab oil embargo, the price of oil soared and with it, the political power of oil producers. The Shah was sitting on a large pool of oil, but he understood that if he could dominate the Arabian Peninsula, he could control a major part of the world’s oil supply. This would have given him an impregnable position. His main adversary in this enterprise was Saudi Arabia. Riyadh also wanted to dominate the Arabian Peninsula, but was far less grandiose in its vision of what was possible. In spite of both being American allies, and in a way clients, Iran and the Saudis waged a proxy war against each other in Oman, and even sent their own troops to fight.

The Iranians didn’t have the power to take over the Arabian Peninsula, and by the end of the decade the Shah had fallen. But his successor, Ayatolllah Khomeini, was no less ambitious, and for him the Shiite-Sunni dichotomy mattered a great deal. Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, a secular Arab state which had empowered the country’s minority Sunni population, lay between the newly minted Islamic Republic of Iran and Saudi Arabia. What followed was a nine-year war between Iraq and Iran, one of the bloodiest wars since World War II. Though it ended with a formal cease-fire, it left Iraq with the upper hand. The Sunni-dominated Hussein regime in Iraq then invaded small, oil-rich Kuwait, believing its defeat of Iran gave them the right to claim a prize. Not knowing how far Iraq’s desire for a prize would go, the United States intervened and blocked both Iraqi and Iranian ambitions in Operation Desert Storm.

The Shah’s and Saddam’s ambitions had a common foundation. In the 1970s, the United States was seen as weakening. The U.S. was losing in Vietnam and reeling economically under the oil embargo. In the 1980s the United States was strengthening but seen as indifferent. Following the Soviet retreat from eastern Europe, Washington didn’t care who owned the oil that was shipped from the Arabian Peninsula.

It is important to remember that the Arabian Peninsula has been subordinate to great power interests and ambitions for well over a millennium. It was dominated by the Ottomans, then by the British and most recently by the United States. Dominated is perhaps the wrong word, as the relationship has always been more complex than that. Another way to think of it is as guarantor. Certainly since the decline of the British, the Americans have been the guarantor.

As we have discussed in our net assessments and forecasts, the United States has adopted a more distant attitude to the Arabian Peninsula and to the region as a whole. Having failed to pacify Iraq, the United States has moved to a more complex strategy of trying to maintain a balance of power among major regional powers: Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel. This has involved shifts in U.S. relations with each of these countries, and has created a deep ambiguity in the region. The Saudis and Iranians, each aware of their own vulnerabilities, will inevitably look at past behavior as a measure of future intentions.

This has been compounded by the decline of oil prices. The Iranians have realized that whether sanctions are lifted or not, their ability to solve their economic problems through oil sales has declined. The Saudis meanwhile have created a social contract whereby oil profits generate a generous safety net and thereby ensure the stability of the Saudi Kingdom. But Riyadh realizes it is likely impossible to maintain if oil prices remain at these levels or even decline.

Each side is measuring its own weakness in the context of the absence of the United States as an overarching power. Both are realizing that the question of whether the Gulf is named Persian or Arabian is on the table again. The Saudis are afraid that the Iranians will support a rising of Shiites living along the Gulf, as they did in Bahrain during the Arab Spring. If there were ever a time to try this, it is now, with oil prices declining and the U.S. shifting strategies. From the Iranian side, the perception is that the Saudis have been supporting anti-Shiite forces throughout the region and implicitly supporting IS. If Saudi Arabia were successful, it would create Iran’s nightmare, a Sunni-dominated Iraq prepared for a replay of the Iran-Iraq war.

Neither of these scenarios is preposterous. Therefore, each side is taking the measure of the other. The execution of a Shiite cleric was a warning to Shiites living in Saudi Arabia not to resist Saudi power. The fire in the embassy was a warning that not only will Iran stand against the Saudis, but should Iraq become a Sunni state, there are few limits to what Iran would do in response. They lit a fire, but a small one. The Saudis signaled back that there can be no normal relations while Iran threatens them. Iran will respond.

But it is not the responses that lead to conflict. It is the underlying reality. Without the United States guaranteeing Saudi security, Iran is the most powerful state in the Persian Gulf, and they will call it what they like. Direct war is unlikely. The geography of such a war would involve Iraq, and that has been the graveyard of ambitions of late. A rising among the Shiites is unlikely while the Saudi security services are at the highest state of alert. The Saudi ability to create mischief in Iran is limited. To the extent that this conflict will be waged, it will be in Iraq, where the Sunnis and Shiites are fighting a war already, in Syria, and in Yemen.

We should not forget another part of the strategy. The Saudis were appalled at the U.S. agreement with Iran over their nuclear program. Since then, the Iranians have fired missiles in the area where U.S. ships were maneuvering, and have drawn closer to the Russians, at the same time the Americans are in confrontation with Russia. In creating a crisis at this moment, apart from all other issues, the U.S. will tend to be protective of the Saudis and hostile to Iran. If that ruptures the treaty between the U.S. and Iran, the Saudis would not be upset at all.

This conflict is limited but it is a lesson that balance of power tactics requires an enormously subtle hand. It also creates dangers, just as direct intervention does. The American strategic shift is a major part of the current exchange between Iran and Saudi Arabia. No one can rebalance it but the United States, and it may decide that low-grade conflict and gestures is a small price to pay for staying out of it.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://geopoliticalfutures.com/the-use-of-irrationality-in-foreign-affairs/

The Use of Irrationality in Foreign Affairs

Jan. 7, 2016 The North Korean regime has mastered the art of uncertainty to manipulate the world.

By George Friedman

On Tuesday evening, U.S. time, the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea detonated a device which it claimed was a hydrogen bomb. The announcement was guaranteed to raise international alarm sufficiently significant to overshadow everything else going on. The North Koreans knew this when they made the announcement. Assuming for the moment that the U.S. evaluation of the blast was that it was not a hydrogen fusion device, which the White House already was hinting at the next day, why would the North Koreans provoke the United States? Why were they so confident that the U.S. would not have done something North Korea didn’t anticipate, such as devastate North Korea with its own, very real and deliverable nuclear weapons? On the surface, the North Koreans were acting irrationally. There was a risk, however small, that they would provoke a reaction from the U.S. to which they had no counter.

In my years of playing poker, one of my pleasures has been to play with people who believe that poker is a game of mathematics. I love these people, like my Uncle Max, because I know they will be leaving some money to me. The problem they have is that the math they will be using is known to me, and therefore they are transparent and predictable. Their mathematical rationality betrays them.

Poker is not a mathematical game except at a rudimentary level. Poker is a game where greed and fear compete with each other inside each player’s soul, while reason tries to calm then down while using their warnings as guide posts. Part of poker is controlling yourself. But the most important part of poker is manipulating the fear, greed and reason of other players, causing them to do foolish things. The only way to do that is to construct a framework of uncertainty at the table. Occasionally, without any apparent logic, a good player does something completely demented. This can include anything from raising someone with three of a kind showing, to calling a bet, failing to bet when you have a flush, or putting mayonnaise on a corned beef sandwich. At other times, play coolly and rationally and use mustard.

Your goal is to create a sense in others that you are an unpredictable soul, not out of calculation, but out of foolishness and carelessness. Each month there is going to be one magnificent hand, and you play poker to maximize the income from that hand. The rest of the time you try to stay even while building a pattern that is designed to undermine the other players, and let loose their greed and fear, so that, once a month, when the hand is dealt, no one knows what you are doing, and you clean the table’s clock.

