WAR 02-17-2018-to-02-23-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

[Housecarl]

(308) 01-27-2018-to-02-02-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...2-02-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(309) 02-03-2018-to-02-09-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...2-09-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(311) 02-10-2018-to-02-16-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...2-16-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

====================

SYRIAN ARMY FIRES ON ADVANCING TURKISH MILITARY COLUMNS
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...-ON-ADVANCING-TURKISH-MILITARY-COLUMNS/page10

Turkey hits Kurds with toxic gas, 6 civilians injured – Syrian media
Started by Millwright‎, Today 03:41 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...oxic-gas-6-civilians-injured-%96-Syrian-media

BREAKING: Robert Mueller indicts 13 Russian nationals for meddling in 2016 election
Started by mzkitty‎, Today 10:11 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...nationals-for-meddling-in-2016-election/page3

Moscow says has evidence of Western meddling in Russian election
Started by Housecarl‎, Yesterday 07:17 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...dence-of-Western-meddling-in-Russian-election

The Winds of War Blow in Israel The Road to War
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...s-of-War-Blow-in-Israel-The-Road-to-War/page3

Top Pacific admiral: North Korea’s ‘shadow looms over the American homeland’
Started by China Connection‎, Yesterday 05:24 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...%91shadow-looms-over-the-American-homeland%92

The Winds of War Blow in Korea and The Far East
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...of-War-Blow-in-Korea-and-The-Far-East/page101

The Four Horsemen - 02/12 to 02/19
Started by Ragnarok‎, 02-12-2018 03:02 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?531666-The-Four-Horsemen-02-12-to-02-19

====================

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ion-ban-a-sign-of-curbs-to-come-idUSKCN1G1040

WORLD NEWS FEBRUARY 16, 2018 / 6:55 PM / UPDATED 3 HOURS AGO

China’s Hui Muslims fearful Chinese New Year education ban a sign of curbs to come

Michael Martina
6 MIN READ

GUANGHE, China (Reuters) - For some in China’s ethnic Hui Muslim minority here, a recent ban on young people engaging in religious education in mosques is an unwelcome interference in how they lead their lives.

Their big fear is the Chinese government may be bringing in measures in this northwestern province of Gansu that are similar to some of those used in the crackdown on Uighur Muslims in the giant Xinjiang region further to the west.

Well-integrated into society and accustomed to decades of smooth relations with the government, many Hui have watched with detachment as authorities have subjected Xinjiang to near-martial law, with armed police checkpoints, reeducation centers, and mass DNA collection.

But in January, education officials from the local government in Guanghe county, which is a heavily-Muslim area, banned children from attending religious education during the Lunar New Year break. That lasts for several weeks around the week-long public holiday period that started on Thursday.

It is unclear if the ban, similar to those used by the authorities in the Uighur communities, will continue after the holiday, but it appears to conform to new national regulations that took effect on Feb. 1 aiming to increase oversight over religion.

Residents in the city of Linxia, the capital of Gansu’s so-called “autonomous” prefecture for the Hui people, about 50 kilometers to the west of Guanghe, told Reuters that similar restrictions were in place there.

“We feel it is ridiculous and were astonished,” said Li Haiyang, a Hui imam from the eastern province of Henan who in a widely circulated online article denounced the policy as violating China’s constitution.

Such bans had been conveyed verbally in recent years, Li told Reuters, but implementation was uneven and often ignored. The more forceful rollout this year shows authorities are serious about enforcement, he said.

The Linxia prefecture government, which oversees Linxia city and Guanghe, did not provide details of the policy, but said China’s constitution required separation of religion and education.

“Religious affairs management ... adheres to the direction of the Sinofication of religion, and firmly resists and guards against the spread and infiltration of extremist religious ideology,” the Linxia government’s publicity department said in a fax in response to questions from Reuters. “Maintaining legal management is the greatest concept in the protection of religion,” it said in a statement that stressed stability.

Repeated phone calls to the Guanghe education bureau’s propaganda department went unanswered.

China’s State Administration for Religious Affairs did not respond to a request for comment, but the State Council Information Office said China amply guarantees citizens’ right to religious freedom under law, including children.

“While safeguarding all ethnic group’s religious freedom and other lawful interests according to law, China will also resolutely prevent and severely crackdown on the use of religion to carry out illegal activities,” it said.

“WE AREN‘T EXTREMISTS”

The pressure on the Hui from the authorities is far from as intense as the Uighurs face in Xinjiang, where a massive security clampdown followed deadly bouts of ethnic violence the government blamed on extremists.

But state media has also reported on the removal of loudspeakers used to broadcast calls to prayer from mosques in Hui regions, ostensibly to prevent noise pollution.

In April, the government-run Islamic Association of China said new mosques should reject the “Arabisation” of architecture, with its “excessive size and extravagance”, in favor of traditional Chinese designs.

In Guanghe and Linxia, antipathy towards the education rules was widespread.

“You can’t oppose it. You can only obey,” 46-year-old Ma Shaqing, who describes himself as a “patriotic Muslim”, said in his antique shop near the towering Halal China Mosque in Guanghe.

Another man leaving afternoon prayers at Linxia’s New China Mosque said local officials were misapplying Chinese President Xi Jinping’s policies.

“Families are afraid to teach their children to have faith for fear it will bring them trouble,” he said. “How can cultural traditions be passed down like this?”

China’s image with the wider Muslim community around the world is important to Beijing as it pushes President Xi’s “Belt and Road” initiative to invest billions of dollars building infrastructure linking Asia, Europe and Africa. China has sought to make the more secular Hui, among China’s roughly 20 million Muslims, a face of the project, highlighting it at a China-Arab states expo in the heavily-Hui Ningxia region in September.

A man his late 20s, surnamed Zhou, who had been studying for more than 10 years to be an imam in Linxia, said a “very tense political situation” had taken hold in Linxia, and he only agreed to speak to Reuters far away from the gates of his mosque.

Zhou said government concerns of extremism spreading among Hui were misplaced.

“The possibility of this happening is almost none, because none of us believe this way. We aren’t extremists,” he said.

Reporting by Michael Martina; Additional reporting by Christian ShepherdEdited by Martin Howell

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.rferl.org/a/munich-secu...ant-conflict-ukraine-russia-u-s/29042387.html

NEWS

In Munich, Warnings Of Nuclear Confrontation, 'Major Interstate Conflict'

Last Updated: February 16, 2018 20:44 GMT
Carl Schreck

MUNICH -- The dangers of nuclear proliferation and talk of a “dire” global security situation dominated the opening of a high-profile security conference featuring world leaders and other top officials.

The battered relations between Russia and the West, as well as the ongoing war in eastern Ukraine, are also at the forefront of the annual Munich Security Conference that kicked off on February 16 and has drawn world leaders and top officials.

Addressing a conference hall in Munich packed with dignitaries, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned of the risks emanating from North Korea’s nuclear activities, which have ratcheted up tensions between Pyongyang and Washington.

"For the first time since the end of the Cold War, we are now facing a nuclear threat, a threat of a nuclear conflict," Guterres told the gathering in the southern Bavarian city.

"I'm naturally referring to the development in relation to nuclear weapons and long-range missiles by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea -- the development made in total contradiction with the will of international community and in clear violation of several resolutions of the [UN] Security Council," Guterres added.

NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg, meanwhile, noted in his address to the conference that Munich was closer to North Korea's capital, Pyongyang, than the U.S. capital, Washington.

He added that the international community must apply "maximum pressure" on North Korea and its leader, Kim Jong Un, to give up any nuclear ambitions.

Kim has refused to give up development of nuclear missiles in spite of increasingly severe sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council.

Stoltenberg also called on Russia to address NATO concerns about what the United States has determined is Moscow’s violation of a landmark Cold War arms treaty.

Conference Chairman Wolfgang Ischinger opened the event by warning that the world has moved too close to a “major interstate conflict” and faces a “dire reality.”

“We have too many unresolved crises, instabilities, and conflicts,” Ischinger said.

Organizers said the agenda of the three-day conference places an emphasis on the European Union's role in the world as well as the bloc's relations with Moscow and Washington, whose leaders are not slated to attend.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, who used his lone appearance at the conference, in 2007, to excoriate the United States for what he portrayed as its dangerous and destabilizing role in the world, is dispatching Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to Munich.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s secretary of defense, Jim Mattis, and national security adviser H.R. McMaster are among those to represent Washington at the conference.

Ukraine Looms Large

The war between Russia-backed separatists and Kyiv's forces in eastern Ukraine also looms large in Munich.

Both the U.S. special envoy for the conflict in Ukraine, Kurt Volker, and his Russian counterpart, Vladislav Surkov, last month offered guardedly optimistic assessments of their recent talks on a possible UN peacekeeping mission to end the fighting, which has killed more than 10,300 since April 2014.

Volker, who is set to attend the Munich conference, recently noted more "openness" from the Russian side on the issue but said he conveyed to Surkov "a very strong sense of disappointment and frustration in Washington that Russia has done absolutely nothing to end the conflict, or to withdraw its forces."

Former NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who currently serves as an adviser to Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, is set to present Volker and other officials in Munich with a report he commissioned urging a UN force of some 20,000 peacekeepers in eastern Ukraine.

Poroshenko, who delivered a fiery speech at the conference on February 16 denouncing what he called Russia’s “world hybrid war,” spoke by telephone with Putin earlier this week.

Poroshenko told reporters in Kyiv on February 15 that the two leaders also discussed the prospects for UN peacekeepers in eastern Ukraine, as well as the Minsk accords -- September 2014 and February 2015 cease-fire pacts that have failed to hold.

Peace talks in the so-called Normandy Format -- consisting of Germany, France, Russia, and Ukraine -- had been planned on the sidelines of the conference for February 16. But they were called off over what the German Foreign Ministry described as scheduling conflicts.

It was not immediately clear if the meeting would be rescheduled during the Munich conference.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin and Lavrov held talks on the sidelines of the conference on February 16, though Klimkin said the two diplomats were unable to reach an agreement on a possible UN peacekeeping force in eastern Ukraine.

Trump’s administration has largely stayed the course of his predecessor’s hard line on Russia’s 2014 seizure of Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula and backing of the separatists in eastern Ukraine, which both triggered U.S. and EU sanctions targeting Moscow.

But while Moscow continues to chafe over Western sanctions and the Trump administration insists it is taking a tough approach to Moscow, there have been signals that the two sides are trying to ratchet down tensions.

Trump in December publicly touted bilateral cooperation with Moscow that both the White House and the Kremlin said had prevented planned terrorist attacks in St. Petersburg. And three directors of Russia’s main intelligence and espionage agencies -- one of whom was hit with a U.S. travel ban over the Crimea annexation -- traveled to Washington last month for meetings with top officials there.

Trump also surprised and angered many in Washington by declining to announce new sanctions targeting Moscow in conjunction with congressionally mandated measures aimed at pressuring the Kremlin over Russia’s military involvement in Ukraine and Syria, its alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, and other matters.

Russian officials, meanwhile, have responded cautiously to the confirmed deaths of multiple Russian mercenaries killed in Syria last week in a clash with U.S.-backed forces, largely avoiding the anti-American rhetoric that frequently permeates officialdom in Moscow.

Tensions heightened on the eve of the Munich conference however, as Washington joined Britain in blaming Russia for the massive NotPetya ransomware attack last year -- an accusation the Kremlin rejected.

The White House pledged “international consequences” in response to the hack.

Michael O’Hanlon, a senior foreign policy fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, noted in the call with reporters this week that the Munich conference follows the Trump administration’s recent unveiling of its national defense and security strategies portraying China and Russia as “revisionist” powers and outlining an increased focus on “great power competition.”

“Hearing more about what it means to make Russia and China our main national security emphases will, I think, be a question a lot of people will want to explore with Secretary Mattis and General McMaster, and anybody else from the U.S. delegation” in Munich, O’Hanlon said.

McMaster is scheduled to speak immediately following Lavrov’s speech on February 17.

Other world leaders and top officials scheduled to address the conference include British Prime Minister Theresa May, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, French Prime Minister Edouard Philippe, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Other global challenges set to be discussed at the Munich conference include defense cooperation in the EU and NATO, as well as the impact of technology on democracy.

With reporting by Reuters, TASS, Interfax, AP, and VOA
Carl Schreck is a senior correspondent for RFE/RL.
SchreckC@rferl.org

Related

Pence Tells Europe U.S. Remains Its 'Greatest Ally,' Urges More Defense Spending

Merkel Says NATO, West Must Protect Principle Of Territorial Integrity

Everyone Seems To Have A Peace Plan For Ukraine

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-43085587

DR Congo troops killed 'in Virunga park' by Rwandan army

16 February 2018

At least five Congolese soldiers have been killed by the Rwandan army, the military in DR Congo says.

Gen Bruno Mandevu said the clash had occurred in the Virunga National Park, on Congolese territory - a claim Rwanda denied.

He said the Congolese troops initially thought they were fighting one of the many rebel groups active in the area.

Some fear these clashes could increase tensions between the countries, which have a troubled history.

Rwanda twice invaded its much-larger neighbour in the 1990s.

Africa Live: More on this and other stories
What ‘Dr Love’ says about DR Congo
Rwandan army spokesman Col Innocent Munyengango confirmed the clashes to the BBC Great Lakes service and said there had been no Rwandan casualties.

"Congolese encroached on our base and attacked us. Our soldiers had to defend themselves," he said.

Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, across the border with Rwanda, remains deeply unstable.

Aid agencies are warning about violence in the north-eastern Ituri province, where the United Nations children's agency, Unicef, says more than 46,000 children are on the run.

https://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624...uction/_100063066_drcrwandavirunga9760218.png

The BBC's Catherine Byaruhanga has seen burnt and abandoned villages in the province where people from the Hema and Lendu ethnic groups have been fighting for control of land.

Earlier this week, the Norwegian Refugee Council, a humanitarian NGO, warned that the crisis in DR Congo was at a deadly tipping point.

In the past two years, more people have been displaced in DR Congo than any other country.

A total of 4.5 million people need assistance.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.meforum.org/7206/iran-russia-and-china-central-role-in

Iran, Russia, and China's Central Role in the Venezuela Crisis

by Joseph M. Humire
Gatestone Institute
February 14, 2018

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson just completed, by most accounts, a successful visit to Latin America. He began his five-nation tour by invoking the Monroe Doctrine and suggesting the Venezuelan military could manage a "peaceful transition" from the authoritarian leader Nicolás Maduro. This reminded several regional observers of President Trump's suggestion last year of a possible "military option" for Venezuela, hinting at possible U.S. or multilateral intervention to stop the country's collapse.

Any party in the Western Hemisphere seeking to undertake military intervention in Venezuela— including Venezuela's own military—must take into account the role Iran, Russia and China have played in the crisis. Russia and China were prominently mentioned by Tillerson during his visit to the region; Iran, however, was notably absent from his remarks.

Most regional analysts will likely agree that Venezuela has become a Cuban-occupied country. With more than 30,000 Cubans embedded in Venezuela, many of whom are part of the intelligence and security apparatus, it's clear that the Castro brothers played an integral role in the country's collapse. However, this narrative of Cuban intervention misses two key points. First, it fails to identify precisely Cuba's role in Venezuela, and, secondly, it ignores the presence and influence of other key extra-regional actors.

Of these, Russia and China are perhaps the two most visible. As in Syria, and, historically, in Central America, Russia is the primary supplier of military aidand technical support to the Venezuelan armed forces. Venezuela represents 75% of Russia's total foreign military sales in the region, accounting for more than $11 billion in arms sales. Additionally, the Russian state-owned energy firm, Rosneft, has provided Venezuela with an estimated $17 billion in financing since 2006. Moscow has leveraged its collateral deals to acquire expanded stakes in Venezuela's oilfields—specifically, the heavy-crude Orinoco belt—providing Russia greater control of Venezuela's strategic energy assets.

