WAR 04-02-2016-to-04-08-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/Asi...ng-An-Unstable-North-Korea-Over-The-Edge.html

Oil Sanctions Risk Pushing An Unstable North Korea Over The Edge

By Charles Kennedy
Posted on Tue, 05 April 2016 21:12
Comments 1

A new round of United Nations sanctions on North Korea has a lot of loopholes, and China is only enforcing those that hit at Pyongyang’s weapons-making capabilities. The rogue nation, that is once again making nuclear threats, is using its hostage population as a human shield in order to get Chinese oil and food.

In January, Pyongyang conducted its forth nuclear test. In February, it launched a long-range rocket. In early March, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un reportedly ordered the military to deploy the country’s nuclear warheads on standby.

It’s not the first time—nor will it be the last—but this colorfully unstable dictatorship will eventually crack, and the price of that could very well be devastatingly nuclear.

Now, in the face of tough new sanctions by the UN and ongoing joint US-South Korean military exercises, North Korea is saying it will continue to pursue its nuclear and ballistic missile program in an act of defiance. And Pyongyang says there is no longer any possibility for talks.

The new UN sanctions target North Korea’s shipping network, allowing for searches of vessels for cargo that could be intended for Pyongyang’s weapons program.

But it’s tough to get around the economic relationship between China and North Korea. No sanctions can work if China doesn’t play ball. China, after all, is the central point here: Some 90 percent of all North Korean trade flows to or through China.

Related: Did Italy And Malta Actually Agree To Swap Oil Rights For Refugees?

Most mineral trade with North Korea is banned, because it’s been used to fund the country’s nuclear program. But food and oil gets through because Beijing ostensibly believes that such crippling sanctions would harm the innocent population and lead to dangerous internal destabilization—which no one wants when a country has its finger on the red button.

The mining sector is being hit hard, but the new sanctions also reveal some interesting connections in the supply chain. According to regulatory disclosures cited by Reuters, there are more than 12 U.S.-listed companies with links to North Korean gold in their supply chains. And it counts even if minerals come through a third-country supplier. The chain has to be followed to its end source. The new sanctions mean that a lot of suppliers face being blacklisted because U.S. companies cannot risk the regulatory fines.

It also means that costs could rise for metals, and particularly gold, as the supply chain develops kinks.

Oh, and the Central Bank of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is in North Korea, not South Korea—so companies aren’t going to get away with claiming ignorance on this issue any longer.

So what about oil? Well, this is where the big loopholes become particularly gaping.

A Mongolian oil company is coming under scrutiny for an oil deal with North Korea. According to media reports citing South Korean officials, Mongolian HBOil JSC, an Ulaanbaatar-based oil trading and refining company that acquired a 20 percent interest in North Korea’s Sungri refinery in June 2013, has pulled out of the deal. In May 2014, the company launched a joint venture with Pyongyang.

But HBOil says the reports aren’t true and it hasn’t withdrawn. Mongolia is clearly hedging its bets here and trying to determine how much trouble it could face by going forward with this deal. They may also be trying to determine whether it’s even worth it. The North Korean government is a deplorable investment partner and has delayed the project’s development despite its importance to the North Korean economy as the refinery has been closed down since 2009.

But Mongolia is a bit player here; it’s China’s oil that keeps North Korea afloat.

Washington has been trying to get Beijing to cut off the oil taps to North Korea for some time. Beijing, in February, claimed that Pyongyang had already been cut off for two consecutive years, and that overall oil exports to North Korean have fallen by 60 percent since 2013.

But in the absence of any evidence that North Korea is suffering from a lack of oil, many have questioned the veracity of this.

The Chinese claim that there is a 1-million-ton deficit in North Korea’s oil imports. North Korea is so insular it’s impossible to get any oil data, but the speculation on some levels is that if China were in fact cutting off North Korea from oil, there should be reports about fuel shortages or price hikes. South Korean media in particular noted an increase in fuel consumption and an unusual rate of “activity” in Pyongyang.