This is a variety of game theory, a system of mathematical modeling that tries to render this process and others into a formal theory. The paradox of game theory is that anyone consciously using it at the poker table, or in international affairs, will fail. The art of poker or diplomacy — its duplicity and cunning — must be embedded in the player’s soul, so that it is not a matter that needs to be even contemplated, but a way of life designed to extract maximum benefit in any situation by placing the other player at a massive disadvantage by not being able to understand the true intent behind any move you make. The opponent’s greed and fear run amok, and his reason flees.

Consider two American Presidents, Richard Nixon and Barack Obama. In 1973, during the Arab-Israeli war, the Soviets mobilized an airborne division threatening to intervene in the war. Richard Nixon took U.S. nuclear forces to DEFCON 3, and let the Soviets know that a nuclear response was possible. Nixon had cultivated a persona of unpredictability and occasional irrationality in foreign policy. The Soviets could not figure out whether Nixon would actually go nuclear, and because they couldn’t stand the risk, they stepped down. Two points. First, Nixon was reputed to have won large amounts of money at poker during his service in the Pacific in World War II. Second, it could have been that appearing irrational came naturally to him. In either case, he had prepared the ground for a critical moment by causing Soviet fear to override its greed.

Barack Obama is the opposite of Nixon. He behaves in extremely prudent and rational ways constantly. He has adopted a strategy of distancing the United States from crises, and not allowing political pressure or emotionalism to draw him in. The Iranians on Dec. 26 fired missiles in the area of a U.S. aircraft carrier. Obama did the rational thing and refused to respond in kind, containing the crisis. The Iranians knew that he would be rational and they fired the missiles without significant fear of an American overreaction. If Obama had been in the same situation as Nixon in 1973, the Soviets would have known Obama was bluffing. His rationality has predictability built into it and that predictability limits his options.

The North Koreans have mastered the art of irrationality — or are simply irrational. It is the genius of the master when it isn’t known whether the irrationality is real or not. The North Koreans have built nuclear weapons in order to guarantee the survival of their regime against foreign intrusion. The uncertainty as to whether or not they would actually use those weapons, or even whether they have a deliverable capability, causes major powers to be very careful not to arouse North Korean insanity.

Consider this. In discussions on the future of North Korea’s weapons program, the North Koreans have attended multiple conferences in the past that included the United States, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea. North Korea, one of the poorest countries in the world, created a situation in which five of the most significant countries in the world sat at a table with North Korea as if it were a major power. The North Koreans have crafted a vision of themselves as quite mad, and the world has accepted this vision. Other countries cannot afford to take the chance that they aren’t, particularly when the North Koreans periodically do and say things that appear crazy. But when you step back from the table and think, the North Koreans have achieved exactly what they wanted — they have convinced the world not to press them and on occasion they get the United States to give them money to stay calm.

All this should not be overestimated. That’s not because this tactic doesn’t work but because the sphere in which it works is limited. Our ability to make effective forecasts is based on the fact that the broad movement of the international system is rational and therefore predictable. Countries do not develop because of clever leaders but because of the underlying power and constraints of their nations. The smartest prime minister of Iceland is still the prime minister of Iceland and is constrained by Iceland’s limits.

At the same time, there is an area of the tactical, where the broad sweep of history doesn’t intrude, and where the behavior of leaders matters. In the end, the North Koreans are not going to invite total annihilation by using nuclear weapons, but they are going to use uncertainty to manipulate the world. Or perhaps, in the short run, the North Koreans are actually irrational and the U.S. is assuming they are not. Or perhaps the U.S. thinks they are. At this level, everything fragments into tiny prisms. Fear and greed – and the reason that tries to rule them – is what really matters. It may not make history. But it certainly makes events.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.newsweek.com/narendra-modi-india-raid-air-force-412812

Opinion

Raid on Air Force Base Reveals India’s Dysfunction

By John Elliott On 1/7/16 at 1:30 PM

This article first appeared on the Riding the Elephant site.

When Narendra Modi was elected India’s prime minister, the main hope was that he would transform the muddled and inefficient way in which many of the country’s institutions and organizations are run.

Economic reforms, which dominate media and parliamentary debate, are also important, but Modi was primarily seen as a capable regional politician and leader who could produce administrative change nationally.

Twenty months after last year’s landslide election victory, his failure to make significant changes was graphically demonstrated by an attack last weekend on an Indian Air Force base at Pathankot in the state of Punjab.

The base was not properly protected or capable of being defended against terrorism, despite being just 25 kilometers from the border with Pakistan, and the response by security forces was muddled and badly organized.

The event threatens to undermine Modi’s more innovative approach to foreign affairs, which led him on Christmas Day to drop in on the Pakistan prime minister in Lahore for a few hours when he was flying back to Delhi from Russia and Afghanistan.

Though sourly criticized by opposition politicians for being more of a photo-op than measured diplomacy the visit, the first by an Indian prime minister to Pakistan in 11 years, could help improve the two countries’ tortuous relationship.

The attack is seen in India as an attempt by extremists, probably supported by Pakistan’s military and secret Inter-Services Intelligence agency, to undermine any progress that the Modi visit might have generated. It coincided with an attempted raid by gunmen on the Indian consulate in the Afghan city of Mazar-i-Sharif.

The Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammad (Army of Mohammad), an Islamist group with close links to the Pakistan military, is believed to have been responsible, and, significantly, Pakistan has not tried to deny that the attackers crossed from its territory into India.

The Pathankot attack began on January 2 after six militants crossed the border in an area used for decades for drug smuggling and by other smugglers, and, in the 1980s, by Khalistan (Punjab independence) fighters trained in Pakistan.

They broke into the air base, in one case reportedly climbing and swinging in from trees on the 24-kilometer perimeter.

Border patrols and thermal imaging were inadequate, and the initial police responses were confused and slow. Floodlights were not working in some areas, and buildings are located against perimeter walls, making access easy.

Criticism has built up over the past two or three days, especially on social media, blaming Ajit Doval, the national security adviser, who is a former spy chief and one of Modi’s most trusted and empowered officials.

Based in the prime minister’s office with executive authority for security (as opposed to just an advisory role), he was in charge of the response and claimed an intelligence success just two days into the three- or four-day operation. The buck stops with him before it reaches the prime minister.

The sharpest and most targeted criticism has come from Ajai Shukla, a former army officer and one of India’s leading defense journalists and commentators. Writing in the Business Standard on January 5, he said, “National Security Advisor (NSA) Ajit Doval’s inept handling has transformed what should have been a short, intelligence-driven, counter-terrorist operation into something that increasingly seems like a debacle.”

At the end of a discussion on India Today Television on January 6, the anchor, Karan Thapar, concluded that the response had been handled “ineptly,” and none of the former generals and analysts on the program disagreed. Manoj Joshi, a leading commentator, calculated there had been five serious incursions and terrorist raids in the area since 2013, the last just six months ago, but security had not been improved.

Manohar Parrikar, India’s defense minister, who was not in charge of the operations, seemed uneasy and ill-prepared when he (not Doval) was paraded before a media conference on January 5.

He even said that five of the Indians killed had died because of “bad luck.” They were members of the low-key Defense Security Corps, made up of retired armed forces personnel who guard the base. Their “bad luck” was that they were shot by attackers firing into buildings.

An officer in the crack National Security Guard died while handling a dead attacker’s unexploded grenade. There has been criticism, by Shukla and others, that Doval flew in 160 NSG commandos with little experience in Punjab to lead the operation against the attackers instead of drawing on 50,000 army troops stationed nearby.

Pathankot is significant, not just for India-Pakistan relations and defense reasons but because it illustrates how so much of the country’s government agencies work in an appalling way. It smacks of the jugaad (fix it) and chalta hai (anything goes, or it will be all right on a night) approach that I highlighted as a serious national failing in my book, IMPLOSION: India’s Tryst With Reality.