Russia is not alone in translating Venezuelan debt into strategic assets. According to the International Institute of Finance, China holds more than $23 billion in Venezuela's foreign debt, making it the country's largest creditor. Through these credits and loans, Beijing is the primary benefactor and principal banker to the South American nation, yielding enormous leverage over the state.

Chinese energy companies are also gaining an increasing share of Venezuela's most lucrative oil field, the Faja Del Orinoco (FDO). China secured a 25-year land grant to the FDO. In exchange, China has used its checkbook to fund many of the nation's social programs, such as subsidized housing and free medical clinics.

External support from China, Russia, and Cuba has buoyed the Venezuelan government during the last decade. Cuba's robust counterintelligence and human intelligence networks, which permeate Venezuela's highest political and military levels, are indispensable to China and Russia because of their operational knowledge of Russian-supplied equipment, along with their longstanding ties to communist clandestine networks.

In this context, it is hard to imagine a strategy that would remove Havana's presence from Venezuela without first passing through Moscow or Beijing. Iran, on the other hand, can operate independently in Venezuela because it taps into a separate, more robust clandestine network that has been developing in Latin America for more than half a century.

Approximately 60% of the population of the city of As-Suwayda in southwestern Syria (pop. 139,000, according to the 2004 census) are Venezuelan-born dual citizens. Many more have arrived since 2009. The district of As-Suwayda (same name as the city) has been dubbed "Little Venezuela." Estimates indicate that upwards of 300,000 Syrians from the As-Suwayda Governorate currently live halfway around the world in Venezuela. According to the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, more than a million Syrians reside there. This Syria-Venezuela connection could represent a clandestine network managed by Iran and critical to the advancement of Chavez's "Bolivarian revolution."

As in the Syria conflict, Iran's primarily role is preparing the Venezuelan battlefield through a range of operations in irregular warfare, using non-state actors and surrogates to gain influence over the population. Its influence is often not visible on the ground, but it was evident when Iranian-trained forces helped repress anti-regime protestors in 2017. During anti-Maduro demonstrations, the motorcycle-riding members of the Venezuelan civilian militias known as Collectivos were clearly modeled on and trained by Iran's paramilitary Basij militia. The role of the Basij in crushing Iran's Green Revolution in 2009 provided lesson for dealing with anti-regime protestors half a decade later in Venezuela.

The extent of Iran's influence in Venezuela has long been a source of debate among U.S. and regional security analysts. In many ways, Iran has positioned itself in Venezuela to capitalize on China's economic clout and Russia's military footprint. For instance, Iran's Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics (MODAFL) used a variety of joint projects with Venezuela's military industry (CAVIM), as well as Russian and Chinese oil contracts with PDVSA, to shield it from international sanctions.

Iran's most salient expertise, however, is in the development of clandestine structures through surrogate forces and proxy networks. Its most prominent proxy force, Lebanese Hezbollah, is known to deploy to global hotspots on behalf of Iran. Meanwhile, the Qods Force (the extra-territorial arm of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps - IRGC) works with Hezbollah to increase social pressure in these hotspots to exacerbate conflicts. The Hezbollah and IRGC-QF cooperation is an important component of the Syrian civil war.

In Venezuela, long-standing clandestine networks from Syria, Lebanon and the Middle East are playing a similar role behind the scenes in shaping the narrative and ultimately directing the actions of the country's key players. These networks have provided the Venezuelan regime with the know-how to control the population and propagate its narrative. Their influence is evident from the prominence of Arabs in the Venezuelan government.

The humanitarian crisis in Venezuela began with severe shortages of food and medicine, prompting a a popular uprising last year. Syria faced a similarly severe drought before its civil war that contributed to the violent uprisings that began in 2011. As in Syria, Venezuela faces a humanitarian crisis that exacerbates refugee outflows with serious counterterrorism concerns and a strong Russian and Iranian presence. Unlike Syria, however, this crisis rests much closer to U.S. shores.
Strong evidence suggests that Venezuela used its immigration agency (SAIME) to provide Venezuelan identities and documents to several hundred, if not thousands, of Middle Easterners. Unless our regional allies have proper vetting and verification measures in place, as well as a high degree of counterintelligence support, they will not know if the Venezuelan refugees spilling across their borders are legitimate refugees or members of a transregional clandestine network between Latin America and the Middle East.

As Secretary Tillerson calls upon regional allies to increase support to resolve Venezuela's humanitarian crisis and apply more pressure to the Maduro regime, it would also make sense for the Trump administration to help U.S. allies by enhancing their counterintelligence and counterterrorism capabilities against Iran and Hezbollah in the Western Hemisphere. It appears that some of this cooperation is already beginning to take place, as evidenced by a new agreement between the U.S. and Argentina to tackle Hezbollah's illicit financing in the Southern Cone.

Dealing with the tragedy that has transpired in Venezuela over more than two decades will require a better public understanding of the central role of extra-regional actors, particularly Iran, in the country's crisis.

Any intervention in Venezuela -- military, humanitarian or otherwise -- will not work unless it is aimed at removing the external influences, especially Iran, Russia and China, that have turned Venezuela into the Syria of the Western Hemisphere.

Joseph M. Humire is the executive director of the Center for a Secure Free Society (SFS) and a fellow at the Middle East Forum. This article has taken excerpts from a forthcoming special report by Mr. Humire on "Venezuela's Crisis: A New Global Paradigm." You can follow him on Twitter at: @jmhumire.

 

[Housecarl]

November Sierra.....The language sounds like someone complaining about a neighbor not repairing a fence and thus allowing his goat to eat the neighbors' gardens....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...yemens-houthis-getting-missiles-idUSKCN1G10W4

World News February 17, 2018 / 1:52 PM / Updated 10 hours ago

U.N. council mulls condemning Iran over Yemen's Houthis' getting missiles

Michelle Nichols
4 Min Read

(Reuters) - - Britain, the United States and France want the United Nations Security Council to condemn Iran for failing to stop its ballistic missiles from falling into the hands of Yemen’s Houthi group and commit to take action over the sanctions violations, according to a draft resolution seen by Reuters on Saturday.

The draft text to renew U.N. sanctions on Yemen for another year would also allow the 15-member council to impose targeted sanctions for “any activity related to the use of ballistic missiles in Yemen.” Britain drafted the resolution in consultation with the United States and France before giving it to the full council on Friday, diplomats said.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration has been lobbying for months for Iran to be held accountable at the United Nations, while at the same time threatening to quit a 2015 deal among world powers to curb Iran’s nuclear program if “disastrous flaws” are not fixed.

“Since the signing of the nuclear agreement, the Iranian regime’s support of dangerous militias and terror groups has markedly increased. Its missiles and advanced weapons are turning up in war zones all across the Middle East,” the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, wrote in an essay published in the New York Times on Saturday.

A proxy war is playing out in Yemen between Iran and U.S. ally Saudi Arabia. A Saudi-led coalition intervened in Yemen in 2015, backing government forces fighting Iran-allied Houthi rebels. Iran has denied supplying the Houthis with weapons. The draft U.N. resolution, which needs to be adopted by Feb. 26, is likely to face resistance from Russia. A resolution needs nine votes in favor and no vetoes by Russia, China, the United States, France or Britain to pass.

The Russian mission to the United Nations was not immediately available for comment on the draft resolution.

Independent U.N. experts monitoring the sanctions on Yemen reported to the Security Council in January that it had “identified missile remnants, related military equipment and military unmanned aerial vehicles that are of Iranian origin and were brought into Yemen after the imposition of the targeted arms embargo.”

While the experts said they have “no evidence as to the identity of the supplier, or any intermediary third party” of the missiles fired by the Houthis into neighboring Saudi Arabia, they found Iran had violated sanctions by failing to prevent the supply, sale or transfer of the missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles to the Houthis.

The U.N. Security Council has banned the supply of weapons to Houthi leaders and “those acting on their behalf or at their direction.” It can also blacklist individuals and entities for threatening the peace and stability of Yemen or hindering aid access.

Haley took her Security Council colleagues to Washington in January to view pieces of the weapons in a bid to boost the U.S. case against Iran. Russian U.N. Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia said after the visit that he does not believe there is a case for United Nations action against Iran. Iran has described the arms displayed in Washington as “fabricated.”

“Some members of the United Nations don’t want to hear it because it is further proof that Iran is defying Security Council resolutions, and the pressure will be on the U.N. to do something about it,” Haley wrote in the New York Times.

Reporting by Michelle Nichols; Editing by Leslie Adler

 

[Doomer Doug]

When will it all explode?

I'm still saying you need to rename this thread "The Hurricanes of War," Housecarl.

Now that Assad Junior is "apparently" moving his military forces to block any further Turkish attacks on Afrin, things should get very interesting indeed. I would say we have already pulled the grenade pin, but we are in the 5 to 10 second lag time before it actually explodes.
Iran has been making major moves into South America, especially Venezuela and the Three corners section down by Brazil. China essentially owns Peru as far as I can tell.

Kings of the South may very well mean the Chinese, Iranian, various South American countries alliance now forming. The uSA has been completely encircled by our enemies and we barely have noticed it. Do we even have a "fleet" in the Caribiean anymore? The Panama Canal is wide open, undefended, and under the control of a Chinese military front company. One bomb and no more sea transit from Atlantic to Pacific. They take out the four railroad bridges over the Missisippi River and no more rail transit in CONUS. Yeah, do that, fire off an EMP and the USA is kaput.

 

[almost ready]

Doomer Doug, your last post is especially meaningful to me. First, it's well underway and appears to be dead easy from this point. The Chinese have the long view, so they've been working on this for many decades. Don't forget who controls the ports, from Los Angeles to Mexico, to the Bahamas.

You reminded me of the long game. The Chinese have been playing Go all along, and we were surrounded and outnumbered before we caught on.

Been reading Wm. Lind's book, so am thinking on this a little differently. not how to avoid the crisis, as it appears to be baked into the cake, but how to respond to the new situation. Ni hau, Ma?

 

[Doomer Doug]

I lived in Europe when I was in the US Army back in the 1970's. One thing we absolutely do not have in the USA is any sense of historical awareness. The USA has been around for about 250 years. The European settlement of America began around 1500, some 500 years ago. Europeans think in terms of 1000's of years. They can go to Stonhenge built several THOUSAND YEARS AGO. I was in European cities where buildings were 500 years old. China has government institutions that go back over 2000 years alone. Egypt had several thousand years of existence. Egypt has periods of chaos that lasted 250 years, or our entire political existence. Rome had a civil war that lasted 100 years. Europe has wars that lasted 100 years.

We have no mental ability here in the US to even think long term. The current Chinese leadership is thinking in terms of the last 1000 years or so, and in terms of the next 400 years at the minimum.
We really don't have a chance against these kind of deep thinking governments.

 

[almost ready]

And on a different note, Kim's sister has left the Olympics (last Sunday night as expected). Express today has a little article saying that the NK's one remaining official, a 79 year old, has suddenly left, claiming he has caught a cold. They are alarmed, but that's the express, ringing alarms for a living. This has left their bleachers empty except for a few South Koreans sitting in them.

Keeping in mind that this may be nothing, just a note here.

Lone North Korea IOC official suddenly LEAVES Winter Olympics with POOR excuse

NORTH Korea’s sole IOC official suddenly left the 2018 Winter Olympics in South Korea a week before the closing ceremony with a poor excuse, local reports have confirmed.
By Thomas Hunt
PUBLISHED: 03:49, Sun, Feb 18, 2018 | UPDATED: 05:01, Sun, Feb 18, 2018

Chang Ung, left the host city Pyeongchang this morning and headed straight to Incheon International Airport where he will fly to the North Korean capital Pyongyang via Beijing.

The 79-year-old claimed he caught a cold during his stay at the Winter Olympics.

The sudden move comes amid threats by North Korea that the US and Donald Trump will be destroyed by a “nuclear holocaust” after the US President made an “open declaration of war”.


The United States is “doomed to ruin” according to Kim Jong-un’s propaganda mouthpiece.

In an opinion piece published in Rodong Sinmun this week, North Korea blasted Donald Trump’s “empire of evil” and threatened conflict if America did not back off and leave North Korea to accelerate its own missile programme. "

yada yada

"“Once the DPRK starts its decisive military strike, the mainland of the US, as well as its military bases in the Pacific area of operations, will never be safe.”

Hopes for a calmer future had been buoyed by South Korean supporters embracing North Korean athletes during the Winter Olympics.

North Korea’s Han Chun Gyong and Pak Il Chol trundled home 100 places behind the leaders in the men’s 15km cross-country and the stands were nearly empty apart from a group of South Korean supporters."

https://www.express.co.uk/news/worl...018-ioc-cold-Chang-Ung-south-korea-Pyongchang

 

[Shacknasty Shagrat]

Will this become an Olympic event?
SS


' Axios‏Verified account @axios

Jonathan Swan 1 hour ago

Scoop: U.S. and Chinese officials got into an altercation over the nuclear football on Trump's trip to Beijing'

https://www.axios.com/scoop-skirmis...witter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic

On Thursday Nov. 9, when President Trump and his team visited Beijing's Great Hall of the People, Chief of Staff John Kelly and a U.S. Secret Service agent skirmished with Chinese security officials over the nuclear football.

I've spoken to five sources familiar with the events. Here's what happened, as they describe it:

When the U.S. military aide carrying the nuclear football entered the Great Hall, Chinese security officials blocked his entry. (The official who carries the nuclear football is supposed to close to the president at all times, along with a doctor.)
A U.S. official hurried into the adjoining room and told Kelly what was happening. Kelly rushed over and told the U.S. officials to keep walking — "We're moving in," he said — and the Americans all started moving.
Then there was a commotion. A Chinese security official grabbed Kelly, and Kelly shoved the man’s hand off of his body. Then a U.S. Secret Service agent grabbed the Chinese security official and tackled him to the ground.

The whole scuffle was over in a flash, and the U.S. officials told about the incident were asked to keep quiet about it. Trump's team followed the normal security procedure to brief the Chinese before their visit to Beijing, according to a person familiar with the trip — but somebody at the Chinese end either didn't get the memo or decided to mess with the Americans anyway.

I'm told that at no point did the Chinese have the nuclear football in their possession or even touch the briefcase. I'm also told the head of the Chinese security detail apologized to the Americans afterwards for the misunderstanding.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://wtop.com/latin-america/2018/02/bolivia-blames-both-carnival-blasts-on-dynamite/

Bolivia blames both Carnival blasts on dynamite

By The Associated Press
February 18, 2018 3:12 pm

LA PAZ, Bolivia (AP) — Bolivian authorities now say that both of the explosions that killed 12 people during recent Carnival celebrations were caused by dynamite, not exploding gas tanks as initially thought.

Interior Minister Carlos Romero says officials are still trying to determine who planted the explosives in the city of Oruro, and why.

He says both the Feb. 10 and Feb. 13 explosions were caused by 3 kilograms (6.5 pounds) of dynamite. Until now, officials had blamed the initial blast on a street vender’s leaking gas line.

Romero said Sunday that police also have found a small piece of dynamite in a hotel bathroom in the city, which is about 120 miles (190 kilometers) south of the capital, La Paz.

It’s a mining area where dynamite is widely available.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/02/19/is-claims-responsibility-for-church-shooting-in-russia.html

RELIGION 3 hours ago

IS claims responsibility for church shooting in Russia

Associated Press

MOSCOW – The Islamic State group has claimed responsibility for a deadly attack on churchgoers in Russia's predominantly Muslim Dagestan region.

At least five people were killed and four wounded when a gunman opened fire with a hunting rifles on people leaving a Sunday service at a Russian Orthodox church in the Dagestan city of Kizlyar.