According to the New York Times, cross-border trade between China and North Korea—both legal and illegal—continues despite the new sanctions. Crude oil is exempt from sanctions, but coal and iron ore are not; nevertheless, they continue to be traded unabated.

The key problem here is the answer to a question that no one is comfortable guessing at. North Korea needs oil. It needs food. If it doesn’t get it, the regime could collapse. But this is no normal regime. It’s a tyrannical overture to a very unstable sort of insanity that has its finger on a nuclear button.

Sanctions won’t really work unless China facilitates them. But what happens if sanctions DO work? China is struggling with the philosophical/psychological question itself. On one hand, it is horribly frustrated with Pyongyang and views it as a loose cannon that could gravely upset regional stability. On the other hand, it fears what might happen if sanctions destabilize the regime, or if the regime really feels that its survival is being seriously challenged.

By Charles Kennedy of Oilprice.com

 

[Housecarl]

http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...en-charges-man-with-preparing-suicide-bombing

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sweden-security-idUSKCN0X4126

World | Thu Apr 7, 2016 6:03am EDT
Related: World

Sweden charges man with preparing suicide bombing

Sweden is charging a 20-year-old man with terrorism for allegedly building a suicide bomb with the intent of staging an attack in Sweden.

The Prosecution Authority said on Thursday that it believed the man had intended to join the jihadist group Islamic State in Syria. Instead, he was detained in Turkey last June and sent back to Sweden.

"My belief is that he obtained, stored and combined liquids and objects with the purpose of making a suicide bomb," prosecutor Ewamari Haggkvist said in a statement. "The criminal act that was in preparation could have seriously harmed Sweden."

The man's identity was not disclosed, in line with usual Swedish legal procedure.

(Reporting by Sven Nordenstam; Editing by Kevin Liffey)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nagorno-karabakh-ceasefire-azerbaijan-idUSKCN0X40DQ

World | Thu Apr 7, 2016 5:21am EDT
Related: World

Azerbaijan says Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire broken 119 times in 24 hours

Armenian-backed forces violated a ceasefire in Azerbaijan's breakaway Nagorno-Karabakh region 119 times in the last 24 hours, the Azeri Defence Ministry said in a statement on Thursday.

Related Coverage
› Azerbaijan: current status quo unacceptable in Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

(Reporting by Nailia Bagirova; Writing by Katya Golubkova; Editing by Clarence Fernandez)

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-turkey-attacks-idUSKCN0X40QQ

World | Thu Apr 7, 2016 4:09am EDT
Related: World

Turkish military hits Islamic State in Syria after cross-border rocket attack

Turkey's military fired on Islamic State targets in northern Syria on Thursday in retaliation for a cross-border artillery attack that hit a Turkish border town and wounded three people, NTV news channel said.

Artillery from Islamic State-controlled Syrian territory landed by a school and hit a house in the town center of Kilis, close to the Syrian border, security sources said.

(Reporting by Ayla Jean Yackley; editing by David Dolan)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://spectator.org/articles/65976/iran’s-missiles-and-obama’s-doctrine

A Further Perspective

Iran’s Missiles and Obama’s Doctrine

At least the latter isn’t inscribed in Hebrew.

By Cliff Smith – 4.6.16

The United States is facing a humiliation of the first order resulting from almost comically provocative Iranian test launches of nuclear-capable ballistic missiles earlier this month and the lack of any real response from Washington, save for largely symbolic sanctions. For the Obama Administration, a recent interview suggests it sees this humiliation and loss of credibility not as a serious problem, but as a successful application of the “Obama Doctrine.”

Iran’s missile launches violated the spirit of UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which lifted international sanctions on Iran when it agreed to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) regulating its nuclear program. This suggests that the Ayatollahs in Iran have no intention of getting “right with the world” as Obama once suggested, and intend to continue their revolutionary goals. Lest anyone fail to grasp that point, the missiles were inscribed with the words “Israel must be wiped off the Earth,” in Hebrew.