Modi has told the defense establishment that it needs to shed its chalta hai approach, but he has failed to push through changes there or elsewhere.

Modi’s Santa Claus-type appearance in Lahore on Christmas Day built on a rapprochement between the two countries that first appeared when he and Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif were photographed chatting at the opening of the climate change negotiations in Paris on November 30.

This began to unravel blockages to talks that had been caused both by both countries. A week later, the foreign secretaries and national security advisers met on neutral ground in Bangkok. Overall, this marked an attempt by Modi to reverse the belligerent and aggressive stance he and Doval had adopted a year earlier.

Now they have to decide whether talks planned for next week between their foreign secretaries should go ahead. India’s foreign ministry spokesman, Vikas Sarup, said Thursday afternoon that the government has asked Pakistan to take “prompt and decisive action” against handlers of the attack. “The ball is in Pakistan’s court. We are waiting for Pakistan’s action on actionable intelligence…. We are not giving any time frame…. Prompt means prompt,” he said.

“Prompt and decisive action” are the words that Sharif has also used, saying it would happen. But the military and not the politicians call the shots in Pakistan, so action is not certain.

India’s first priority, however, should be to equip sensitive bases against attackers and force the somnolent defense establishment and security forces to smarten up.

John Elliott is the author of IMPLOSION: India’s Tryst With Reality.
 

mzkitty

I give up.
2m
Update: At least 47 killed, 118 injured in truck bombing at police training center in Zliten, Libya; no immediate claim of responsibility - @Reuters
 

mzkitty

I give up.
14m
Turkey summons Iranian ambassador over media reports linking Saudi executions with Turkish President Erdogan - @Reuters

Thu, 7 Jan 2016 22:17 GMT

ANKARA, Jan 7 (Reuters) - Turkey summoned Iran's ambassador on Thursday to demand a halt to Iranisn media reports linking the execution of a Shi'ite cleric by Saudi Arabia with last week's visit to Riyadh by President Tayyip Erdogan.

"We strongly condemn the linking of our president's recent visit to Saudi Arabia to the executions sentenced in the country in stories published on media outlets linked to Iranian official bodies," the Turkish Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

A row has been raging for days between Shi'ite Muslim power Iran and the conservative Sunni kingdom since Saudi Arabia executed cleric Nimr al-Nimr, an opponent of the ruling dynasty who had demanded greater rights for the Shi'ite minority.

http://www.trust.org/item/20160107222033-vk47u
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://in.reuters.com/article/egypt-tourists-violence-idINKBN0UL10O20160107

World | Thu Jan 7, 2016 9:08pm IST
Related: World, Israel

Gunmen fire at Israeli tourists in Cairo, no casualties - security sources

CAIRO


Gunmen opened fire on Israeli tourists as they boarded a bus in Cairo on Thursday but there were no casualties, security sources said, while the Interior Ministry said the attack was directed at security forces.

Egypt declared it would step up security at major tourist attractions last year after Islamist militants carried out several attacks, causing its struggling tourism industry to slump further.

Thursday's shooting took place at the Three Pyramids Hotel, on a road leading to the Giza pyramids southwest of the capital. It is likely to raise questions over President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi's repeated promises to stamp out militancy in Egypt.

Security sources said the tourists boarding the bus were Israeli Arabs.

The Interior Ministry said in a statement 15 people who had gathered on a side street near the hotel threw home-made fireworks in the direction of security forces stationed there.


PILLAR OF THE ECONOMY

"One of the loiterers fired a home-made pellet gun in the direction of the security in front of the hotel, causing some damage to the glass façade of the hotel as well as the window of a tourist bus. No injuries occurred," it said.

Security forces apprehended one person who was hiding behind the hotel, the ministry said.

One gunman was arrested at the scene and security forces surrounded the other attacker in another part of Cairo, said security sources earlier. There has been no claim of responsibility for the attack.

Bilal Mahajne, deputy mayor of Umm el-Fahm, an Arab town in northern Israel, said on Israel Radio that one of his associates had spoken to some of the tourists who were on the bus. Mahajne said: "They are all safe and well, and back in the hotel in Cairo." He said the group was on an organised tour.

In June last year, a suicide bomber blew himself up near the ancient Karnak Temple in the southern city of Luxor, wounding three Egyptians. A week earlier, gunmen on a motorcycle shot dead two members of the tourism police at Giza.

Tourism is a pillar of the Egyptian economy, which has been struggling to recover from political turmoil that began with the 2011 uprising that toppled autocrat Hosni Mubarak.

In one of the worst attacks, Islamic State's Egypt affiliate has said it planted a bomb on a Russian passenger plane that crashed in the Sinai on Oct. 31, killing all 224 people on board.

Egyptian jihadists, who have pledged allegiance to Islamic State, have killed hundreds of Egyptian soldiers and police since the army toppled Islamist President Mohamed Mursi in 2013 after mass protests against his rule.


(Writing by Michael Georgy; Editing by Ralph Boulton)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/north-korea-nuclear-test-iran-deal-implications-2016-1

Briefing

North Korea's nuclear test reveals a major flaw with the Iran deal

Armin Rosen Tomorrow at 8:08 AM

North Korea’s fourth nuclear test could have been a crucial step toward Pyongyang developing thermonuclear capability — and a breakthrough for a second country with potential nuclear ambitions, as well.

Iran has established ties to the North Korean nuclear-weapons program. As The Daily Beast notes, Iranian officials, including Iranian nuclear program head Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, were present during North Korea’s three previous nuclear tests — in 2006, 2009, and 2013.

Testing data is a potential bonanza for a nuclear-weapons program. It could include information about the design and yield of the device detonated — or about the size and configuration of the bomb’s uranium hemisphere or plutonium core. Testing data could indicate the weight and shape of the nuclear device, its triggering mechanisms, or the warhead’s material composition.

As Simon Henderson of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy has written, there is also some design and technological overlap between Iranian and North Korean-produced ballistic missiles, suggesting the two countries have shared information about nuclear delivery platforms as well.

Last July, Iran reached a deal with a US-led group of world powers in which Tehran agreed to temporary and non-binding limitations on its nuclear program.

Those came in exchange for the eventual lifting of most US and nearly all United Nations and European sanctions on the country, in addition to the removal of embargoes on the country’s conventional arms transfers and ballistic-missile development.

It wouldn’t necessarily be a violation of the nuclear deal for Iran to access information from a North Korean nuclear test. Thomas Moore, a former non-proliferation expert for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told Business Insider that he doesn’t think that accessing this information would necessarily be a violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), either.

Like the NPT, the Iran nuclear deal is deliberately vague on exactly what constitutes a violation. But possession of test data isn’t specifically proscribed under a provision in the Iran agreement that addresses prohibited activities related to nuclear-weapons design.

Under the deal, potential violations will be brought before an eight-member “joint commission” that includes Iran. The commission can then vote on whether an alleged violation is serious enough to then refer ot the United Nations Security Council.

Enforcement of what is inevitably a non-binding agreement is dependent on the political will of the joint commission’s members. And the text itself is elastic in ways that could permit Iran to access information relevant to a push towards a nuclear-weapons capability.

Developing weapons without a test

Two countries have already proven that it’s possible to successfully develop nuclear weapons without carrying out a test.

Pakistan is believed to have possessed nuclear weapons since as early as the late 1980s, but did not carry out a test until 1998.

More pertinently, Israel is thought to have possessed nuclear weapons since the late 1960s, and is believed to have a diverse arsenal of miniaturized strategic weapons for delivery through fighter aircraft and through both land- and sea-based ballistic missiles.