Authorities say the gunman was a local resident, and his wife has been detained for questioning. But police haven't commented on the possible motive for the attack.

A statement from the Islamic State group, posted Monday on an IS-affiliated militant website, claimed responsibility for the shooting, saying a Muslim fighter attacked "a Christian temple" in Kizlyar. The authenticity of the statement couldn't be confirmed, but the website is regularly used by IS for posting militant statements.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018...bia-to-squelch-its-version-radical-islam.html

TERRORISM 4 hours ago

Is the West finally pushing Saudi Arabia to squelch its version of radical Islam?

By Nina Shea | Fox News

The West is showing evidence of a newly stiffened spine in the face of Saudi Arabian influence on Islamic culture – and none too soon.

The world heard the get-tough rhetoric of President Trump last May in the Saudi capital of Riyadh when he admonished Muslim leaders to begin “honestly confronting the crisis of Islamist extremism and the Islamist terror groups it inspires.”

Now Europe is finding its voice with a new willingness to pressure the Saudi Arabian government to end its spread of extreme Islamic ideology, known in the West as Wahhabism.

In Brussels, the Belgian government has broken a 99-year sweetheart lease – given rent-free to Saudi Arabia in 1969 – that has turned into an extremist focal point.

The lease covered the Brussels’ Grand Mosque, located on prime real estate in the heart of the European Union’s de facto capital. According to a Reuters dispatch, the Saudis are to detail the mechanics of the mosque’s handover later this month.

This isn’t being done for financial reasons. It follows a classified Belgian intelligence report in 2016 that declared “ideology promoted at the mosque led Muslim youth to more radical ideas.”

Belgium acted in response to a call from the European Parliament last October, after that assembly reviewed the alarming report by the Belgian security agency.

As Reuters noted in a comment that also applied to the U.S: “Belgium’s willingness to put its demands to Saudi Arabia breaks with what EU diplomats describe as the reluctance of governments across Europe to risk disrupting commercial and security ties.”

Belgium really has no choice but to take action. Islamist terror has replaced chocolate as Belgium’s best known export.

Tiny Belgium, population 11.27 million, has sent more Islamic fighters to Syria per capita than any other European country. Muslims in Belgium were responsible for horrific terror attacks in recent years in Paris, as well as in Brussels.

And Belgium was feeling heat from members of Europe’s highest political elite, who are personally at risk, since the European Union’s headquarters is not far from the Brussels Grand Mosque.

There have been other such moves. Reuters reported simultaneously that Saudi Arabia in January concluded a secret agreement with the West to end its support for radical mosques and schools throughout the world. The English-language, Saudi-backed Al Arabiya English news service re-published the Reuters report almost in full.

Germany finally pressed Saudi Arabia to close the King Fahd Academy in Bonn in spring 2017, according to a 2016 Deutsche Welle report. It first came under investigation 14 years earlier for alleged ties to al Qaeda.

On Feb. 11, French President Emmanuel Macron told the Journal du Dimanche that he intended to reorganize Islam in France to better integrate worship, fight fundamentalism and preserve “national cohesion.” “We are working on the structuring of Islam in France and also on how to explain it, which is extremely important,” he said, without providing further details.

These are astonishing developments, but not because they evidence Saudi moderation – they don’t, at least not yet. These events are being driven by Western governments that are now pushing hard for the government of King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud to pull back from Wahhabist support – a push that appears to be working.

For decades European and U.S. leaders bit their tongues while the Saudi governments spent billions of dollars indoctrinating Sunni Muslim communities around the world in extremist ideology in the web of mosques and schools Riyadh supports. During this time, the West was hit time and again with terrorist attacks in which the taint of extremist Islam was clearly a factor.

Since 2005, for a project of the Center for Religious Freedom, I have directed the gathering, translation and analysis of four editions of religious educational texts published by the Saudi Arabian government.

As I told Congress in testimony last July, 16 years after the 9/11 attacks – led and carried out primarily by Saudis – Saudi Ministry of Education textbooks still teach an ideology of hatred and violence against many groups, including: Jews, Christians, non-Wahhabist Muslims (Shiites, Sufis and Ahmadis), Hindus, Bahais, Yazidis, animists, and “infidels’ of all stripes, as well as other groups with different beliefs.

These Saudi textbooks have been used in Saudi academies worldwide, including in Vienna, Paris, Rome, Madrid, Berlin and Washington.

Among other things, the textbooks exhort:

• “The Apes are the people of the Sabbath, the Jews; and the Swine are the infidels of the communion of Jesus, the Christians.” Jews and Christians are “enemies” of Muslim believers who are to be fought and killed.
• Apostate Muslims are to be put to death.
• “Major polytheism makes (the taking of) blood and wealth permissible.”
• Jihad is glorious and defined to mean: “Exerting effort in fighting unbelievers and tyrants.”

Until recently, the West has done little or nothing about the Saudi ideological aggression. In 2010, a top U.S. Treasury counterterrorism official warned that without Saudi education reform “we will forever be faced with the challenge of disrupting the next group of terrorist facilitators and supporters.”

But Saudi Arabia was left unnamed and the West was loath to point fingers at or press the point with Saudi Arabia.

Indeed, for years the State Department did the opposite. It deflected criticism of the Saudi Kingdom and reassured the public in its annual religious freedom reports that Saudi Arabia has “reformed” and “improved” these texts. My investigations showed that it hadn’t.

Even after a 2014 New York Times report that Saudi texts were being used by ISIS in schools in its then-stronghold of Mosul, Iraq, the State Department concealed the incitement in the textbooks of our strategic Saudi ally.

Upon the urging of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, the State Department once commissioned an independent review of the Saudi textbooks (2011-2012 edition), which cited and effectively supported my findings, then immediately classified this review. A Freedom of Information Act request in 2016 forced the department to make the findings public.

The West seems to be finally waking up. The new assertiveness shows official recognition of the link between Islamist ideology and terror, and our governments must keep it up.

Women drivers, economic diversification and the other promises for modernization of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman bring hope about Saudi Arabia’s future, but the acid test will be the moderation of Wahhabi ideology.


Nina Shea has worked as a lawyer specifically focusing on religious freedom in American foreign policy, for thirty years. Joining the Hudson Institute as a Senior Fellow in 2006, she has led the Center for Religious Freedom, which she founded in 1986, in its effort to defend religious freedom internationally. She currently is a leader of a campaign for Christians threatened with genocide by ISIS.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.realcleardefense.com/ar...ite-led_force_killing_27_fighters_113079.html

Islamic State Ambushes Iraqi Shiite-led Force, Killing 27 Fighters

By Qassim Abdul-Zahra
February 19, 2018

BAGHDAD (AP) — Islamic State militants ambushed a group of Iraq’s Shiite-led paramilitary fighters, killing at least 27 more than two months after Baghdad declared victory over the extremist group, officials said Monday.

The Popular Mobilization Forces, an umbrella group of mostly Shiite militias, said in a statement that the attack took place southwest of the northern city of Kirkuk, where the paramilitaries were conducting overnight raids.

The attackers were disguised in army uniforms and manning a fake checkpoint, the statement said, adding that ensuing clashes lasted for at least two hours and that some of the militants were killed while others fled the area.

Brig. Gen. Yahya Rasool, an Iraqi military spokesman, blamed IS “sleeper cells” and said Iraqi forces were searching the area to find the perpetrators.

IS claimed responsibility for the attack in a statement carried by its Aamaq news agency.

Karim al-Nouri, a PMF spokesman, described the attack as a “heinous crime” and called for greater scrutiny of Iraqis returning to areas liberated from IS. He said the attackers had taken advantage of heavy rains overnight.

Hadi al-Amiri, the leader of the Badr Brigade, one of the most prominent Shiite militias, vowed “revenge.”

Speaking at a military airfield in Baghdad where the bodies were being flown in, he called on security forces to be vigilant, saying “the war against terrorism is not over yet.”

Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi’s office put out a statement expressing condolences to family members of those killed. It said it had issued orders to hunt down those responsible and other sleeper cells, and to investigate the incident and take any required steps.

At least 11 of the slain troops were from the southern city of Basra, where a three-day mourning period was declared.

Iraq declared victory over IS in December, after more than three years of heavy fighting. The group has been driven from all the territory it seized in the summer of 2014, but U.S. and Iraqi officials have said it is likely to continue launching insurgent-style attacks. Last month, IS launched back-to-back suicide bombings in central Baghdad, killing at least 38 people.

Associated Press writers Sinan Salaheddin in Baghdad and Maamoun Youssef in Cairo contributed to this report.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.dw.com/en/germanys-bundeswehr-lacks-basic-equipment-for-nato-mission/a-42638910

Germany's Bundeswehr 'lacks basic equipment' for NATO mission

The German army reportedly lacks the tents, winter clothes and other essential equipment needed for its deployment in a NATO rapid reaction force. The German defense ministry pledged that the items would be procured.

Date 19.02.2018
Author Timothy Jones

German soldiers do not have enough protective vests, winter clothing and tents to head NATO's 'spearhead force,' the newspaper Rheinische Post reported on Monday, citing a paper presented to the Defense Ministry.

The news comes as Germany prepares to take over the leadership of the multinational Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF) Army Command at the start of next year, with Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen (top picture) under intense pressure to bring equipment up to scratch by then.

Read more: Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen: Germany will spend more on its military

Commenting on the article on Monday, Germany's Defense Ministry said that combat readiness of German troops would be ensured.

"Currently, the selected troops are going through the phase of preparation and mobilization," spokesman Jens Flosdorff said in Berlin. During this phase, the ministry is checking which equipment is already available, and "what is still needed," he said.

The authorities are set to complete the process by the end of 2018, at the latest.

Flosdorff also said that "Bundeswehr is ready and able to fulfill its commitments," and that the missing items "are being procured."

Sleeping cold
The Monday report cites the internal paper by Germany's Army Command as stating that the army would lack sufficient tents until at least 2021.

According to the Army Command report, 10,282 mobile "accommodation units" are needed for the army's deployment in the VJTF for the period 2018 to 2020, but only 2,500 are currently available — and even these are not fit for purpose.

Protective vests and winter clothing were also in such short supply that it would be "impossible" to ensure that demands were met, it said.

Last week, German media reported that the Bundeswehr was also lacking sufficient tanks and operational aircraft to fulfill its duties as VJTF leader, along with other equipment shortfalls such as night-vision equipment and automatic grenade launchers.

Read more: German military short on tanks for NATO mission

'Scandalous situation'
The Rheinische Post said German parliamentarians reacted with outrage to news of the latest deficiencies.

"We cannot and will not accept" such supply gaps, said defense expert Fritz Felgentreu from the Social Democratic Party (SPD).

The Free Democrat (FDP) politician Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann found even stronger words.

"The fact that even basic equipment such as protective vests and winter clothing is in short supply shows what a miserable state the Bundeswehr is in as a result of cutting costs," she said, adding that her party would set up a subcommittee to "look into this scandalous situation" at the next meeting of the Bundestag's Defense Committee.

The VJTF is a 5,000-strong force initiated by NATO in 2014 to counter the threat of Russian military aggression against Baltic member states. The force is supposed to be capable of going into action within 24 hours.

DW recommends

NATO tests VJTF rapid reaction force in Czech Republic, Netherlands
The Western military alliance NATO has held its first exercise to test its new rapid reaction force. Hundreds of troops took part in the exercise staged in both the Netherlands and the Czech Republic. (09.04.2015)

German military spending gets political
Will Germany soon dramatically increase its military expenditure? The Christian Democrats support the plan, the Social Democrats think it is absurd. The fight over defense spending has become a campaign issue. (09.08.2017)

Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen: Germany will spend more on its military
Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen said Germany is ready to step up globally in her opening speech at the Munich Security Conference. Speaking to DW, she said Berlin would increase its defense budget. (16.02.2018)

German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen at a crossroads
Ursula von der Leyen is fighting on many fronts. Her Christmas visit to German troops stationed in Afghanistan highlighted her tension with the military and Berlin. DW's Udo Bauer reports from Mazar-i-Sharif. (19.12.2017)

German military short on tanks for NATO mission
The German military is under-equipped to take on its upcoming role as leader of NATO's anti-Russian defense force, a leaked document shows. Opposition politicians say the defense minister is to blame. (16.02.2018)

Germany's NATO missions
Since West Germany's accession to NATO, Berlin has supported numerous operations involving the trans-Atlantic alliance. Since 1990, Germany's Bundeswehr has been deployed on "out of area" missions as well. (20.03.2017)

 

[Doomer Doug]

Housecarl, NATO IS A FARCE! Now that IMMINENT COMBAT is looming, assuming Turkey and Syria get into it, and assuming Turkey implements Claus 5, the mutual defense clause, exactly who will NATO send to fight in Syria?

I was in Germany, deployed it the US Army back in the 1970's. Back then, the Dutch Army, not their Marines, was held in contempt. The German troops I dealt with seemed to be fairly competent. I doubt one single NATO country, with the possible exception of Poland and the Baltic States, has a functional military at this point. Still, we are baiting the Russian bear, whose military is significantly better trained, and better supplied than virtually ALL NATO military units.

Sheesh, Merkel is an Marxist bitch implanted to destroy both West Germany and NATO.

 

[danielboon]

India test-fires intermediate range ballistic missile Agni II

India has test-fired its domestically developed intermediate range ballistic missile Agni II from the Abdul Kalam Island off the Odisha coast, IANS reported. The trial of the surface-to-surface missile was conducted by the Strategic Forces Command from Launch Complex-4 of the Integrated Test Range in Balasore district on Tuesday morning, according to the Defense Ministry. Agni II has already entered service with the Indian Army. The two-stage missile – 20m long, equipped with advanced high accuracy navigation system and guided by a novel scheme of command and control system – has a strike range of more than 2,000km. https://www.rt.com/newsline/419302-india-test-missile-agni/

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.defensenews.com/land/20...-modernized-ballistic-missile-defense-system/

Russia releases video of its modernized ballistic missile defense system

By: Matthew Bodner  
20 hours ago

MOSCOW ¯ On Feb. 12, the Russian Defence Ministry posted a video on its website showing the white desolation of the Kazakh steppes in winter. Suddenly, a bright red and grey plume erupted from the snow and arced away from the camera, off into the horizon. Details were scant, but the video claimed to show the successful test of a new Russian ballistic missile interceptor.

The interceptor was launched from the Sary-Shagan test site in Kazakhstan, which Russia leases. In a ministry statement, the deputy commander of Russia’s air defense forces, Col. Andrei Prikhodko, describes the system as a “new modernized anti-missile system” that completed its assigned tasks with “the specified accuracy.”

Video: https://youtu.be/1sfFp0BqPps

Little is known about the system, but it is possibly an upgrade of the Soviet-era A-135 missile defense system. The Defence Ministry didn't name the system shown in the test, but earlier proposed upgrades to the A-135 system were known as the A-235. The Defence Ministry claims the interceptor tested earlier this month has longer range, higher reach and more accuracy than current interceptors.

“It seems Russia has a program that will upgrade the current A-135 defense around Moscow,” said Pavel Podvig, an expert on Russia’s strategic nuclear forces. “The new interceptor that we’ve seen is probably part of this effort. But I would seriously doubt it would provide a radically new capability. My guess is that it is just an upgrade, not a new interceptor.”

The most interesting feature of Russia’s missile defense system, at least to Americans familiar with their government’s recent efforts to field effective ballistic missile defense systems, is that Russian missile interceptors are armed with low-yield nuclear warheads. There is some debate over whether or not the warheads are always loaded, or whether they are in storage.

-

Escalate to de-escalate? US and Russia trade jabs on nuclear arms use
If anyone had any doubt left, a panel discussion today at the Munich Security Conference showcased with brutal clarity that the United States and Russia have very little common ground for a rapprochement on nuclear weapons — or much else, for that matter.
By: Sebastian Sprenger

-

“It is hard to tell whether or not this is the case,” Podvig said. “This doesn’t mean Russia relies on hit-to-kill or a conventional warhead, but it is possible the plan is to load nuclear warheads only when things are getting close to serious confrontation.”

And, Podvig noted, there is precedent: the Soviet predecessor A-35 anti-ballistic missile system was managed this way.

The nuclear approach is vastly different to the path chosen by the United States in the 1980s, which has focused exclusively on so-called conventional hit-to-kill missile interceptors — as well as some flirtation with lasers. The latest iteration of American ballistic missile defense is the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system in Alaska, which is designed to protect the entire United States from ICBM attacks.

The Ground-based Midcourse Defense system has been a controversial project, largely due to failures — though there have been some promising successes in recent years.

Proponents of the project claim the U.S. government has a responsibility to perfect the system. Opponents decry its cost, note its skittish performance and question the system’s potential utility. The GMD system is soon due for upgrades that advocates claim will address failures and expand its capabilities.

Russia has never shown great enthusiasm for missile defense. In the Soviet Union, missile defense efforts were pushed on the military by the defense industry, Podvig explained.

“The role of missile defense was never clearly defined. It was a system in search of a mission,” Podvig said. “In any event, everyone I’ve talked to in Russia (including those building missile defense systems) were quite skeptical (or, I would say, realistic) about the capability that [missile defense] can provide.”

But Russia’s capabilities are arguably more effective, in certain regards, than their American counterparts. While the U.S. continues to obsess over reliably solving the physics problems of hitting a bullet with a smaller bullet, Russia is playing “Asteroids” — the classic arcade game. No need to be precise: Just get an interceptor close enough and detonate a small nuke.

And this approach is not something that Russia is pursuing for blanket coverage of its massive territory. Virtually all of Russia’s intercept capabilities are focused on Moscow, the beating heart of a strongly centralized social and political structure. Not too much is known about these defenses, but a line of nuclear-tipped interceptors is said to circle the city.

The fact that the interceptors are nuclear-tipped is rarely, if ever, explicitly mentioned in official statements and literature in Russia. While Russia may be interested in conventional hit-to-kill intercepts in the future, for now it will remain nuclear.

“[We] have to rely on less fancy stuff that gets the job done, thus the nukes. But folks are aware we would be blinded from the [electromagnetic pulse] once you detonate the interceptor,” said Vladimir Frolov, a Russian international affairs analyst. “So they are investing in ways to either minimize the yield or dispense with the nukes for a conventional proximity fragmentation warhead.”

But that would require an accuracy Russia has yet to demonstrate, and with which the U.S. continues to struggle.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm....Interesting thinking to say the least, especially when you consider how the Belgians "managed" their F-16 fleet and everything else post-Cold War 1.0....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2...rs-for-naval-capability-says-french-lawmaker/

Belgium wants to buy Rafale fighters for naval capability, says French lawmaker

By: Pierre Tran  
19 hours ago

PARIS — Belgium has shown interest in the Rafale fighter jet for maritime use, said Jean-Jacques Bridey, chairman of the French Defence Committee of the lower house National Assembly.

“The Belgians are interested in the Rafale,” he told The Defense Journalists Association. “Why? If they buy the Rafale, it will be the naval Rafale.”

Belgium is interested in the aircraft’s ability to land on the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, which would boost Belgium’s deployment capacity, Bridey said. “This is a seaborne airbase, after all,” he added.

France has pitched the Rafale in an offer of broad bilateral military cooperation with Belgium, opting out of a competition that has attracted British and American offers of the Eurofighter Typhoon and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, respectively.

-

UK submits bid for Belgium fighter competition, pitting Typhoon against F-35
Britain has pitched a range of strategic and industrial tie-ups to the Belgian government as part of a bid to secure a deal to supply Eurofighter Typhoon jets to replace the country’s aging F-16 fleet.
By: Andrew Chuter

-

Laurence Mortier, the spokeswoman for Belgium’s defense minister, said she could not confirm the interest in a carrier-based aircraft.

The French government letter offering the Rafale is undergoing a legal review in Belgium, she said.

That review seeks to determine whether the French proposal can be considered despite being made outside a tender.

The Belgian Defence Ministry has posted a request for government proposal for public consultation, setting out the tender for 34 multirole combat aircraft and support equipment. An aircraft carrier capability is not among the requirements listed in the air combat capability program.

A fighter jet with carrier capacity reflects European and international cooperation in which France, one of the largest European forces, could “federate” its “discriminating capabilities,” Bridey said.

There are nations that lack equipment, and cooperation would allow their forces to take part in operations.

French cooperation could include a naval task force, cybersecurity, intelligence gathering in the exo-atmosphere, military intelligence, special forces, and command and control of large operations, he said. Frigates from Britain, Germany and Spain have sailed in a French naval task force, he noted.

Dassault Aviation, prime contractor on the Rafale, was not immediately available for comment.

Dassault last week signed 13 cooperative agreements with Belgian companies as part of the French offer of the Rafale.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...otiator/ar-BBJnAVL?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

'I will not shut up,' Haley tells Palestinian negotiator

CNN
By Zachary Cohen and Richard Roth, CNN
7 hrs ago

Video by Reuters

Pledging she "will not shut up," US ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said Tuesday that the Trump administration will not change its decision to move the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.

But her message at the UN Security Council went unheard by Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, who opted to leave the chamber prior to Haley's remarks.

Abbas exited the meeting shortly after he addressed the Security Council -- calling out the US for failing to clarify its stance on a two-state solution and keeping the Palestine Liberation Organization on the terror watch list.

"We met with the President of the United States, Mr. Donald Trump, four times in 2017, and we have expressed our absolute readiness to reach a historic peace agreement," Abbas said in a rare appearance before the Security Council.

"Yet, this administration has not clarified its position. Is it for the two-state solution or the one-state solution?" he added.

Joined by Trump's Middle East envoy Jason Greenblatt and White House senior adviser Jared Kushner, Haley's speech was designed to deliver a direct message to Abbas: "Our negotiators are sitting right behind me, ready to talk. But we will not chase after you. The choice, Mr. President, is yours."

According to Haley, that choice consists of two different paths.

"There is the path of absolutist demands, hateful rhetoric, and incitement to violence. That path has led, and will continue to lead, to nothing but hardship for the Palestinian people," Haley said.

"Or there is the path of negotiation and compromise. History has shown that path to be successful for Egypt and Jordan, including the transfer of territory. That path remains open to the Palestinian leadership, if only it is courageous enough to take it," she added.

Haley also took the opportunity to respond to comments made earlier this month by Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, who said she should "shut up" with her criticism of Abbas.

"I will decline the advice I was recently given by your top negotiator, Saeb Erekat. I will not shut up. Rather, I will respectfully speak some hard truths," Haley said.
But Abbas -- who left the room after addressing the council -- was not present to hear Haley's comments.

"I expected Mr. Abbas to stay with us and have a dialogue, unfortunately he's once again running away," Israel's ambassador to the UN Danny Danon said.

"Look what just happened in this room. Mr. Abbas came in, he put his demands on the table, and he left, and he's expecting you to deliver the results. It's not going to work that way. The only way to move forward is to have direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians," he said.

During his remarks, Abbas told the council that the Palestinians have not "rejected negotiations" and believe talks are the only path to peace.

White House spokesman Josh Raffel said that the administration was hoping to hear some new ideas from Abbas and noted the "recognition that Jerusalem is holy to Jews in addition to Muslims and Christians is a step in the right direction."

"But as Ambassador Haley warned, setting forth old talking points and undeveloped concepts for each of the core issues will not achieve peace," Raffel added. "We are trying to do the opposite and will continue working on our plan which is designed to benefit both the Israeli and Palestinian people. We will present it when it is done and the time is right."

Chances of a peace agreement have seemed particularly dim since Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and the administration's decision to move the US embassy there in December -- a decision that will not change, Haley said Tuesday.

"The United States knows the Palestinian leadership was very unhappy with the decision to move our embassy to Jerusalem," Haley said.

"You don't have to like that decision. You don't have to praise it. You don't even have to accept it. But know this: that decision will not change," she added.

The United States' role as a broker in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process has come under fire following the decision. Top Palestinian officials condemned the move, saying it disqualified the US from playing the role of arbiter. The United Nations voted overwhelmingly to condemn the decision.

There is broad international consensus that the issue of Jerusalem's status should be resolved mutually toward the very end of negotiations. Many saw the US move as potentially prejudicing the outcome, though the administration has insisted that should not be the case.

Both Israel and the Palestinians claim Jerusalem as their historic capital.

Abbas slammed the embassy move as "unlawful" during his own remarks.

"In a dangerous, unprecedented manner, this administration undertook an unlawful decision which was rejected by the international community to remove the issue of Jerusalem off the table without any reason," he said.

Last week, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was asked whether the US decision on Jerusalem complicated his work and made the pursuit of an Israeli-Palestinian peace even more difficult.

He did not answer the question, but earlier in the news conference, he had said, "the decision taken on Jerusalem was about the United States and our recognition of Jerusalem and where we choose to place our embassy, but the President was clear also on his statement ... that the final status, the final borders in Jerusalem, are up to the parties to decide. So it does not preclude a two-state solution."

Tillerson also said that the Trump administration's Middle East peace plan is "fairly well advanced" after several months of work, though he offered no details on when the proposal might be unveiled or what it might contain.

Earlier this month, Trump also declined to give a timeline for releasing the US plan for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, telling an Israeli newspaper that he is not convinced that either party is committed to the process.

"Right now, I would say the Palestinians are not looking to make peace, they are not looking to make peace. And I am not necessarily sure that Israel is looking to make peace," Trump said. "So we are just going to have to see what happens." he told Israel Hayom.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/or...pakistan-prince-mohammad-bin-salman-role.html

Gulf Pulse

Pakistani guard returns to Saudi Arabia

READ IN: ÇáÚÑÈíÉ
Bruce Riedel February 19, 2018

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, often referred to by his initials MBS, is arranging the deployment of a Pakistani praetorian guard to the kingdom. Its size and purpose is unclear, but it is a revival of a military practice from the 1980s designed to protect the royal family from enemies at home and abroad.

The Pakistani military announced Feb. 15 that it would deploy a force to Saudi Arabia to assist and train Saudi forces. The Pakistani press is reporting that a composite brigade-size force will be sent. They will join 1,000 army trainers and advisers already in Saudi Arabia.

The announcement follows two trips this year to the kingdom by Pakistan Chief of Staff Gen. Qamar Javed Bajwa to meet with the crown prince, who is also defense minister and the main proponent of the deployment.

In 1982, Pakistani dictator Gen. Zia ul-Haq sent a reinforced armored brigade to Saudi Arabia at the request of King Fahd. The 12th Khaled bin Walid Independent Armored Brigade was stationed near Tabuk in northwest Saudi Arabia, but its principal purpose was to be an elite fighting force to defend the monarchy from any foe at home or abroad. The Saudis paid all of the expenses of this loyal palace guard, which remained in the kingdom for more than a decade. It was named after one of Prophet Muhammad’s greatest generals who defeated the Byzantine and Sassanian empires in the early expansion of Islam out of the Arabian Peninsula in the seventh century.

The Pakistani announcement made it clear that the new force will operate only inside the kingdom’s borders and not join the Saudi war in Yemen. Three years ago, King Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud and his son pressed the Pakistani leadership very hard to join the war, but Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif refused. The Pakistani parliament voted unanimously against sending troops to join the war as popular opinion was strongly opposed to joining the Saudi-led coalition fighting in Yemen.

Sharif was concerned that the Saudi war plans were hastily conceived and poorly thought through. He doubted they would achieve the “decisive storm” MBS promised. Worse, they would land Pakistan in the midst of a Sunni-Shiite sectarian conflict that would alienate Pakistani Shiites at home as well as its neighbor Iran. While the Saudis are currently making a few modest advances in Yemen against the Houthis, time has proven the wisdom of Sharif’s doubts. The war is an expensive stalemate with enormous humanitarian consequences, and over 95 Houthi missile attacks on the kingdom have underscored how dangerous the conflict is today.

The Pakistanis clearly do not want to be drawn into Saudi Arabia’s quarrels with its neighbors. For this deployment, Bajwa consulted in advance with the Turkish and Iranian ambassadors in Islamabad to inform them directly and assure both that the deployment was not a threat. Reportedly, he also secretly traveled to Doha to assure the Qatari emir that the Pakistani forces are not a danger to Qatar.

The mission of the new force is likely to remain somewhat ambiguous. The Saudis will not want to portray it as a hedge against any internal threat, and Pakistan is eager for it to have no regional dimension, so training is a safe cover.

It’s also unclear whether the contingent will be connected in any way to the multinational Islamic counterterrorism alliance that MBS has spearheaded in the kingdom. Notably, Iran is not a member of the alliance. Retired Pakistani Chief of Staff Gen. Rahul Sharif is its commander.

There is some opposition in the Pakistani legislature to the deployment, and the army leadership will be questioned about its purpose. One senator has argued that the deployment is a violation of the parliament's decision three years ago.

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are longstanding allies. The disagreement over Yemen has been a rare disruption to the decades-old relationship and one both countries have sought to minimize. Sharif has traveled to the kingdom since he lost office last year to maintain his own longtime ties to the House of Saud. A carefully designed military presence in the kingdom is in Pakistan’s interest. For his part, the king is joining his predecessors in getting a Pakistani insurance policy.


Bruce Riedel is a columnist for Al-Monitor's Gulf Pulse. He is the director of the Intelligence Project at the Brookings Institution. His latest book is "Kings and Presidents: Saudi Arabia and the United States Since FDR."

7 Comments

---

Just a reminder besides the Chinese "non-nuclear" IRBMs Saudi has bought....

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-8yWsWA0hB...U/XrYGB3wcBXs/s1600/Shaheen+III+Range+Map.jpg

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.atimes.com/article/chine...ers-indian-ocean-wake-maldives-crisis-report/

Asia Unhedged Real-time intel on what moves markets

Chinese navy task force enters Indian Ocean in wake of Maldives crisis: Report
Maldives parliament extends state of emergency

By Asia Times staff February 21, 2018 5:09 AM (UTC+8)

News Corp Australia Network is reporting that a small Chinese navy task force entered the Indian Ocean last week. China’s CCTV7 has also broadcast images of the Chinese ships sailing in the eastern Indian Ocean.

Though it’s not the first time that the People’s Liberation Army Navy has operated in these waters, the Australian report says the deployment is designed to send a message to India and the US to stay out of an unfolding political crisis in Maldives.

“A naval force of at least one modern destroyer, a frigate, an amphibious assault ship and a support tanker entered the Indian Ocean last week,” said the News Corp report, which speculated that the flotilla would “linger” in the area.

In related news, the Maldivian parliament on Tuesday extended an existing state of emergency by 30 days, as protests in the capital Malé and international tensions over the crisis continued to mount.

Ongoing political crisis
Maldivan President Abdulla Yameen declared a 15-day state of emergency on February 5 after his refusal to comply with a Supreme Court decision to free political opposition leaders. The showdown escalated after Supreme Court judges and other political opponents were arrested.

Yameen has forged close ties with China and courted investments from Beijing. New Delhi and Washington are displeased with Yameen’s pro-China stance, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is reportedly mulling sending troops to Maldives to intervene in the crisis.

Maldivian opposition leader Mohamed Nasheed recently charged that China was “buying up the Maldives” through its ties to Yameen. Nasheed, who is in exile in Sri Lanka, called attention to the sizable debts that Maldives has run up with Beijing. He alleged that China might be tempted to seize public assets such as ports in return.

China will ‘take action’
China’s state-run tabloid Global Times warned in an op-ed on February 13 that Beijing would “take action” if New Delhi unilaterally decided to send troops to the crisis-hit Maldives.