But Israel didn’t need to test a nuclear weapon even during the crucial early years of its program — partly because of the country’s extensive access to French testing data.

“In the early phases, the amount of collaboration between the French and Israeli nuclear weapons design programs made testing unnecessary,” US Army Col. Warner D. Farr wrote in a 1999 study for the Federation of American Scientists’ Counterproliferation Papers.

He continued: “There were several Israeli observers at the French nuclear tests and the Israelis had ‘unrestricted access to French nuclear test explosion data.'”

An outside country’s testing data can be crucial in establishing a clandestine nuclear capability. But even if Iran might have access to North Korean nuclear data, the international community has an incomplete understanding of what the country is currently capable of doing with this information.

An incomplete picture

The implementation of the Iran nuclear deal was contingent on the International Atomic Energy Agency’s investigation of the history and status of Iran’s nuclear weaponization program.

The process was supposed to be essential to establishing exactly how far along Iran’s weaponization activities really are — and to recognising whether those activities have been restarted with an eye toward the future.

In a report published in December, the IAEA found that Iran had been engaged in weaponization work until 2009 — some six years later than generally believed.

But the agency’s final report clocked in at a mere 16 pages, and showed evidence of systematic Iranian evasions on a number of crucial questions, including on the state of its work on nuclear-weapons detonators. Last weekend, White House officials stated that the nuclear deal is still on track for implementation, according to Reuters.

Under the Iran deal, ballistic missile-related sanctions and limits on uranium enrichment won’t be lifted until the agency reaches a “broader conclusion” on the nature and intent of Iran’s nuclear program, a determination that the deal says should be reached within eight years.

The possibility of Iran accessing information from the North Korean nuclear test, and the lingering uncertainty over what that would actually mean for Iran’s nuclear program, shows just how much of a gamble it may have been to have put such a conclusion on the backend of the deal.

An alternative could have been to premise the deal on the international community’s full knowledge of the country’s weaponization activities and infrastructure.

Implicit benefits

There’s another, more important way in which Iran benefits from the North Korean nuclear test.

Even if Iranian scientists weren’t present at the device’s detonation, or never gain access to testing or design-related data, Tehran is surely noting the remarkable global non-reaction to the North Korean test.

The illicit detonation of what North Korea claims was a hydrogen-boosted atomic weapon (a claim that has drawn scepticism from experts) and that created a fireball one-fifth of a mile wide elicited no military response or even a notable military mobilization from the US or any regional power.

It also only produced a pro-forma condemnation from the UN Security Council that did not include any contingencies for the use of force. The test may have temporarily riled Asian markets, but few experts believe it will be enough to cause China to reverse its financial, economic, and political support for the Kim Jong-un regime.

It took only four tests for a North Korean nuclear detonation to become a banal event. North Korea didn’t just make a potential leap forward in its nuclear weapons capabilities. It also exposed the US and its allies’ apparent lack of effective options in countering behaviour that ranks among the most egregious possible violations of international order.

In a sense, North Korea is continuing a trend from which Iran has already benefited. None of the temporary limitations on Iran’s nuclear program that the country agreed to in July of 2015 is binding under international law.

Moore, the former non-proliferation expert for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told Business Insider that the Iran deal’s nuclear-weapons development restrictions might have the overall effect of hollowing out the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

“Putting these limits in a nonbinding agreement means, what’s the point of having a binding violating enforced?” Moore said. “And Iran’s stalling of the IAEA’s weaponization probe hasn’t done anything to slow the removal of sanctions under the nuclear deal.”

Iran has to be watching the non-response to the North Korean test and wondering what else it might be able to get away with.
 

mzkitty

I give up.
5m
South Korea military says its forces now put on highest level alert at border with North Korea - @W7VOA


23m
South Korea begins anti-North Korea propaganda broadcasts at inter-Korean border - @Reuters
End of alert
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...iden-war-on-islamic-state-after-libya-bombing

EU Hesitates to Widen War on Islamic State After Libya Bomb

by James G Neuger , John Follain
January 7, 2016 — 3:00 PM PST
Updated on January 8, 2016 — 2:11 AM PST

- Attack prompts renewed European call for unity government
- Italy floats action `to contain terrorism' if diplomacy fails


European governments showed little inclination to open a new front in the war against Islamic State after a terrorist attack rocked Libya, bringing the extremist advance closer to Europe’s shores.

France and Britain, which spearheaded the NATO campaign that ousted Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi in 2011 and are currently bombing Islamic State redoubts in Syria and Iraq, said the priority is to get a functioning government in Libya. Italy, which faces Libya across the Mediterranean Sea, took the same line while signaling possible future action “to contain terrorism” if that effort failed.

European leaders are tentatively planning to send peacekeeping troops to back up the future government, the product of a power-sharing arrangement struck in December between two delegates of rival regimes on opposite sides of the oil-rich state. It is meant to be up and running within a week or two.

“The most likely scenario is that it will be a Libyan government which will intervene with the help of a foreign coalition,” said Arturo Varvelli, an analyst at the Milan-based Institute for the Study of International Politics. “No one wants to put boots on the ground, so any foreign coalition will be limited to small units for training and some special forces, there is too much anarchy out there.”

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization air war provided a lesson in what can go wrong. It exposed Europe’s military limitations and political fault lines -- Germany sat it out -- and turned Libya from a dictatorial state into an ungoverned one.

Sea Patrols

European navies are patrolling the central Mediterranean to intercept human traffickers operating out of Libya, but have been unwilling to intervene on Libyan soil in the absence of a viable government.

The urgency of implementing last month’s settlement was highlighted by Thursday’s explosion at a police training center in the western city of Zliten that killed at least 50 recruits, the deadliest terrorist attack ever in the nation. While no one claimed responsibility, speculation focused on Islamic State’s Libyan branch, which shelled the country’s largest oil port earlier this week.

-1x-1.jpg

http://assets.bwbx.io/images/i2Rbvj6s4mtg/v2/-1x-1.jpg

European officials renewed appeals for a joint administration, with German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier saying “how important and urgent it is for all Libyans to join forces against the cancer of terror.”

Tunisia Talks

European support for the nascent government is on the agenda Friday when EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini meets Libyan Presidency Council members in Tunisia.

France, which attempted to rally a military alliance after November’s terrorist attacks in what President Francois Hollande called a “war” on Islamic State, dispatched the nuclear-propelled Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier to the eastern Mediterranean as the launchpad for strikes on the group’s headquarters in Syria. On its way there, the carrier conducted reconnaissance flights over Libya.

France too put the onus on “all the Libyan parties to rapidly form a government of national unity which will be the partner of the international community against terrorism,” Romain Nadal, Foreign Ministry spokesman, said in an e-mail.

Italian Colonial Power

Italy’s proximity to Libya, coupled with its status as Libya’s former colonial power, puts Prime Minister Matteo Renzi’s government on the front line of Europe’s response to developments just a few hundred kilometers across the Mediterranean. Italian oil producer Eni SpA is the biggest investor in Libya.

Renzi said last month it was “crucial that Libya be considered the pivot of policy in the Mediterranean, and if there is one country in which Italy will play a significant role, that can only be Libya.”

For all the talk of Italy leading a military coalition, Foreign Minister Paolo Gentiloni said that the only plan in his immediate agenda was the formation of a new government. Beyond that, he hinted at possible future action against Islamic State.

“Every day that is lost in creating the new government which I hope will be born in the next few weeks is a day which creates some more space” for Islamic State or other enemies of the agreement, Gentiloni told Italian state broadcaster Radio 1 on Friday. “If diplomatic efforts do not manage to become stronger, in the next months there will be other ways of carrying out actions to contain terrorism.”
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.voanews.com/content/turkish-troops-repel-islamic-state-attack-in-iraq/3136450.html

Turkish Troops Repel Islamic State Attack in Iraq

VOA News
January 08, 2016 5:24 AM

Turkish troops on a training mission in northern Iraq have successfully fought off an attack by Islamic State fighters, Turkish officials said Friday.

At least 17 Islamic State militants were killed in the late Thursday clashes at the Bashiqa military base in Nineveh province, according to the officials.

Around 150 Turkish troops were deployed to the base to help train local Iraqi fighters to eventually retake the nearby town of Mosul, which is held by Islamic State.

Iraq's central government, which does not have a major presence in the area, has strongly objected to the Turkish deployment, saying it is a violation of its sovereignty.

Turkey last month acknowledged a "miscommunication" with Baghdad over the deployment, and has since relocated some of the fighters. But Baghdad is demanding a complete withdrawal, and has even threatened military action.

The U.S., which is leading a separate anti-IS coalition in Iraq, last month urged Turkey to take steps "to de-escalate tensions with Iraq, including by continuing to withdraw Turkish military forces."

The Bashiqa camp also came under attack by IS militants last month, killing four Turkish soldiers.


Related Articles

Flow of Foreign Fighters to Iraq, Syria Unrelenting
Two Iraqi Refugees Arrested in US on Terrorism Charges
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-nuclear-kerry-idUSKBN0UL2DE20160108

World | Fri Jan 8, 2016 7:24am EST
Related: World, China, South Korea, North Korea

Pressure grows on China to rein in North Korea; South launches propaganda barrage

SEOUL/BEIJING | By Jack Kim and Michael Martina


South Korea unleashed a high-decibel propaganda barrage across its border with North Korea on Friday in retaliation for its nuclear test, while the United States called on China to end "business as usual" with its ally.

The broadcasts, in rolling bursts from walls of loudspeakers at 11 locations along the heavily militarized border, blared rhetoric critical of the Pyongyang regime as well as "K-pop" music, ratcheting up tension between the rival Koreas.

North Korea later responded with its own broadcasts.

South Korea, which has grown increasingly close to China in recent years, also said its foreign minister would speak with his Chinese counterpart later on Friday.

Wednesday's nuclear test angered both the United States and China, which was not given prior notice, although the U.S. government and weapons experts doubt Pyongyang's claim that the device it set off was a hydrogen bomb.

China is North Korea's main economic and diplomatic backer, although relations between the Cold War allies have cooled in recent years.

China's Foreign Ministry urged North Korea to stick to its decentralization pledges and avoid action that would make the situation worse, but also said China did not hold the key to resolving the North Korean nuclear issue.

"Achieving decentralization of the Korean Peninsula and safeguarding the peninsula's peace and stability accords with all parties' mutual interests, is the responsibility of all parties, and requires all parties to put forth efforts," ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying told a news briefing.

The North agreed to end its nuclear program in international negotiations in 2005 but later walked away from the deal.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Thursday he had made clear in a phone call with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi that China's approach to North Korea had not succeeded.


Related Coverage
› North Korea seeks China help on treaty with U.S., or more tests: source
› K-pop, handbags and democracy: South Korean payback for North's nuclear test

"China had a particular approach that it wanted to make, that we agreed and respected to give them space to implement that," Kerry told reporters. "Today, in my conversation with the Chinese, I made it very clear that has not worked and we cannot continue business as usual."

South Korea's nuclear safety agency said it found a miniscule amount of xenon gas in a sample from off its east coast, which could be the first chemical evidence of a nuclear test, but said more analysis and samples were needed to determine if it came from a nuclear test.

The presence of xenon would not indicate whether the blast was from a hydrogen device or not.

Seismic waves created by the blast were almost identical to those generated in North Korea's last nuclear test in 2013, Jeffrey Park, a seismologist at Yale University, wrote in a post on the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists website, adding to scepticism about the hydrogen bomb claim.


TROOPS DEPLOYED, TOURS CANCELED

The South Korean broadcasts are considered an insult by the isolated North which has in the past threatened military strikes to stop them.

The last time South Korea deployed the loudspeakers, in retaliation for a landmine blast in August that wounded two South Korean soldiers, it led to an armed standoff and exchange of artillery fire.

The sound from the speakers can carry for 10 km (6 miles) into North Korea during the day and more than twice that at night, the South's Yonhap news agency reported.

A male announcer could be heard from South Korea telling North Koreans that Kim Jong Un, the leader of their impoverished country, and his wife wear clothes costing thousands of dollars. Another message said Kim's policy to boost both the economy and its nuclear program was unrealistic.

The North broadcasts were not clearly audible from the South and appeared intended to drown out those from the South, Yonhap said, citing a South Korean official.


Related Coverage
› South Korea-Japan ties improve in fallout of North Korea's nuclear test
› China urges North Korea to stick to denuclearization pledges

North Korea boosted troop deployments in front-line units on Friday, and South Korea raised its military readiness to the highest level at locations near the loudspeakers.

The South vowed to retaliate against any attack on the equipment, raised its cyber security alert and canceled tours of the Demilitarized Zone on the border.

U.S. Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives could join forces in a rare display of unity to tighten sanctions on North Korea.

Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, told reporters that Democrats would support a North Korea bill likely to be brought for a vote by Republicans next week. A congressional source said it was expected as soon as Monday.

It was unclear how more sanctions would deter North Korea, which has conducted four nuclear tests since 2006.

The United States and South Korea are limited in their military response. Washington sent a pair of nuclear-capable B-2 stealth bombers over South Korea in a show of force after North Korea last tested a nuclear device in 2013.

North Korea responded then by threatening a nuclear strike on the United States.

A South Korean military official said Seoul and Washington had discussed the deployment of U.S. strategic weapons on the Korean peninsula, but declined to give details. Media said the assets could include B-2 and B-52 bombers, and a nuclear-powered submarine.


(Additional reporting by James Pearson, Se Young Lee, Christine Kim, Jee Heun Kahng, Ju-min Park and Jack Kim in SEOUL, Dagyum Ji in GIMPO, Patricia Zengerle, Roberta Rampton, Doina Chiacu and Arshad Mohammed in WASHINGTON, and Tim Kelly in YOKOSUKA; Writing by Tony Munroe; Editing by Paul Tait, Robert Birsel)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/01/07/fear-and-loathing-in-saudi-arabia/

Argument

Fear and Loathing in Saudi Arabia

Saudi royals are scared about everything from the rise of Iran to the drop in oil prices. And Washington telling them to calm down only makes them angrier.

By Kenneth M. Pollack
January 7, 2016

The true surprise about the Saudi-Iranian contretemps over the execution of Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr is that it caught so many people off guard in the first place. Anyone paying attention to Saudi Arabia knew that something like this was a long time coming. Unfortunately, not enough people were paying attention until it was too late.

It’s impossible to understand the current situation without delving into Saudi politics and foreign policy. But it’s equally important to be honest about the limits of our knowledge. Very much like the Islamic Republic of Iran, it’s very difficult for anyone outside the highest reaches of government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to really understand its fears and strategies. As my friend Greg Gause regularly warns, with Saudi politics, “those who know don’t speak, and those who speak don’t know.” It’s an important warning.

So with that caveat as our guide, what can we say about the dramatic shifts in Saudi policy.

First, I think it’s clear that Saudi policy has to be understood as an interweaving of Saudi internal and external interests, and right now those interests are overwhelmingly about fear. The external threats it seems to see are easier for Americans to recognize than the internal ones. But what we often miss is how the Saudis see external issues affecting their internal circumstances and creating domestic threats they find far more frightening than the external threat on its own.