“Without UN empowerment, there would be no righteous cause for any armed force to intervene. China will not interfere in the internal affairs of the Maldives, but that does not mean that Beijing will sit idly by as New Delhi breaks the principle. If India one-sidedly sends troops to the Maldives, China will take action to stop New Delhi,” the daily said in the op-ed.

The picturesque chain of islands in the Indian Ocean is assuming growing strategic importance, along with Sri Lanka, due to its proximity to critical oil shipping lanes to Asia. China is reportedly keen on using Maldives as a base for its warships. The US and India are also said to be interested in building similar bases in the region to counter China.

2 Comments

 

[danielboon]

Hold on to your butts

Hey HC do you ever have a feeling that it is about to hit the fan. I have to say I believe it could be very soon .we just sent 2 destroyers into the black Sea .to do this Navy sends destroyers to 'desensitize' Russia... https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...estroyers-to-black-sea-to-desensitize-russia/

 

[danielboon]

Those ship's will be sitting ducks this will not end well get your stuff in order. Time is short

 

[Housecarl]

Hey HC do you ever have a feeling that it is about to hit the fan. I have to say I believe it could be very soon .we just sent 2 destroyers into the black Sea .to do this Navy sends destroyers to 'desensitize' Russia... https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...estroyers-to-black-sea-to-desensitize-russia/

Yeah I saw that but didn't get around to posting on it....

Heck those two ships are in just as much threat to be "stuck there" by the Turks not letting them go through the straits back out into the Med as the Russians at this point....

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.csis.org/analysis/coping-surprise-great-power-conflicts/?block4

Coping with Surprise in Great Power Conflicts

February 20, 2018
WRITTEN BY: Mark F. Cancian, Senior Adviser, International Security Program
CSIS
DOWNLOAD THE REPORT

Surprise has always been an element of warfare, but the return of great power competition—and the high-level threat that it poses—gives urgency to thinking about surprise now. Because the future is highly uncertain, and great powers have not fought each other for over 70 years, surprise is highly likely in a future great power conflict. This study, therefore, examines potential surprises in a great power conflict, particularly in a conflict’s initial stages when the interaction of adversaries’ technologies, prewar plans, and military doctrines first becomes manifest. It is not an attempt to project the future. Rather, it seeks to do the opposite: explore the range of possible future conflicts to see where surprises might lurk.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/historys-real-lessons-iran/

History’s real lessons on Iran

22 Feb 2018 | Tzvi Fleischer

Several recent articles have called on President Donald Trump to change the Iran policy of the United States based on ‘past lessons’ and Persian history. If we follow these writers to a logical conclusion, then they appear to accept that Iran must be appeased and accommodated, not confronted or contained, in its drive for regional hegemony, support for terrorism and pursuit of non-conventional weapons.

In The Diplomat, Arwin Rahi reviews the history of Persian kingdoms from ancient to modern times, and concludes that Iran ‘wants respect and a recognition of its role as a regional player and has earned the right to such’. Rahi calls on Trump to ‘understand that Iran is not going to curb its drive for regional supremacy’.

Ian Dudgeon’s analysis in The Strategist similarly used supposed history to demand that Washington not persist in seeking to improve the nuclear deal or in confronting Iran’s destabilising regional activities. He warns of the danger of a US policy that ‘rides roughshod over the Europeans on the JCPOA and foreign investment, seeks to wind back Iranian regional security interests to the direct advantage of US/Israeli/Saudi interests and unacceptably insults Iran’. His key evidence is former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami’s alleged ‘attempt to reach out to Washington and the West’ that was supposedly ‘misread and ignored’ by the West.

An insight by the German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel comes to mind here: ‘We learn from history that we do not learn from history.’

Khatami was famous for his ‘charm offensive’, marketing himself as trying to connect with the West. In hindsight we know it was largely a diversion, camouflage to ease the sanctions on his country while its undeclared nuclear program steamed ahead.

Current Iranian president Hassan Rouhani is also considered by some as a ‘moderate’ trying to positively engage with the West. Yet Rouhani openly boasted on Iranian television in 2013 that when he was Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator between 2003 and 2005, his negotiation of a deal with the Europeans in October 2003 to suspend uranium enrichment was actually designed to facilitate Teheran’s nuclear efforts and allow Iran both to build vastly more centrifuges and to start work on the Arak heavy water reactor.

His current approach appears similar. Since the nuclear deal was signed, Iran has launched 23 ballistic missiles in violation of UN Security Council resolutions. Such missiles are a key part of any nuclear weapons system and have little other use.

Furthermore, in his time as president, there has been no sign of any softening of Iran’s aggressive behaviour in the region or of its support for terrorism. There is firm evidence that, financially at least, Iranian support for extremist and terrorist groups—including Hezbollah, Hamas, Yemen’s Houthis and, above all, Iran’s key agency in destablising its neighbours, the Al-Quds Division of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards—has increased markedly.

None of this is surprising because Iranian presidents have little actual control over foreign and defence policies, which are firmly in the hands of the unelected Supreme Leader, currently Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. This is why the hopes for reform or accommodation placed on supposed ‘moderate’ presidents have never been realised.

Dudgeon and Rahi seem to think that because Persian empires have on occasions played a disproportionately significant role in Middle Eastern politics in the 2,600 years since Cyrus the Great, the only workable policy is to accept that Teheran must be allowed to do so again.

Yet this insistence that Iranian dominance is inevitable is surprising because, as Dudgeon correctly notes, of the deadly matrix of economic hardships in Iran that have fuelled the recent demonstrations against the regime. The economic problems are the progeny of failed government policy and the international sanctions on Iran’s military nuclear program, while the nuclear deal hasn’t yielded the expected fruits for the Iranian economy.

Whatever its historical ambitions, Iran under the unpopular Islamic Republic is a fairly weak player, with neither the economic nor the military wherewithal to dominate the Middle East, and with considerable domestic problems that risk being exacerbated by any over-extension abroad. That’s unless other players heed Dudgeon and Rahi and abandon the region to Teheran.

Trump doesn’t seem to be a keen student of either Middle East history or US foreign policy, but there are many thoughtful analysts, officials and legislators who also recognise the urgent need to rethink the previous administration’s policy of appeasing Teheran in terms of its rogue state activities to preserve a deeply flawed nuclear deal.

The nuclear agreement with Iran in its current form has many faults that facilitate Tehran’s continued campaign to develop nuclear arms and long-range ballistic missiles. Whatever his other flaws as a statesman, Trump was right when he made it clear that the US can no longer adhere to the deal as its stands, and that it must be supplemented and improved.

The real lesson of history is that increasing the pressure on Teheran is the right way forward. It’s clear that it was the economic costs of sanctions that drove the Iranians to the table with the Obama administration, even if the resultant deal was sub-optimal.

Perhaps Iran/Persia will someday resume its historic role as the key actor in the Middle East—but not until, through revolution or evolution, Teheran ceases behaving as one of the world’s most irresponsible and dangerous rogue actors.

AUTHOR
Dr Tzvi Fleischer is editor of the Australia/Israel Review at the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council, and has a PhD in International Politics from Monash University. Image courtesy of Flickr user dynamosquito.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://thestrategybridge.org/the-b...erns-defeating-a-hybrid-states-grand-strategy

Cross Domain Concerns: Defeating a Hybrid State's Grand Strategy

Victor Morris
February 22, 2018

The operational and strategic dilemmas associated with the contemporary operational environment, multinational alliances, and hybrid threat actors can be overcome. This article offers three recommendations designed to identify, mitigate and eventually overcome dilemmas which prevent NATO’s long-term mission success. Furthermore, this analysis offers a method for understanding a hybrid state’s grand strategy and its implications for NATO.

HYBRID STATES
Hybrid states are states with a mix of autocratic and democratic features. This assessment uses the term “hybrid state” to describe a state that blurs the boundaries between organizations and institutions to develop a grand strategy. This type of state also has low competition in elections and low constraints on governmental power. These characteristics facilitate statecraft and unbounded policy to offset perceived disadvantages, deliver key narratives, and shape international norms. Hybrid states emphasize direct and indirect approaches across land, air, sea, space, and cyber domains to achieve geopolitical objectives. The objectives of the hybrid state are unbounded and accelerated policy to deter and influence relevant actors.

To develop resilience to both direct and indirect approaches to such strategies, targeted nations must understand the operational environment, its cross-domain effects, and the evolving character of war. It is imperative this comprehensive understanding of the operational environment encompasses planning considerations that include the adversary’s critical factors. Critical factors are the critical capabilities, requirements, and vulnerabilities associated with interrelated centers of gravity. In U.S. military doctrine, centers of gravity are the “doer,” or the physical entities which possess the ability to achieve objectives like joint force land component commands.

This assessment prioritizes an adversary’s indirect approach using proxy forces as a significant challenge for NATO and key partner nations. A hybrid war campaign means conducting political, lawfare, conventional, unconventional, asymmetric, proxy, and cyber warfare to both, directly and indirectly, influence objectives across all domains and instruments of national power.

The three following recommendations outline a method to conceptualize how a hybrid state builds its grand strategy and which critical factors it considers in offsetting its disadvantages. The recommendations also elucidate countermeasures to enable resilience to multi-domain drivers of conflict and effective methods to employ joint enablers. The goal of the assessment is to identify friendly and adversarial critical vulnerabilities.

1. IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT A HYBRID STATE EMPLOYS AN UNBOUNDED GRAND STRATEGY ACROSS THE CONTINUUM OF CONFLICT.
The United States and its allies have significant advantages in precision air, ground, and naval fires, and intelligence collection in large-scale combat operations. The adversary’s grand strategy accounts for these advantages and innovative ways to avoid and counter them. Every strategy has ends, ways, and means that mirror critical factors. Because ends, ways, and means have limitations, indirect approaches reduce disadvantages and they allow innovative alternatives in relation to the opposition’s centers of gravity. A peer or near-peer competitor operationalizes a hybrid approach through mixed-threat actors operating across all domains to achieve the desired effects. Dense urban, information and electromagnetic environments are also critical spaces for adversary maneuver to deliver military and non-military impacts. To counter Western conventional dominance in the ground, air, and sea domains, hybrid states seek to flood those domains as well as space and cyberspace with multi-faceted, conventional, and non-conventional actors to overwhelm adversaries across the domain spectrum.

Therefore, shaping campaigns using deep operations with subversive actors prior to, or in concert with, conventional forces are critical strengths for hybrid actors. Deep operations refer to limited or major joint operations and employing multiple forms of warfare or multidimensional coordination across all domains to influence objectives. Manipulating national and international policy using fluctuating diplomatic, informational, and economic elements of national power supported by overt, covert and/or unattributable offensive options are also critical factors for deep operations.

Offensive options involve combined arms direct and indirect fires and electronic warfare capabilities. Cyber, electromagnetic, and information environmental effects are technologically accelerated in this type of strategy and are prioritized to affect the depth of the adversary’s operational environment. The threat of nuclear warfare and an adversary’s traditional military force capabilities reinforce deterrence, influence neighboring states, and the international community.

Furthermore, proxy organizations such as non-state paramilitary groups, insurgent networks, convergent terrorists, transnational organized crime, and international hacker organizations present significant dilemmas for joint and multinational alliances when hybrid states use them as a key component of an unbounded grand strategy. Proxy organizations, however, are not limited to asymmetric groups. Multinational companies, political parties, and civic groups also act as proxy organizations with access to high-end technologies and capabilities. These organizations tend to blend and cooperate or compete with other proxy actors based on motivations. Many of these groups may be enabled or incentivized by the hybrid state or local population providing sanctuary for them. Regardless, the need to deliberately expand sanctuaries over time is a critical requirement for hybrid actors and thus a potentially critical vulnerability.

Potential dilemmas for NATO involve asymmetric warfare operations in member states against borderless proxy actors, during or after an Article V territorial restoration campaign. The battlespace may also vary between contiguous and non-contiguous physical terrain. Un-attributable proxy forces with access to emerging and disruptive technologies support the hybrid state’s critical capability to accelerate both indirect and asymmetric campaigns, whilst assessing the effects of long-term lawfare and political warfare activities. Examples of emergent and disruptive technologies are artificial intelligence, advanced robotics, internet of things consisting of low-cost sensors and additive manufacturing (3D printing). Conventional limited military campaigns can also be accelerated under an unbounded policy to leverage vulnerabilities and manipulate non-military settlements.

Several combinations mitigate critical factors not translating across all institutions and levels of policy. For instance, supranational, supra-domain, and supra-means combinations, as well as non-linear dynamic systems behavior, are all effective mitigation methods. Nonlinear systems behavior involves non-linear escalation and unpredictable effects. First, supra-national combinations are a synthesis of national, international, and non-state organizations. Next, supra-domain combinations involve employing or merging combinations beyond the domains of the traditional battlefield. Lastly, supra-means combinations unite aspects of military and non-military means to reach desired objectives.

To summarize, a hybrid state’s critical factors are contained in a “campaign level entity” capable of delivering synchronized attack packages across all domains. Operational and tactical level configurations are like the multi-domain task force concept, while others correlate to specific vulnerabilities. The system of systems are entities that possess distinctive ways to achieve ends. They include 1) conventional joint and irregular forces with integrated air, ground, and sea defense systems, 2) disruptive and emergent technological networks and 3) super-empowered individuals, client states and proxy networks. Subversive and information systems cooperate in all domains to exploit vulnerabilities of targeted states.

2. CONDUCT JOINT, BILATERAL, AND MULTINATIONAL COLLABORATIVE PLANNING EARLY AND OFTEN.
Understanding multinational systems is a key aspect of critical factors analysis. Early and recurring collaborative planning is crucial to joint operations and assessment processes that fuel multi-level shaping activities. Equally important for political level operations and contingency planning is understanding an adversary’s strategy associated with indirect approaches and use of asymmetric proxies to reach objectives. These objectives extend beyond the major joint operation plan and hinge on limited warfare activities and frozen conflicts as desired end states. Reaching these objectives within a NATO member state or region presents even more complex dilemmas and lasting effects for the international community and alliance cohesion. An indirect or gray-zone approach is more immune to NATO collective defense and strategic deterrence planning.

The hybrid state’s ultimate objectives are to discredit and degrade the target’s governance and societal cohesion. The objective can be obtained through lawfare and other indirect activities and operations. Lawfare misuses or manipulates the law for political or military objectives, thus effectively using the legal system against an adversary to delegitimize it. Therefore, primary counter hybrid operations and anti-lawfare activities must focus on maintaining and communicating host nation rule of law. Moreover, successful primary countermeasures must also include effective government penetration or the provision of security, infrastructure, and economic capacities. Finally, fortifying legitimacy through phased indirect as well as direct support complete the primary anti-lawfare lines of effort under the counter hybrid war strategy.

Additionally, every citizen needs to be educated and prepared for resistance and role in hybrid defense which includes deliberate planning and cumulative innovation. Citizens must enable inter-organizational resilience across the continuum of government and conflict spectrums.

Next, collective defense treaties and joint security cooperation consist of both foreign internal defense and security force assistance to shape and prevent conflict. Foreign internal defense when approved involves combat operations during a state of war, where offensive or counter attacks enable forces to regain the initiative. Defensive tasks are a counter to the enemy offense, while protection determines which potential threats disrupt operations and then counters or mitigates those threats. Examples of specific threats include explosive hazards, improvised weapons, unmanned aerial and ground systems, and weapons of mass destruction.

Defeating the enemy and consolidating gains inherently involves more forces and is an operational headquarters planning requirement. Specific requirements include joint force assignment, apportionment, contingency, and execution sourcing. Additionally, adversary related anti-access area denial integrated multi-domain defense systems associated with territorial defense and coercive activities are a joint problem. They require joint capabilities to exploit windows of superiority, freedom of action, and gains consolidation to revise, maintain, or cancel the plan.