At the broadest level, when the Saudis in Riyadh look at the Middle East around them, they see a region spiraling out of control. Since 2011, they have witnessed a massive increase in general instability across the region, with “the people” increasingly willing to protest or even overthrow their rulers. The complacency and popular “inertness” that categorized the Arab populations for decades is gone. That clearly worries the Sauds, the kingdom’s ruling royal family, who have always preferred a docile populace.

Civil wars are raging in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Libya, spilling refugees, terrorists, armed militants, and powerful, radical ideas over onto their neighbors. Already, spillover from these civil wars has created nascent civil wars in Egypt and Turkey. It is eroding the stability of Lebanon, Jordan, Algeria, Tunisia, and even Kuwait. It has also created vast new opportunities for Iran to destabilize and rearrange the region to suit its own interests.

Indeed, both the civil wars and the spillover they generate have also produced a general mobilization of the Middle East’s Shiites, instigated and led by Iran. And that includes the Shiites in the Saudi kingdom. Officials in private and press reports occasionally note that hundreds of Saudi security service personnel have been killed and wounded in operations in the Eastern Province, the home to the vast majority of the kingdom’s Shiites. Americans tend not to pay attention to these operations because we see them as proof that the Saudis have things well in hand; but another way to look at it is that the Saudis are fighting pitched battles with someone in the cities of the Eastern Province. In other words, there seems to be a much higher degree of mobilization and violent confrontation among the Saudi Shiites than most realize.

Then there are Saudi fears about the oil market. Everyone seems to believe that the Saudis are purposely not cutting back production to kill off North American shale producers. But that is absolutely not what the Saudis are saying, either in private or public. Instead, they are saying that they can no longer control the oil market because there are too many other sources and all of the OPEC countries cheat like crazy whenever Riyadh tries to orchestrate a production cut. This has happened to them repeatedly over the past 20 to 30 years. They try to cut production to prevent oil prices from dropping, and the rest of OPEC takes advantage of it to pump as much as they can, contrary to what they promised and agreed to. The result is that there is no overall supply curtailment and the Saudis lose market share. This time around, they have stated that they cannot realistically control the OPEC oil supply, so they are not going to try to do so. Instead, they are going to fight for market share. But doing so means having to win a race to the bottom, with the result that their oil revenues are plummeting.

So that is another element of fear for them: They can no longer control the oil market the way they once did, and the low price of oil is obviously killing them. It has become so bad that they are now talking about real economic austerity, including repealing subsidies on gasoline and other fuel that average Saudis now see as part of their rights as citizens. Repealing subsidies and other austerity measures is always a very unpopular move and can easily cause widespread popular unrest — one need only remember events in Greece last year. The fact that the Saudi government now feels forced to take this route speaks to how desperate its financial situation is — and, given how it conjures the threat of popular mobilization that makes it so uneasy, it can only make the Saudis that much more apprehensive.

Meanwhile, the region’s civil wars have the Saudis so frightened that they have intervened in unprecedented ways. They have poured tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars into Syria and Yemen and to a lesser extent Iraq and Libya. They are pouring tens of billions more into Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Algeria, and Bahrain to shore up their governments, prevent state collapse under the strain of the spillover from neighboring civil wars, and thus prevent more civil wars on their own borders. But these increased foreign-policy costs coupled with reduced oil revenues have forced the Saudis to draw from their sovereign wealth fund at a rate of $12 to 14 billion per month — a pace that will wipe out those reserves in less than three years, but is likely to cause severe domestic political problems (including dissension within the royal family) long before.

And there sits Iran, at the intersection of all of these problems, from the Saudi perspective. The Saudis think the Iranians are to blame for the civil wars in Syria, Yemen, and (to a lesser extent) Iraq by mobilizing Shiites to destabilize the kingdom and its Sunni Arab allies. (They also blame the United States for the Iraqi civil war, appropriately, I might add.) They see the Iranians as threatening to pump new oil out onto the market to fight the Saudis for market share regardless of how low the price goes; Iranian officials openly crow that all of the money that will finally be released to them after the nuclear sanctions are lifted will be used to enable them to take market share away from Riyadh. In addition, the Iranians are waging proxy wars against the Saudis in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen and aiding subversive elements in Bahrain, Kuwait, and the kingdom itself. So, as the Saudis see it, Tehran contributes to Riyadh’s financial problems by driving down Saudi revenues and jacking up expenditures, both of which threaten the kingdom’s internal stability.

And while we may believe that the Saudis exaggerate both Iranian capabilities and intentions, the Saudis have a number of good points when it comes to Iran. The Iranians do seek to overturn the regional order, and they have repeatedly attempted to overthrow Arab governments (including Saudi Arabia’s, albeit several decades ago). The Iranians do tend to back Shiite populations, whether they are in power or out, majority or minority. And they do often incite them to violence and provide them with the wherewithal to do so. As a result, the Iranians have become deeply embroiled in the civil wars of the region. I would argue their involvement in both Iraq and Syria is primarily defensive (seeking to preserve the control over the state by their allies), but in Yemen it has unquestionably been offensive. There is no other explanation for Iran’s involvement in Yemen other than to annoy, weaken, or even undermine the Saudis — as strategic leverage or a genuine bid at regime change. And the Iranians do not make matters any better by arrogantly dismissing Arab fear and interests and placing themselves on a higher level than their neighbors across the Persian Gulf.

Finally, the Saudis feel frustrated and abandoned by the United States. Many Saudis and other Gulf Arabs consider President Barack Obama deeply ignorant, if not outright foolish, about the world and the Middle East. They evince out-and-out contempt for him and his policies. From their perspective, the United States has turned its back on its traditional allies in the Middle East. Washington is doing the least it can in Iraq, and effectively nothing in Libya and Syria, with the result that none of those conflicts is getting better. If anything, they are actually getting worse. Moreover, Saudi Arabia seems to differ over whether Obama is using the new nuclear deal with Tehran to deliberately try to shift the United States from the Saudi side to the Iranian side in the grand, regional struggle or if he is allowing it to happen unintentionally. The more charitable Saudi position is the former, because that suggests that Obama at least understands what he is doing, even if they think it a mistake and a betrayal. The latter view, for Saudis, sees him as a virtual imbecile who is destroying the Middle East without any understanding or recognition.

The depth of Saudi anger and contempt for the current American leadership is important to understand because it is another critical element of their worldview and policies, as best we can understand them. With the Middle East coming apart at the seams (in Saudi Arabia’s view), the United States — the traditional regional hegemon — is doing nothing to stop it and even encouraging Iran to widen the fissures. Since the United States can’t or won’t do anything, someone else has to, and that someone can only be Saudi Arabia. The dramatic increase in Riyadh’s willingness to intervene abroad, with both financial and military power, has been driven by its sense that dramatic action is required to prevent the region from melting down altogether and taking the kingdom down with it.

That is why the Saudis have been consistently overreacting to events in Washington’s eyes. We look at Bahrain and see an oppressed Shiite majority looking for some degree of political participation and economic benefit from the minority Sunni regime. The Saudis see an Iranian-backed mass uprising that could spread to the kingdom if it were to succeed — which is why the Iranians are helping it do so. We look at the Yemeni civil war and see a quagmire with only a minor Iranian role and little likelihood of destabilizing Saudi Arabia. The Saudis see an Iranian bid to stealthily undermine the kingdom. We see a popular Saudi Shiite cleric who would become a martyr if he is executed. The Saudis see an Iranian-backed firebrand stoking revolution in their country’s oil-producing regions. In the Syrian peace talks, we see a need to bring the Iranians in because of their critical support for Bashar al-Assad’s regime. The Saudis see the United States legitimizing both a Shiite/Persian/Iranian influence in a majority Sunni Arab state and the murderous, minority Shiite regime. The list goes on.