3. GET CLOSER TO THE GROUND TRUTH IN THE HUMAN DOMAIN AND PREPARE FOR HUMAN-MACHINE TEAMING.
World-class intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance capabilities should not overshadow critical capabilities and requirements for national security services, law enforcement, and indigenous population intelligence development. Sharing intelligence is equally as important and inevitably involves interoperable intelligence functional services and shared databases. To adequately ensure that relevant intelligence disciplines are processed and disseminated in a timely manner, multinational counterintelligence, human intelligence and identity intelligence sharing agreements must be refined and validated down to the tactical level.

Furthermore, mission command through human-machine teaming is inevitable and will undoubtedly leverage human adaptability, automated speed and precision as future critical factors. The global competition for machine intelligence dominance will also become a key element of both the changing character of war and a technical threat to strategic stability.

CONCLUSION
Scenarios and wargames designed to force multi-national critical factor analysis, decision making, and assessments are essential to understanding human and technologically enabled 21st-century conflict. The joint operational area must be assessed as one interconnected domain. It also must be put in the correct context to assess the level of military effort and, where required, service targets in domains that enable the land component to reach mission objectives. The interconnected domain is where conventional, asymmetric, criminal, and cyber activities occur at the same time in the same spaces with predictable and unpredictable effects. An unconventional, indirect, and proxy-led military approach within the hybrid state’s grand strategy offers innovative, inexpensive, and unbounded opportunities to reach geopolitical objectives below the threshold of armed conflict.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/ar...personnel-mines-minas-antipersonales-recovere

Mexican Cartel Tactical Note #36: Claymore Anti-Personnel Mines (Minas Antipersonales) Recovered in Reynosa, Tamaulipas

by Robert Bunker and John P. Sullivan
Journal Article | February 21, 2018 - 2:14pm

Two anti-personnel mines (minas antipersonales) were recovered from suspected members of the Cartel del Golfo (Gulf Cartel) in Reynosa, Tamaulipas on Wednesday, 7 February 2018 by Mexican Army (Ejército Mexicano) (SEDENA) personnel from the Eighth Military Zone (Octava Zona Militar).

Key Information: “Decomisan dos minas antipersonales en Tamaulipas.” El Heraldo de México. 7 February 2018, https://heraldodemexico.com.mx/estados/tamaulipas-decomisan-dos-minas-antipersonales/:

Dos minas antipersonales, entre otras armas de alto poder, droga y combustible fueron aseguradas por personal del Ejército Mexicano. Ocurrió en diversas acciones desplegadas, en Reynosa, Tamaulipas. En estos hechos, tres personas fueron detenidas.

Al intensificar durante las últimas 48 horas el patrullaje y la búsqueda de indicios delictivos, en brechas localizadas en inmediaciones del río Bravo, los elementos castrenses detectaron escondrijos en lugares baldíos que estaban ocultos entre maleza seca y basura.

El personal de la octava Zona Militar aseguró 17 fusiles de asalto conocidos como cuernos de chivo, dos fusiles Barret calibre .50, así como dos minas antipersonales. Además, hallaron un aditamento lanzagranadas, una pistola calibre 38 especial, dos placas balísticas para chaleco, 55 cargadores y mil 458 cartuchos para fusil.

También se decomisaron cinco vehículos, una pipa cisterna, 45 dosis de polvo blanco con características de la cocaína, un radio de comunicación, 21 mil litros de hidrocarburo y tres personas fueron detenidas en flagrancia.

http://smallwarsjournal.com/sites/default/files/tacnote36image1.jpg
7 February 2018; Reynosa, Tamaulipas
Source: SEDENA Photo [For Public Distribution]

http://smallwarsjournal.com/sites/default/files/tacnote36image2.jpg
Other Weaponry—including two .50 Cal Sniper Rifles—
seized along with the Claymore Anti-Personnel Mines
Source: SEDENA Photo [For Public Distribution]

Key Information: “Asegura Ejército armas, droga y 21 mil litros de huachicol.” El Mañana. 7 February 2018, https://www.elmanana.com/asegura-ej...aseguradas-droga-huachicol-militares/4306481:

Reynosa, Tamaulipas, 7 de febrero 2018.- Personal de la Octava Zona Militar aseguró una gran cantidad de armas, cargadores, cartuchos y vehículos, así como dosis de polvo blanco con las características de cocaína y 21 mil litros de hidrocarburo en diversas acciones realizadas en brechas localizadas en las inmediaciones del río Bravo, en territorio de Tamaulipas.

Al intensificar durante las últimas 48 horas el patrullaje y la búsqueda de indicios delictivos, los elementos del Ejército Mexicano detectaron escondrijos en lugares baldíos que estaban ocultos entre maleza seca y basura. Tres personas fueron detenidas en flagrancia.

En todas las acciones se aseguraron 17 fusiles de asalto conocidos como Cuernos de Chivo, 2 fusiles Barret calibre .50; 2 minas anti personal, 1 aditamento lanza granadas, una pistola calibre 38 especial, 2 placas balísticas para chaleco, 55 cargadores y mil 458 cartuchos para fusil; 5 vehículos, una pipa cisterna, 45 dosis de polvo blanco con características de cocaína, un radio de comunicación y 21 mil litros de hidrocarburo.

http://smallwarsjournal.com/sites/default/files/tacnote36image3.jpg
7 February 2018; Reynosa, Tamaulipas
Source: SEDENA Photo [For Public Distribution]

Key Information: “Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDS) in Mexico from 2009 to 2011.” Defense Intelligence Agency. CONFIDENTIAL//NOFORN (FOIA; Freedom of Information Act—Title 5, Section 552): 17, www.dia.mil/FOIA/FOIA-Electronic-Reading-Room/FOIA...Mexico/.../110969/:

2. (U//FOUO) ON 10 SEPTEMBER 2009 IN APIZACO, TLAXCALA, MEXICAN FORCES RECOVERED AN UN-DETONATED IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICE (IED) CONSISTING OF A CLAYMORE MINE, A VARTA LONGLIFE BATTERY, AND A SIMPLE MECHANICAL ALARM-CLOCK AS THE INITIATOR. THE MINE WAS TRACED BACK TO EL SALVADOR MILITARY STOCKS AS A U.S. FOREIGN MILITARY SALE (FMS) FROM THE 1980S. LA FAMILIA MICHOACANA INTENDED TO DETONATE THE MINE AT THE SEPTEMBER 2009 INDEPENDENCE DAY PARADE IN APIZACO. **Following Sentence Not Released Per (b)(3):10 USC 424**

Key Information: David A. Kuhn and Robert J. Bunker, “Mexican Cartel Tactical Note#10: Claymore Anti-Personnel Mine (and Other Military Hardware) Recovered in Zacatecas.” Small Wars Journal. 14 May 2012, http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/mexican-cartel-tactical-note-10:

Engagement between Mexican military personnel and traffickers who had a large amount of marijuana and military weapons and hardware in their possession.

The municipalities of Teul de González Ortega and Florencia de Benito Juárez in the state of Zacatecas. Military Region V and XI Military Zone.

January 26-27, 2012.

The photograph of the weaponry recovered and shown on the tarp is from La Secretaría de la Defensa Nacional (SEDENA).

*Numbers were added during the writing of the tactical note for forensic analysis of the seized weaponry.

http://smallwarsjournal.com/sites/default/files/tacnote36image4.jpg

Teul de González Ortega and Florencia de Benito Juárez, Zacatecas; 26-27 January 2012
5. M18A1 Claymore Anti-personnel Mine (or exact foreign production copy)
6. M18A1 electrical wire (detonating) and storage reel
7. Firing Device, electric impulse, hand, M18A1 Claymore AP Mine
8. Electrical wire, supplemental, M18A1
Source: “Mexican Cartel Tactical Note#10.” Small Wars Journal

Who: Cartel del Golfo (Gulf Cartel) (Alleged)

What: 2 Anti-personnel mines (Claymore M18A1) along with high caliber small arms (including 2 .50 caliber Barret rifles, 17 “Cuernos de Chivo” or AK-47s, grenade launchers, ammunition, 21,000 liters of stolen fuel (hydrocarbons) and tools for petroleum theft.

When: Wednesday, 7 February 2018, approx. 0600 hrs.

Where: Reynosa, Tamaulipas (proximate to the Rio Grande/Rio Bravo)

Why: Counter-narco interdiction by Mexican Army (Ejército Mexicano) (SEDENA)

Analysis

Alleged members of the Cartel del Golfo (Gulf Cartel) were interdicted near illegal petroleum taps (tomas clandestinas) proximate to the Rio Grande/Rio Bravo by Mexican Army (Ejército Mexicano) (SEDENA) personnel from the Eighth Military Zone (Octava Zona Militar). The SEDENA enforcement operations augmented similar operations by the Federal Police (Policía Federal) and la Marina (SEMAR) supporting Fuerza Tamaulipas (Tamaulipas State Police) to combat cartel violence and fuel theft. The state of Tamaulipas and the Reynosa plaza have been intensely contested in recent months and the area is considered a cartel battlefield (campo de guerra) characterized by gunfights, blockades (narcobloqueos), and explosions.[1]

In this incident, two Claymore Anti-personnel Mines were recovered in an underground weapons cache. Imagery of one of the mines clearly shows it to be a U.S. M18A1 mine (or exact foreign copy) along with accompanying electrical wire (detonating) and storage reel and a electric impulse hand-triggered firing device. This is not the first case where anti-personnel mines (minas antipersonales) have been discovered in the hands of Mexican criminal cartels. Table 1 describes three specific cases dating back to 2009. Additional statistics regarding interdictions are contained in the following text. Thus far, all reported cases of cartel possession of anti-personnel mines have resulted in interdictions and seizures of the devices.

http://smallwarsjournal.com/sites/default/files/tacnote36table.jpg

This incident (7 February 2018) also highlights the downside of hasty news analysis using popular terminology, as seen in a recent Breitbart Texas article related to it:

While the Gulf Cartel and other Mexican criminal organizations have used grenades and Russian-made RPGs in the past, this appears to be an early case of U.S. military-grade landmines near the border.[2]

Claymores are not traditional landmines—they are a command-detonated directional anti-personnel mines mounted vertically on stakes (not buried horizontally in the ground).[3] No land mines—anti-personnel or anti-vehicular—are known to have been utilized by or recovered from the cartels in Mexico. Nor is this an ‘early warning incident,’ given that open source reporting of an earlier cartel claymore incident took place 6 years ago in Zacatecas (or even 8½ years ago in Apizaco, based on newer information released by the DIA).[4] While some concern exists that the claymores in possession of the cartels were found just south of the U.S.-Mexico border, such military anti-personnel mines have also recently been found in a buried weapons cache in a far larger quantity on the U.S. side of the border in Pine, Arizona.[5]

According to news reports citing the Procuraduría General de la República (PGR), Mexican authorities decommissioned 18 anti-personnel mines in the last days of the Calderón Sexenio ending in November 2012. The PGR determined that the majority of the antipersonnel mines they captured were M18A1 Claymore mines that were shipped to El Salvador during the 1980s and 90s. The devices were decommissioned from the hands of various criminal groups in Baja California, Tlaxcala, Chiapas, Tamaulipas, Michoacán, Nayarit, Zacatecas, and Tabasco. Drug cartels are believed to have purchased these devices in El Salvador. Similar devices have also been used by guerillas, the FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia) and ELN (Ejército de Liberación Nacional), and criminal groups in Colombia.[6]

In addition, according to SIEDO data, between September 2014 and June 2015, 66 explosive artifacts or munitions were confiscated from cartels in Mexico. Various types of anti-personnel mines accounted for 23% of that total.[7] Anti-personnel mines have several potential applications by cartels. They can be used to protect personnel, safe houses, laboratories, and illicit shipments of drugs and stolen fuel from competitors and the police and military. They can also be used to enhance the effectiveness of narcobloqueos (blockades) and protect the sites of illicit fuel taps (tomas clandestinas) and be deployed offensively to create “killing ground” in which to ambush Mexican federal police and military personnel. Concerning the deadly potentials of these devices:

The M18A1 “Claymore” Anti-personnel Mine carries an explosive weight of 682-grams (1.50-lbs. of Composition C-4). It will deliver steel fragments over a 60° fan-shaped pattern that is 50-meters wide and 2-meters in height, and is effective up to a range of 100-meters. These blast fragments are still dangerous up to 250-meters forward of the mine.[8]

The proliferation of anti-personnel mines into the hands of drug cartels and gangs has disturbing potentials. While anti-personnel mines are not unknown in non-international armed conflict settings, having been used by FARC and ELN guerillas in Colombia for example, their increasing presence in Mexico can potentially lead to their actual field use, ratcheting up the already high levels of casualties and violence taking place. The proliferation of anti-personnel mines from guerrillas to BACRIM (bandas criminals emergentes) in Colombia has already been noted.[9] In addition, Brazilian gangs and Colombian BACRIM have been recruiting demobilized FARC commandos; it would not be a surprise if they bring TTPs (tactics, techniques and procedures) involving use of anti-personnel mines with them in the future.[10]

Significance: Ambushes, Booby Traps, Cartel del Golfo (Gulf Cartel), Cartel Weaponry, Foreign Arms Transfers, La Familia Michoacana, M18A1 Claymore Antipersonnel Mine (AP Mine), Minas Antipersonales

End Notes

[1] “Reynosa es un campo de guerra: reportan balaceras, bloqueos, persecuciones, detonaciones…” Sin Embargo. 7 February 2018, http://www.sinembargo.mx/07-02-2018/3382698.

[2] Ildefonso Ortiz and Brandon Darby, “Photos: Landmines Discovered in Gulf Cartel’s Possession in Mexican Border City.” Breitbart Texas. 8 February 2018, http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2018...-gulf-cartels-possession-mexican-border-city/.

[3] The distinction between command-detonated and vehicle-detonated devices as opposed to ‘victim-activated’ explosive devices has important consequences under the Convention on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines (The Ottawa Convention or Mine Ban Treaty). The convention bans anti-personnel ‘victim-activated’ explosive devices but does not ban anti-vehicle and anti-tank mines and it does not ban explosive devices that are remotely controlled (command-detonated). A Claymore-type mine would only be prohibited if it were victim-activated (e.g., activated by a trip wire). Mexico is a state party to the Ottawa Convention. The Ottawa Convention entered into force on 1 March 1999. See “Overview of the Convention on the prohibition of anti-personnel mines.” International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), 15 August 2007; https://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/legal-fact-sheet/landmines-factsheet-150807.htm.

[4] See David A. Kuhn and Robert J. Bunker. “Mexican Cartel Tactical Note #10: Claymore Anti-Personnel Mine (and Other Military Hardware) Recovered in Zacatecas.” Small Wars Journal. 14 May 2012, http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/mexican-cartel-tactical-note-10 and the following declassified report: “Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDS) in Mexico from 2009 to 2011.” Defense Intelligence Agency. CONFIDENTIAL//NOFORN (FOIA; Freedom of Information Act—Title 5, Section 552): 17, www.dia.mil/FOIA/FOIA-Electronic-Reading-Room/FOIA...Mexico/.../110969/.

[5] Nine Claymores and eighty blocks of C-4 explosives were recovered—speculation exists that they may have been buried on the property for twenty years. ABC15 Arizona, “Military explosives found in Pine.” YouTube. 4 January 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=56&v=mcauuSyiYHg.

[6] “Durante la Guerra contra el narcotráfico, cartels mexicanos compraron 18 minas a El Salvador, asegura la PGR.” Emeesquis. 26 April 2014, http://www.m-x.com.mx/2014-04-26/du...praron-18-minas-a-el-salvador-asegura-la-pgr/ and Silvia Otero. “Decomisan a narco minas antipersona.” 26 April 2014, http://archivo.eluniversal.com.mx/n...omisan-a-narco-minas-antipersona-1006167.html.