And in none of these situations is the United States, the power that Riyadh traditionally counted on to help fix its problems, doing much. And where we are, we are just as often favoring Iran or even opposing it.

And though many have always assumed that the Saudis look to free-ride and will bandwagon with whoever is the strongest power in the region, history is quite the opposite. Instead, the Saudis have traditionally fought back against any major power they didn’t like — from the Soviet Union to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq — and Iran is now obviously at the top of that list.

So, the Saudis are scared of the rising tide of popular mobilization and Shiite mobilization; they are scared by their loss of control over the oil market and what that is forcing them to do domestically; they are scared by the spillover from the region’s civil wars and the costs that they are being forced to bear to try to prevent that spillover from affecting them; and they are scared that we are abandoning them for Iran. The Saudis’ world, in other words, is pretty scary. And their modus operandi today is the same as it always has been: to lash out to try to beat back the threats that they see and regain control of their circumstances. Hence their stunning intervention in Yemen, their constant escalation in Syria, and now this latest flare-up with Iran.

It’s also why America’s constant appeals to them to just calm down will have no impact except to infuriate them further. Unless we want to take up some of these burdens for the Saudis (their first choice, as always), then we have nothing that they want. It only adds insult to injury when Washington refuses to recognize the threats that they see, does nothing to help them with those threats, and then tries to keep them from doing what they think they need to do to deal with those threats themselves.

It’s also why we should expect to see other crises like this one in future. The Saudis are going to keep taking whatever actions they feel necessary to deter or defeat what they see as Iranian efforts to undermine their external power and their internal stability. In the unstable Middle East of the early 21st century, that aggressiveness is going to have very unpredictable effects. But what looks chaotic to Washington will continue to seem entirely logical from the perspective of Saudi Arabia.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://in.reuters.com/article/mali-kidnapping-idINKBN0UM1SI20160108

World | Fri Jan 8, 2016 9:48pm IST
Related: World

Swiss missionary kidnapped a second time in Mali's Timbuktu

BAMAKO | By Tiemoko Diallo


A Swiss missionary was kidnapped from her home in Timbuktu on Friday, nearly four years after she was abducted by Islamist militants from the same house, the Malian army and a local resident said.

There was no information on the attackers and no immediate claim of responsbility, but Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) is active in desert areas north of the city and has a history of seizing foreigners and demanding ransoms.

In April 2012, militants kidnapped Beatrice Stockly and released her days later. She returned to her work as a missionary. A resident of Timbuktu who knows Stockly told Reuters she had again been abducted.

"I confirm that a European woman was kidnapped in Timbuktu at 3.30 a.m. (0330 GMT). A neighbour alerted the security forces around 6 a.m.," said army spokesman Souleymane Maiga.

French forces drove Islamist fighters from major urban centres in 2013 but they have intensified their insurgency with a series of attacks and roadside bombings last year.

Two militants attacked a luxury hotel in the capital Bamako on Nov. 20, killing 20 people, many of whom were foreigners.

Three Islamist militant groups including AQIM claimed responsibility for the hotel attack, which showed the militants extending their reach beyond the north.

In a separate incident, an unidentified gunman shot three people dead outside a Christian radio station in Timbuktu in December. A veteran jihadist called for a return to Islamic sharia law at a recent meeting attended by hundreds of locals near Timbuktu, an AQIM video showed this week.


HOSTAGE-TAKING

Dozens of Westerners were abducted by desert militants in West and North Africa in the five years before the French military operation in Mali in 2013.

There has been a lull since then, with many foreigners too frightened to visit. In the last known abduction attempt, two French journalists from Radio France International were killed in Kidal, northern Mali, in Nov. 2013.

Two Western hostages kidnapped in north Mali in 2011 are still being held by al Qaeda militants.

The Swiss foreign ministry in Berne said on Friday it was aware of the "alleged kidnapping" of a Swiss citizen in Mali.

"The Swiss local representative is in contact with the local authorities," it said in an email.

"For privacy and data protection reasons, no further information can be given at the moment."

France continues to fight militants in Mali and elsewhere in the desert region with a 3,500-strong counter-terrorism force called Barkhane. A 10,000-strong U.N. peacekeeping force (MINUSMA) is also present in Mali.

"We are on the lookout for information that might be helpful in locating her," MINUSMA spokeswoman Radhia Achouri said of the Stockly case.


(Additional reporting by Adama Diarra in Bamako, Souleymane Ag Anara in Kidal, Mali, Michael Shields in Zurich and Emma Farge in Dakar; Writing by Matthew Mpoke Bigg; Editing by Andrew Roche)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm..........

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-nuclear-usa-japan-idUSKBN0UM22K20160108

World | Fri Jan 8, 2016 12:42pm EST
Related: World, Japan

Pentagon chief reassures Japan on security after North Korea test: U.S.

WASHINGTON


U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter called his Japanese counterpart, Gen Nakatani, to discuss the North Korea nuclear test and reaffirm U.S. security commitments to Japan and allies in the region, the Pentagon said on Friday.

"Secretary Carter and Minister Nakatani both agreed that the nuclear test by North Korea is an unacceptable and irresponsible act that undermines regional security and stability," and condemned the act, the Pentagon said in a statement.


(Reporting by Doina Chiacu; Editing by Mohammad Zargham)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?482084-quot-El-Chapo-quot-Recaptured-in-Mexico.

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mexico-guzman-idUSKBN0UM25O20160108

World | Fri Jan 8, 2016 3:03pm EST
Related: World, Mexico

Mexico recaptures drug boss 'Chapo' Guzman, president says

MEXICO CITY | By Veronica Gomez and Dave Graham


Mexico has recaptured the world's most notorious drug lord Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman six months after he brazenly broke out of a maximum security prison through a mile-long tunnel, President Enrique Pena Nieto said on Friday.

Guzman, head of the powerful Sinaloa Cartel, who Pena Nieto first caught in February 2014, was captured in an early morning raid in the city of Los Mochis in the drug baron's native state of Sinaloa in northwest Mexico.

"Mission accomplished: We have him," Pena Nieto said on his Twitter account. "I want to inform all Mexicans that Joaquin Guzman Loera has been arrested."

The operation to recapture Guzman involved Mexican marines, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and U.S. Marshals, a senior Mexican police source said.

Prior to Pena Nieto's announcement, the Mexican Navy said a raid took place in Los Mochis based on a tip. Five people were killed in the standoff and six were captured, the Navy said.

A security source said Guzman was captured during that raid.

In October, the government said Guzman narrowly evaded security forces searching for him in the northwest of Mexico, sustaining injuries to his face and leg.

He staged a jaw-dropping jailbreak in July, when he escaped through the tunnel which burrowed right up into his cell, heaping embarrassment on Pena Nieto.

Dozens of people were arrested over the jailbreak, though details of who Guzman bribed and how his accomplices knew exactly where to tunnel into the prison remain scant.

Guzman now faces the prospect of extradition to the United States. After coming under fire for failing to do so the last time, Mexico's Attorney General's office said in July it had approved an order to extradite him north of the border.

An official at the attorney general's office, speaking on condition of anonymity, said his extradition would "take time".

Guzman is wanted by U.S. authorities for various criminal charges including cocaine smuggling and money laundering.

Once featured in the Forbes list of billionaires, Guzman's Sinaloa Cartel has smuggled billions of dollars worth of heroin, cocaine, marijuana and methamphetamines into the United States and fought vicious turf wars with other Mexican gangs.


'A SURVIVOR'

The kingpin's legendary reputation in the Mexican underworld began to grow in 2001, when he staged his first jailbreak, bribing guards in a prison in western Mexico, before going on to dominate drug trafficking along much of the Rio Grande.

Still, many people in towns and villages across Mexico remember Guzman better for his squads of armed gunmen who carried out thousands of brutal slayings and kidnappings.

After Guzman's first prison break, violence began to creep up in Mexico and the situation deteriorated during the 2006-2012 rule of Pena Nieto's predecessor Felipe Calderon, when nearly 70,000 people lost their lives in gang-related mayhem.

Guzman's reputation grew and in 2013 Chicago dubbed him its first Public Enemy No.1 since Al Capone.

El Chapo, or "Shorty", is believed to be 58 years old. The 5-foot, 6-inch gangster's exploits made him a hero to many poor villagers in and around Sinaloa, where he was immortalized in dozens of ballads and low budget movies.

Security experts concede Guzman has been a master of his trade, managing to outmaneuver, outfight or outbribe his rivals to stay at the top of the business for over a decade.

Rising through the ranks of the drug world, Guzman watched his mentors' tactics, their mistakes and where to forge the alliances that kept him one step ahead of the law for years.

"El Chapo Guzman is a survivor," Anabel Hernandez, author of Narcoland: The Mexican Drug Lords and their Godfathers, said shortly after his July jailbreak.


(With reporting by Gabriel Stargardter and Christine Murray; Editing by Simon Gardner and Mary Milliken)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...vous-with-Reality-in-2016-Victor-Davis-Hanson

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://townhall.com/columnists/vict...zvous-with-reality-in-2016-n2100533/page/full

Rendezvous with Reality in 2016

Victor Davis Hanson | Jan 07, 2016

Changes of administrations usually mark dicey times in American foreign policy. But transitional hazards will never be greater than in 2016.

Over a span of just a few months in mid-1945, new president Harry Truman lost all trust in Soviet Union strongman Josef Stalin -- in a way that Truman's predecessor, the ailing Franklin Delano Roosevelt, never had during nearly four years of World War II.

Ensuing American foreign policy jerked from a pragmatic Lend-Lease alliance with a duplicitous communist superpower to a tense Cold War.

President John F. Kennedy was young, idealistic, cocky -- and without the military reputation of his predecessor, the much more experienced former general Dwight D. Eisenhower. Soon after JFK's inauguration in 1961, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev predictably began testing Kennedy's mettle as commander in chief, from Berlin to Cuba.

Kennedy's eventual restoration of American deterrence during the Cuban blockade marked the scariest phase in Cold War history.

By 1980, as lame duck Jimmy Carter neared the end of his first and only term, the Russians had sought to absorb Afghanistan. Communist insurrections kept spreading in Central America. China went into Vietnam. The new theocracy in Iran still held American diplomats and employees hostages.

Most aggressors had logically accelerated their risk-taking before the newly elected, mostly unknown (but volatile-sounding) Ronald Reagan took office in 1981.

The world's bullies are now wagering on whether 2016 likewise offers one final opportunity to consolidate their easy recent winnings. Or, in their hubris, might they ramp up their belligerence one last time before the arrival of a new president who will be more likely be supportive of the U.S.-led postwar order?


China, with impunity, has fortified seven newly created artificial islands located in the hotly disputed Spratlys archipelago, a strategic pathway positioned in the heart of the South China Sea. Has China now set a precedent that any nation can build artificial but sovereign islands in the Pacific, replete with automatic territorial claims to surrounding waters?

If so, will Iran or Russia in 2016 create new islands out of thin air in the Persian Gulf, the Mediterranean or the Atlantic? Or will the next president have to warn the Chinese that no nation can in godlike fashion birth permanent fortified islands in the middle of international sea lanes?

Will Beijing seek to push the envelope even more in 2016, fearful that the next president in 2017 -- whether Hillary Clinton or a Republican -- could be more like Truman or Reagan than Carter or Barack Obama?

Russian President Vladimir Putin has come to expect that his border aggressions do not risk much Western pushback. Will Putin continue to take risks after the departure of Obama, who would rather lecture the Russian leader than stop Russian aggression, more worried about keeping intact his legacy as a Nobel Peace Prize winner than preserving post-Cold War borders?

The Islamic State is only about two years old, but it already has already carved out huge swaths from Syria and Iraq in its dreams of a new Islamic caliphate that will remake the entire Middle East. So far, Western responses have been anemic.

But can the Islamic State afford to gamble that under the next president, 75 percent of U.S. combat missions against ISIS will return to their base without firing a shot or dropping their bombs, as has been the case under the Obama administration? Prepare for stepped-up Islamic State offensives during a last-chance year of the Obama presidency.

Over the last seven years, the world has become acclimatized to the lead-from-behind role of the United States. Under Obama, friends and enemies bet that America was conflicted about the wisdom and morality of the entire American-led postwar global enterprise and reacted accordingly.

But -- who knows? -- the next American president may identify radical Islam as the catalyst for terrorism directed at the West.

Cuba in 2017 may no longer be seen as a newfound friend but as an old-time violator of human rights.

Next year, will the Islamic State still be seen as a "jayvee" organization, or as an existential danger to the U.S. homeland?

In all of these cases, uncertainty rather than assured continuity in present U.S. foreign policy is likely -- largely because the stubborn and tone-deaf Obama administration has lost the support of the American public on almost all of its foreign policy initiatives, from signing the Iran pact, to dealing with terrorism, to handling China and Russia.

Unfortunately, the predictable corrections under a new president in 2017 will make 2016 more dangerous than any year since 1980.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-egypt-security-idUSKBN0UM26S20160108

World | Fri Jan 8, 2016 5:16pm EST
Related: World, Egypt

Foreign tourists wounded in attack at Egyptian Red Sea resort

CAIRO, | By Ahmed Mohamed Hassan


Two assailants armed with a gun, a knife and a suicide belt attacked a hotel in the Egyptian Red Sea resort town of Hurghada on Friday, wounding two foreign tourists, security sources said.

One of the injured was from Denmark and the other from Germany, the sources said. .

They said the attackers had arrived by sea to launch the onslaught on the beachside Bella Vista Hotel, but that security forces had repelled the assault, killing the attacker wearing the suicide bomb.

However, the Interior Ministry gave a very different account, saying two assailants with knives had wounded two Austrians and a Swede. It said one of the attackers was a student from the Cairo suburb of Giza.

Egypt is fighting a wave of Islamist militancy, which began as attacks on security forces in remote regions of the Sinai, but is increasingly focusing on targets previously considered safe such as the tourist resorts on the Red Sea.

The Islamic State militant group said on Friday that an attack on Israeli tourists in Cairo on Thursday had been carried out by its fighters, in response to a call by the group's leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, to target Jews "everywhere".

Security sources said those tourists were Israeli Arabs. None was hurt and Egyptian authorities said the attack was aimed at security forces.

On Oct. 31, a Russian passenger plane crashed in Sinai, killing all 224 people on board, most of them tourists returning home from the Red Sea resort of Sharm al-Sheikh.

Cairo says it has found no evidence of terrorism in the crash, but Russia and Western governments have said the airliner was probably brought down by a bomb, and Islamic State said it had smuggled explosives on board.

Tourism is critical to the Egyptian economy as a source of hard currency, but has been ravaged by years of political turmoil since the revolution that ousted veteran president Hosni Mubarak in 2011.


(Additional reporting by Ali Abdelaty and Michael Georgy; Editing by Kevin Liffey)
 
Top