[7] SIEDO (Subprocuraduría Especializada en Delincuencia Organizada) found that 23% of the explosive munitions were anti-personnel mines, 29% were ammunition for grenade launchers, and 32% were fragmentation grenades. The states of Tamaulipas, Guerreo, and Jalisco accounted for 60% of the arms decommissioned from narcos. Reported in Animal Político, “Tamaulipas de los más armados del país.” El Mañana. 18 October 2015, https://www.elmanana.com/tamaulipas...as-tamaulipas-grupos-delictivos-seido/3064585.

[8] David A. Kuhn and Robert J. Bunker. “Mexican Cartel Tactical Note #10: Claymore Anti-Personnel Mine (and Other Military Hardware) Recovered in Zacatecas.” Small Wars Journal. 14 May 2012, http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/mexican-cartel-tactical-note-10.

[9] “Las Bacrim están instalando minas antipersonales.” Semana. 14 April 2017, http://www.semana.com/nacion/articu...a-centro-nacional-de-memoria-historica/523088.

[10] John P. Sullivan and Robert J. Bunker, “Third Generation Gangs Strategic Note No. 3: Brazilian Gangs and Colombian BACRIM Recruit Demobilized FARC Commandos.” Small Wars Journal. 16 May 2017, http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/ar...zilian-gangs-and-colombian-bacrim-recruit-dem.

Sources

“Asegura Ejército armas, droga y 21 mil litros de huachicol.” El Mañana. 7 February 2018, https://www.elmanana.com/asegura-ej...-aseguradas-droga-huachicol-militares/4306481.

“Decomisan dos minas antipersonales en Tamaulipas.” El Heraldo de México. 7 February 2018, https://heraldodemexico.com.mx/estados/tamaulipas-decomisan-dos-minas-antipersonales/.

“Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDS) in Mexico from 2009 to 2011.” Defense Intelligence Agency. CONFIDENTIAL//NOFORN (FOIA; Freedom of Information Act—Title 5, Section 552): 17, www.dia.mil/FOIA/FOIA-Electronic-Reading-Room/FOIA...Mexico/.../110969/.

David A. Kuhn and Robert J. Bunker, “Just where do Mexican cartel weapons come from?” (Special Issue: Criminal Insurgencies in Mexico and the Americas: The Gangs and Cartels Wage War.) Small Wars & Insurgencies. Vol. 22., No. 5, 2011: 807-834.

For Additional Reading

David A. Kuhn and Robert J. Bunker, “Just where do Mexican cartel weapons come from?” (Special Issue: Criminal Insurgencies in Mexico and the Americas: The Gangs and Cartels Wage War.) Small Wars & Insurgencies. Vol. 22., No. 5, 2011: 807-834.

Robert J. Bunker and John P. Sullivan, Cartel Car Bombings in Mexico. Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, August 2013: 1-73.

 

[Housecarl]

Iraq receives three dozen Russian main battle tanks
Started by Zagdid‎, Today 12:40 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...eceives-three-dozen-Russian-main-battle-tanks

Turkey Threatens to Invade Greece and Seize Aegean Islands
Started by Millwright‎, Yesterday 07:42 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ens-to-Invade-Greece-and-Seize-Aegean-Islands

Venezuela: Welcome to the Apocalypse
Started by Dozdoats‎, 02-21-2018 01:26 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?532074-Venezuela-Welcome-to-the-Apocalypse

The Strategic Implications of Effective Population Defense Against Ballistic Missile -The Strategy Bridge
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...Against-Ballistic-Missile-The-Strategy-Bridge

The Islamic State of Sweden (Paul Joseph Watson)
Started by AlaskaSue‎, 02-21-2018 06:22 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?532087-The-Islamic-State-of-Sweden-(Paul-Joseph-Watson)

US Embassy in Montenegro attacked with grenades.
Started by mzkitty‎, 02-21-2018 07:04 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?532092-US-Embassy-in-Montenegro-attacked-with-grenades.

-----

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defenddemocracy.org/medi...-cruise-missiles-also-a-proliferation-threat/

Iranian Cruise Missiles also a Proliferation Threat

Behnam Ben Taleblu
22nd February 2018 - FDD Policy Brief

In its new Worldwide Threat Assessment for 2018, the U.S. intelligence community warns that Iran continues to “enable” attacks by Yemen’s Houthi rebels against America’s Persian Gulf partners. The new assessment highlights “an attempted 3 December cruise missile attack on an unfinished nuclear reactor in Abu Dhabi,” an important indication that the Iranian proliferation threat encompasses cruise missiles, not just ballistic ones.

Since the conclusion of the nuclear deal in July 2015, Iran has launched as many as 23 ballistic missiles, despite the prohibition of such activities by UN Security Council 2231. Iran also provided ballistic missiles to the Houthi rebels, who fired them at Saudi Arabia. Accordingly, the international community has focused on restraining Iran’s ballistic missile program. Yet the new threat assessment is a reminder that the U.S. and its allies must also pay close attention to other types of missiles.

The information in this assessment comprises the most high-level affirmation by the U.S. government of Iranian support for Yemen’s cruise missile capabilities. Iran’s own cruise missile arsenal is not nearly as diverse as its ballistic missile inventory, which is the Middle East’s largest. Moreover, only two of its cruise missile variants appear to be land-attack cruise missiles (LACMs), intended to strike ground targets.

The first is the air-launched Ya Ali LACM, which has a turbojet motor and can travel an estimated 700 kilometers (km). The second is the ground-launched Soumar LACM, which has a turbofan motor and allegedly can travel 2,500 km. The Soumar is apparently a substitute for the long-awaited Meshkat LACM, which Iranian officials had dubbed “the long-arm of the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran.” Based on video provided by Arabic-language outlets, the cruise missile the Houthis attempted to fire at the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in December 2017 closely resembles the Soumar.

Iran first publicly displayed the Soumar in March 2015, hailing the missile as indigenously produced. However, the Soumar is likely a copy of the Russian air-launched Kh-55, six of which Iran imported from Ukraine in 2001. The Soumar features select design modifications to make it suitable for ground launch. However, both the Kh-55 and Soumar travel at subsonic speeds and can carry nuclear payloads.

In January 2017, Iran reportedly conducted its most recent test of the Soumar. The Houthi rebels’ reported cruise missile launch came just 11 months later. The UAE government denies that a cruise missile entered its airspace on the date of the alleged attack. This means either that the Soumar fell significantly short of its target, or that it flew below Emirati radar before landing.

As the Trump administration highlights Iran’s destabilizing activities in Yemen and across the Middle East, it ought not to forget about the newest vector of the Iranian threat – cruise missile proliferation – while searching for creative ways to offset it.

Behnam Ben Taleblu is a senior Iran analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Follow FDD on Twitter @FDD. FDD is a Washington-based, nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.

 

[Housecarl]

Merde....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/2...-for-saudi-arabia-to-acquire-nuclear-weapons/

US may open path for Saudi Arabia to acquire nuclear weapons

February 21, 2018 at 2:10 pm | Published in: Asia & Americas, Middle East, News, Saudi Arabia, UAE, US

Saudi Arabia is moving swiftly to become the next country in the Middle East with nuclear power. The Kingdom is on the verge of striking a deal with the US for the purchase of nuclear reactors despite concerns over its refusal to accept stringent restrictions against the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Crown Prince Mohamed Bin Salman, who is the de facto ruler of the country, has ambitious plans to diversify the country’s energy source and is in the market to purchase nuclear power reactors. The potential for lucrative deals is too good to be missed and the Trump administration is thought to be mulling over loosening US law to win Saudi contracts, worth billions. The Kingdom has refused to be bound by stringent US regulations that restrict reprocessing and enriching uranium for the production of nuclear weapons.

With competitors like Russia and China waiting in the wings, Trump is keen to strike a deal with the Saudi’s and breathe new life into the American nuclear industry.

Finalists to build nuclear power stations along the Kingdom’s desolate Arabian Gulf strip will be announced in the coming months, but it’s not certain if the US will be the one to strike the deal. Israel, despite having its own nuclear arsenal, is strongly opposed to any other country in the Middle East acquiring nuclear weapons and with alliances constantly shifting in the region it may try to derail any deal.

US policy also seeks to limit nuclear weapons proliferation especially in the Middle East but Trump may have no option other than to lower restrictions with Saudi Arabia.

Read: Ambassador: Saudi-Russia missile deal in final stages

Although the Saudi’s have insisted that their programme will be peaceful, they have also refused to rule out the right to enrich uranium to weapons grade. A senior Saudi official was quoted by the Wall Street Journal admitting as much. “I’m not saying Saudi would want to enrich uranium tomorrow or anytime soon but they don’t want to be committed to anything that bans them from doing it. It is quite political,” the unnamed senior official said.

His comments have stirred speculation that one of the purpose of the nuclear programme is to compete with Iran and maintain an option to develop nuclear weapons. With some overlapping technology it would be in a strong position to move in that direction if the Kingdom desired so.

It’s not clear to what extent Trump will be able to convince Congress to agree to the deal. Under US law any export of nuclear technology involves signing a non-proliferation document known as a 123 agreement. The UAE signed one in 2009 which is said to be the most restrictive and has become as the gold standard.

Saudi’s, however, have reject the gold standard and the Trump administration must now come out with a new plan that will not completely block Riyash’s path to acquiring nuclear weapons.

Read more: 10,000 Saudi soldiers being trained in Pakistan

 

[Housecarl]

Way too much going on for me to miss this....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ear-u-s-seeks-an-edge-over-great-power-rivals

As Saudis Go Nuclear, U.S. Seeks an Edge Over Great-Power Rivals

By Ethan Bronner and Jennifer A Dlouhy
February 19, 2018, 9:00 PM PST

- With China, Russia in wings, Trump is pressed to soften rules
- Westinghouse sees lifesaver but some worry about proliferation

At a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna last September, word spread that Saudi Arabia had identified a handful of countries that could build two nuclear reactors in the kingdom. The U.S. wasn’t among them -- until Energy Secretary Rick Perry buttonholed the Saudi delegates and told them America wanted in.

Within weeks, a mostly U.S. consortium headed by Westinghouse Electric Co. had joined the race. Its executives have visited the kingdom. So has Perry, whose intervention was described by two people who attended the meeting. In the next few months, the Saudis are expected to narrow the field to two or three bidders.

A glance at the current list of contenders shows the geopolitical perils that accompany this business opportunity. American allies South Korea and France are on it -- and so are China and Russia, recently designated by the Pentagon as the main U.S. threats. Reactor-building could become another arena of superpower rivalry.

‘What Are We Creating?’
For the Saudis, seeking the technical expertise to move beyond oil and compete with arch-rival Iran, the U.S. is undoubtedly the main strategic partner. But unlike Washington, the kingdom also has cordial ties with the other two giants -- and reasons to keep them sweet. China is its best customer, and Russia is increasingly its partner in policing world oil output.

Both countries are improving ties with the kingdom and “sharpening their strategies,” according to Marc-Antoine Eyl-Mazzega, director of the energy center at the Institut Francais des Relations Internationales in Paris. The effect is to give the Saudis more options, he said: “Riyadh will try to levy that to reinforce its regional positions.”

Meanwhile President Donald Trump’s administration sees a chance to revive a moribund U.S. nuclear industry. Some analysts question whether that’s worth the risks that will come with the expansion of nuclear technology through the world’s most volatile region.

“You’ve got Israel with nuclear weapons,” says Victor Gilinsky, a former commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Turkey isn’t far behind. Iran has a nuclear program. Now they’re going to unleash Saudi Arabia? What are we creating here?”

The expansion is happening anyway. The United Arab Emirates has its first reactor going online this year, with three more planned; Egypt has signed a construction deal with Russia, as have Jordan and Turkey; Saudi Arabia’s planned two are expected to grow to as many as 16.

‘Gold Standard’
Nuclear energy is a far cry from nuclear weapons but there is overlap. Spent fuel, which can be reprocessed into plutonium for bombs, lasts for thousands of years; enriched uranium needed for the process holds special allure to terrorist groups. To prevent global proliferation, the U.S. has strict standards for what technology can be sold abroad, and what the buyers can do with it. They must sign a so-called “123 agreement,” named after a section of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act.

The one signed a decade ago by the U.A.E., whose Korean-built reactor will use some U.S. parts, is stricter than any that went before and has become known as the “gold standard.” The Gulf nation promised there’d be no enrichment or reprocessing of uranium in-country.

But Saudi Arabia has long rejected the gold standard. It has its own uranium underground and wants to be self-sufficient in nuclear fuel preparation over the long term. Moreover, the Saudis point out that their enemy, Iran, is permitted under the 2015 international accord signed by the U.S. to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. “We want to have the same rights as other countries,” Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir told CNBC on Sunday.

‘Couldn’t Be Happier’
The U.S. is reluctantly preparing to offer the Saudis a deal that falls short of the gold standard, though officials say it would still be stricter than the terms any other potential builder would impose. Diplomats and intelligence officials are due in Riyadh for negotiations soon. It’ll be a balancing act: the U.S. will be seeking the tightest restrictions it can get, while knowing that the Saudis have other options.

The U.S. nuclear industry, in the dumps for years, is thrilled. “I could not be happier with the support from this administration,” said Daniel Lipman, vice president of the Nuclear Energy Institute and a former Westinghouse executive, who recently returned from heading a delegation to Saudi Arabia. “There is a whole-of-government approach here. I haven’t seen anything like this before."

Westinghouse is in bankruptcy and in the process of being sold by its Japanese owners to Canada’s Brookfield Business Partners. The Saudi deal, in which Westinghouse is playing the role of lead negotiator, could be a lifesaver. Industry sources said the U.S.-backed group also includes Fluor Corp., which will do the engineering, procurement and construction, and Exelon Corp., which will sell its operating model and train locals to run the plant. Exelon and Fluor declined to comment.

‘Catastrophic’
Any agreement they reach must be approved by Congress, which will have 90 days to weigh in. The process may not go smoothly. Any dilution of the gold standard would be “catastrophic,” Senator Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said in an interview last week.

A wild card is Israel. Many members of Congress place special store by what the Israelis say about regional security. It has steadfastly opposed the introduction of nuclear energy into the Islamic world. But lately, Israel has cultivated ties with the Saudis as part of a Washington-sponsored alliance against Iran.

So far, the Israeli government has been notably silent. Experts say it has other priorities (including a possible war to its north and corruption allegations against its prime minister), but will likely get involved behind the scenes as a U.S.-Saudi agreement shapes up.

“We have an interest that the United States and not China or Russia enter the Saudi nuclear market,” said Yoel Guzansky, formerly an Israeli official who focused on non-proliferation, and now at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv. “If Washington is inside, it will be better placed to monitor the program and to have leverage over the Saudis for a rainy day.”

‘Slow-Motion Proliferation’
“But of course you are opening up a slow-motion proliferation,” he added. “And Israel will have to deal with the consequences.”

Still, a Saudi-American nuclear deal may tie in with efforts by Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, to negotiate an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal. His plan reportedly relies on a large Saudi contribution, so generous nuclear terms for Riyadh could help. Kushner’s a strong supporter of the Westinghouse bid, a U.S. official said.

Whoever wins the Saudi contract will be entrenched in the kingdom for the long term -- one reason why nuclear power is so politically important.

“From the time you shake hands, you have very close to a century-long relationship,” Lipman said. “From design and construction to operation, servicing, upgrading and then eventually decommissioning and waste management, you are working together. That’s why so much is at stake.”

— With assistance by Mark Chediak, Ari Natter, Glen Carey, Nick Wadhams, Margaret Talev, Jennifer Jacobs, and Francois De Beaupuy

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/vie.../Iran-s-selective-approach-to-hybrid-war.html

Iran’s selective approach to hybrid war

Friday, 23 February 2018

During the cold war, the world witnessed various proxy wars, involving USSR and the USA, and their official and unofficial allies. Moscow and Washington managed to wage proxy wars in Vietnam, Angola, Afghanistan and other parts of the world.

Now there is no Warsaw block, and proxy wars could seemingly become history. However, it did not happen. In today’s world, certain regional players have adopted the Soviet method of waging proxy wars. Speaking of the Middle East, we should emphasize Iran’s activity.

Strategists from Tehran are to be lauded; they improved the Soviet methods and transformed them into a system of a comprehensive hybrid war, including the application of modern technologies. Today, Iran’s permanent hybrid war is mainly directed against three countries – USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia. However, Tehran is selective about the approach to each of these countries.

Iran has a separate strategy for each of these countries. However, in each case Iran tries to avoid a straightforward confrontation. For example, the situation with US is much more nuanced than with Israel or Saudi Arabia.

For instance, Iranian authorities declare vicious slogans against “Great Satan”, but at the same time, they spend great financial resources and energy to create, expand and support Iranian Lobby in US. These efforts continued even when Iran, not directly, but through Shiite armed militias was involved in a military conflict with the US army in Iraq. Iranians have been contacting with representatives of the Iraqi opposition since Saddam Hussein’s years in power.

The American invasion freed Iran’s hands and Tehran was able to fully use its ties and influence over Shiites in Iraq. Thus, Iraq turned into a failed state, possessing a role of a buffer zone for Iran.

They could establish very valuable ties with a certain part (mainly with the liberal wing) of the American and European political establishment through the work of Iranian Lobby in US and EU.

Ethnic Iranians including Iranians who have dual citizenship participate in the work of Iranian Lobby together with citizens of Western countries, among which there are politicians, social activists, experts and journalists. The Head of Iran’s intelligence Mahmoud Alavi explicitly stated this in the interview.

The main objective of Iranian Lobby in Washington is to counteract activities of Jewish Lobby and activities of Israel, Saudi Arabia and UAE in Washington. In particular, in matters regarding Iran, for example Iranian nuclear program, Iran’s missile program, matters related to tightening of sanctions against Iran and Iran’s ties with terrorist organizations.

Iranian Lobby has also been actively involved in the process of creation of a “positive image of Iran” and efforts to divert attention from a gross violation of human rights and rights of minorities in Iran. In addition, Iranian lobby tacitly tries to promote its people (not necessarily ethnic Iranians) into the governmental organizations, organizations close to the government of US and think tanks responsible for the formulation of US policy towards Iran and the Middle East.

The most successful experience in this regard was achieved during the Obama administration. Several representatives of Iranian Lobby could get into Obama’s circle. To what extent they had influenced the decisions on Iran remains a subject of dispute. However, it is a fact that unlike other administrations, Obama’s administration had a different view on Iran and its potential role in the region.

Obviously, Obama planned to make Iran the main ally of USA in the region, despite the fact that Iran is the main destabilizing factor in the Middle East. Moreover, of course, to the prejudice of Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Turkey. This type of formation demanded Obama to ignore human rights violations in Iran and its support for terrorist organizations.

Hillary Clinton, being Secretary of State, actively participated in the formulation of Obama’s pro-Iranian policy. Of course, Clinton was not working alone; she was being assisted by a whole team, in which there were persons sympathetic to Iran with their views on Iran’s future role in the region and the future of Iranian-American relations. One of those persons is Tom Pickering, former diplomat. Specifically, the small report, he sent to Hillary Clinton is a subject of interest.

If you read this document, you can get a sense of an immense amount of concessions in relations with Iran Pickering proposes to make. There is another episode, which perfectly illustrates the Obama administration’s attitude to Iran.

As a result of the investigation, conducted by Politico it has been disclosed that Obama’s administration actually sabotaged the investigation against Hezbollah in cases of drug trafficking and money laundering. Obama was afraid that Iran could abandon the nuclear deal. Whilst the drugs were being supplied to the European allies of the US, as well as to US itself and the money raised was used to support the organization fighting against another US ally – Israel.

Obviously, Hillary Clinton had to carry on the Obama administration’s torch. Nevertheless, Donald Trump’s victory has broken the plans to rehabilitate Iran and turning Iran into Washington’s main ally in the Middle East.

One of the main Iranian Lobby organizations in US is National Iranian American Council. Nevertheless, that’s not the only organization engaged in lobbying of the interests of Iran in USA. There are other organizations and individuals. Iranian Lobby operates somewhat differently in Europe, more openly and freely than in US.

Unlike Washington, EU Countries have always been more lenient with Iran. It is partially due to the appetite of large European business. Of course, Iranian authorities understand it and use this factor in their global hybrid war. Large European business, having ties with Iran, in turn, becomes a kind of mediator between Iran and EU, a mediator that is always interested in good relations with the Iranian regime.

European technological companies are of particular interest to Iran, since the legal access to Israeli and American technologies is almost closed to Tehran. Various mechanisms and backup options to circumvent sanctions have been developed during the years of the sanctions.

Iran needs technologies, not only for civil purposes, but also for military purposes, in particular for their intelligence services and missile program. Besides lobbyists, large business and corrupt politicians the Iranian side uses a number of other methods in its global confrontation with US, Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Organization and support for paramilitary groups in the region are among them. In particular, in countries with a vacuum of authority (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen) and Shiite population. These groups may be considered Iran’s informal allies in the region. Of course, in case of Iraq, Tehran has a considerable influence on its authorities, but armed groups are much more loyal allies of Iran.

On the other hand, for example, Syria, where Tehran has to compete with Russia. In case of change of Government, Tehran can use controlled groups to preserve its influence in these countries. In addition, these groups are used against the countries, Iran perceives as its main enemies.

In countries with Shiite population, in which Iran could not create militias, Tehran tries to use the religious factor. These countries are closely monitored by the Iranian intelligence services. In the South, it is Bahrain, which is small, but strategically very important for both Saudi Arabia and Iran. In 2011, the support of Peninsula Shield Force helped to prevent pro-Iranian takeover in this country.

However, Iranian activity and influence in Bahrain are still there and still pose a threat to the sovereignty and the stability of Bahrain. Tehran, using its agents tries to have an impact on Bahraini society and, of course, first of all, on the Shiite community of the country.

In the North, it is Azerbaijan, a secular country, an ally of Turkey and Israel. Azerbaijan has the second largest Shiite population in the world, after Iran. Iran considers Azerbaijan as a permanent threat to the integrity of the country. The reason is a large Azerbaijani population in Iran itself.

Despite of the fact that Azerbaijanis are second ethnic group only to the Persian in size, they do not have any rights in Iran along with other ethnic groups. This is the reason sporadic demonstrations against Tehran’s policy erupt periodically in the Southern Azerbaijan.

Given the risk of division of the country, and taking into account, that the Azerbaijani Republic in the North is the centre of attraction for Azerbaijanis in the South Azerbaijan, Iran has been trying to gain support in Azerbaijan Republic in the form of political forces and religious communities, controlled by Tehran, for further implementation of its policy to, at least, neutralize the threat of Azerbaijani nationalism both in the north and the south or, at most, to involve the Azerbaijani Republic in its orbit of interest with the further turning it into a loyal vassal.

However, sustained actions of Azerbaijani authorities have limited Iran’s capacity to establish a big and strong pro-Iranian wing in Azerbaijan. At the same time, we have to note that Iran could achieve some progress in building its network in Azerbaijan, but the balance of power is not in Tehran’s favor.

Alongside Azerbaijan, certain activity of Iran is observed in Georgia. Azerbaijani Shiites, the second largest ethnic group in Georgia, are of particular interest. Here, just like in Azerbaijan, Iranians use Shiism as a soft power to promote their propaganda.

In addition, Shiite pilgrims undergo ideological and propagandist indoctrination, during the pilgrimage to Karbala, Najaf and Mashhad. Obviously, Iran tries to secure its northern boundaries and tries to create here forces, loyal to them.

Iranian strategy of global hybrid war could not ignore its eastern unstable neighbor – Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Iran has a long border with this country. Of course, the attention and recourses Iran spends on Afghanistan, cannot be compared to the recourses spent on Iraq and Syria. Nevertheless, in general, Afghanistan is of great interest to Iran.

Contrary to its strategy in other countries, Iran does not scruple to cooperate with radical Sunni groups in Afghanistan, for example with Taliban. Iran, reportedly, provides financial recourses and arms to Taliban. In addition, there are training camps for Taliban in Iran. It is believed that the main aim of Iranian support for Taliban is to use Taliban fighters against the armed groups that pledged loyalty to ISIS. Obviously, Iran believes Taliban poses less of a threat than ISIS does.

However, no one can guarantee that Iranian money and arms supplied to Taliban is not used against the State and coalition forces. In general, this approach to the issue fits organically into the Iranian strategy of a global hybrid war. The principle is simple: the more problems the West has in the region, the less they care about Iran.

Iran is also concerned about the Saudi activity in Afghanistan. Tehran believes that the activity of Saudi Arabia in Afghanistan can seriously damage Iranian long-term plans for this country. In addition, Iran tries to promote and strengthen positions of Persian language in Afghanistan.

For Iran, Afghanistan is a source of young Shiite mercenaries, recruited by Iran and sent to Syria to fight on the side of Bashar Assad. In general, Afghan fighters are less expensive for Iran than others are. They can also be redeployed to other fronts or use them in their homeland in future. These people are a good material for a hybrid war.

One of the hot spots of the Iranian hybrid war is Yemen. This country has a long border with Saudi Arabia. Nevertheless, some of its areas are poorly controlled due to climate and natural landscape. Yemen is perfect to create problems and security threats to Saudi Arabia. That is why Iran could not opt out of the developments in Yemen and not use this opportunity in its global strategy of the hybrid war.

Supporting Houthis in Yemen, Iran tries to draw away a part of Saudi forces (armed forces, military aviation, intelligence), recourses (financial recourses) and attention. This tactics was widely used by USSR and US during the Cold War.

Particular attention should be given to the Houthis’ rocket attacks on Saudi Arabia. The missiles supplied to Houthis by Iran cannot seriously damage Saudi Arabia, even if they hit the target. Here Iran has two objectives – the first is psychological, that has to affect the Saudi society and foreigners, who live in or visit Saudi Arabia.

The second one is a military objective; Iran tests the Saudi air defense system by the shelling, in the event of possible armed conflict with Saudi Arabia.

Probably, one of the main directions of the Iranian hybrid war is the support for Syrian President Bashar Assad, despite the rivals in the face Russians. Iranians had started to help Bashar Assad long before the Russians came. Iran’s presence in Syria is still ongoing. In general, Syrian theatre of hybrid warfare has shown that Iranian military and IRGC are not as powerful and professional as Iranian propaganda tries to present.

The gains of Iranians, regime forces and Hezbollah had been modest before Russian military came. The control over the large part of Syria was lost and future of the regime of Bashar Assad was a question. Moreover, the interference of the Russian armed forces could turn the tide of war, not the Iranian assistance. Many casualties among the senior staff of the Iranian military, also doesn’t add them any points.

In general, it shows that during an all-out war with a more organized and well-armed opponent, Iranian armed forces including IRGC forces can quickly lose the initiative, what will eventually lead to defeat. This explains why Iran seeks to avoid a direct confrontation with the States, Tehran considers to be enemies. We can assume that the awareness of inability of its armed forces to meet the military challenges in Syria forced Iran to recruit Shiites from the whole Middle East for the war in Syria.

One of the major players of Iranian global hybrid war is a Lebanese terrorist organization – Hezbollah. This organization was established in the early 80s, with the direct participation of Iran. For quite a long time, Hezbollah was being used only against Israel. Nevertheless, there were attempts to move organization’s activity to Egypt; however, these attempts were prevented by Egyptian intelligence services.

Iran also uses Hezbollah in active measures in South America. When the civil war in Syria began, units of Hezbollah were redeployed to this country, to assist the Bashar Assad regime. However, Hezbollah’s participation in the Syrian conflict has not been effective.

In Lebanon Hezbollah is also being used to suppress Sunni armed groups. The fact that this is committed with complete impunity of Shiite militias raises extreme outrage among Sunni population of Lebanon. We should take into account that the number of Sunnis is almost equal to the number of Shiites in Lebanon and such actions can drag the country into another internal religious conflict. And in the event of such a conflict Iran will have a chance to further strengthen its positions in Lebanon.

Hezbollah is a perfect instrument to interfere into internal affairs and policy of Lebanon. Thanks to Iran’s support, Hezbollah terrorist organization has its deputies in Lebanese Parliament and is a part of the coalition Government. Knowing that its army is lag behind the Israeli army in all respects (except numerical superiority), Iran prefers to use Hezbollah and other organizations as proxies in the conflict with Israel.

We should also understand that propaganda and cyber attacks are important components of Iranian strategy of the global hybrid war. Iranian promotional machine includes an army of pro-Government trolls, an armada of fake and other marginal websites. I wrote about in my previous review.

There are also relatively qualitative websites and TV channels. Iranian state propaganda tries to use them to influence public opinion in the West and in Iran’s neighboring countries. However, we should understand that the quality of the product, produced by the Iranian promotional machine is very low.

Iranian promotional machine has a number of western “experts”, “journalists” and “analytics” who constantly flash across the Iranian propaganda channels and relevant western websites. Their main objectives are – a) to dilute the Iranian propaganda with their articles and comments, b) to promote the Iranian point of view in the West and in the region.

In addition, Iran-controlled organizations, such as Hezbollah or Shiite groups, have their propaganda recourses, mainly focusing on the audience of their regions. “Cyber forces of Iran” or “pro-Government hackers”, as they are often called in mass media, pose a serious threat to the countries in the region, both to the countries whom Iran considers as enemies (Saudi Arabia, Israel) and to the countries who have complicated relations with Iran (Turkey, UAE, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Afghanistan).

Since 2010, Iranian Government has sharply increased financing their cyber-warriors. In 2010, Iranian officials talked about the training and preparation of 1500 cyber-warriors, although in reality the figure can be different (higher or lower). Of course, Iranian Government continued to build their capabilities and increase the number of cyber-warriors.

For example, according to the tweet of Iranian Minister of Information and former intelligence officer Mohammad-Javad Azari Jahromi (17 October 2017) Iran has an intention to prepare 10 thousand cyber-specialists to combat cyber threats. And it is easy to imagine that these specialists will be used as cyber-warriors in the interest of the regime.

In the hybrid war, Iranian cyber-warriors wage attacks of different scales with various objectives. Iran can use its cyber-forces, both in peacetime and wartime. Critical infrastructure, information infrastructure, military and governmental communication facilities and many other vitally important targets can be attacked by the Iranian cyber-forces at any time. According to experts, the capacity of Iranian cyber-forces compares well with their Chinese and Russian colleagues.

Unlike a direct military intervention or even actions committed through proxy-organizations such as Hezbollah, the source of cyber-attacks is more difficult to trace. In general, methods of Iranian hybrid warfare vary according to countries and political situation in those countries. In countries, which have strong Government the Iranian side proceeds more carefully. In democratic Western countries, Iran uses all loopholes and opportunities given by the Western democracy.

At the moment Iranian hybrid war is, perhaps, one of the main threats and challenges to the stability in the Middle Eastern region. Of course it is impossible to inlcude all details and circumstances of Iranian hybrid war in one article, so I tried to summarize the information.

Each topic is a theme for a book and an extensive research.
________________________
Ali Hajizade is a political analyst and founder editor in chief of thegreatmiddleeast.com. He tweets @AHajizade.

Last Update: Friday, 23 February 2018 KSA 12:57 - GMT 09:57

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Al Arabiya English's point-of-view.