Yet the Russians are blocking any attempt to invoke 2231 to sanction Iran on the grounds that its language does not explicitly forbid this behavior. They’re right. Paragraph 3 of Annex A of 2231 states, “Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology” for a period of up to eight years after the JCPOA goes into effect. Resolution 1929, a previous Iran sanctions resolution, did explicitly forbid it, stating, “Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons.”

Oddly, when confronted with this discrepancy during a congressional hearing last July, Secretary of State John Kerry suggested that the language was indistinguishable. A skilled lawyer and a former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary Kerry must have understood that the new language was non-binding. But he may well have considered the practical impact of the language change to be negligible. In the imagination of Kerry and Obama, the Islamic Republic was heeding their invitation to become a “very successful regional power” and be “reintegrated into the international community.” Thus, they may not have anticipated Iran’s willingness to push the limits of what it could do. Worse, they may not consider it a serious problem.

“To a remarkable degree,” Jeffery Goldberg writes in the Atlantic, “[Obama] is willing to question why America’s enemies are its enemies, or why some of its friends are its friends.” Goldberg goes at lengths to explain how President Obama disdains traditional Sunni allies in the region, saying he is “clearly irritated” that he must “treat Saudi Arabia as an ally.” As Obama and Kerry see it, Iran is a rising power, while Israel and the Sunni states are not.

Thus, allowing Iran to freely develop ballistic missiles can be seen as an intentional strategic shift which disentangles the U.S. from potential conflict with Iran. Kerry’s statements to the contrary are merely acknowledgements of domestic political realities. The outcome of this incident concerning Iran’s test launches, far from a humiliation, are an anticipated result of the Obama Doctrine.

Goldberg also notes that Obama is “very proud” of his widely criticized decision to allow an Iranian proxy, Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, to violate Obama’s own “red line” on chemical weapons use. Likening potential involvement in Syria to protect our credibility to getting sucked into Vietnam, he cites this as the moment that he was finally able to break out of the “Washington playbook,” which would require following through on his threat. “Dropping bombs on someone to prove that you’re willing to drop bombs on someone is just about the worst reason to use force.

What can be gleaned from the entirety of “The Obama Doctrine” is that in Obama’s eyes, America’s credibility is inherent in its strength alone, not in its application, the greater risk is of entanglement, not disengagement, and that enemies can be placated at the expense of our allies.

Yet this doctrine is quite dangerous. American credibility is undermined when we let rivals grow and provoke us without response. The risk of imprudent action is serious, but the risk stemming from a lack of credibility is worse. This is particularly true when dealing with radical ideologies that believe they have a divinely inspired mission. The Iranian Mullahs will see America’s weakness not as a strategic realignment that could benefit their interests if they moderate and draw closer to the U.S., but as proof that they are following divine will in their struggle to dominate the Middle East and eventually beyond. This will not lead to American disentanglement, but deeper entanglement, and under worse circumstances.

And once lost, America’s credibility will be much more difficult to regain.

 

[Housecarl]

Saudis admit they have nuclear weapons
Started by alchemike‎, 02-22-2016 12:36 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?485255-Saudis-admit-they-have-nuclear-weapons/page2

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://mironline.ca/?p=9077

Middle East, Regions

Wahhabis of Mass Destruction: The Doomsday Scenario of an Islamic Nuclear Arms Race

Posted by Sarie M. Khalid 12 hours ago

If the US nuclear deal with Iran fails in the future, the possibility of a preemptive Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear sites and an Iranian counterattack on US military bases in the Gulf would inaugurate a new, dangerous, unstable nuclear balance of terror in the Middle East. Iran’s determination to acquire a nuclear weapon will strengthen Saudi and even Turkish resolve to acquire nuclear capabilities (the downing of a Russian jet by the Turkish air force has created a new fault line in the Great Power confrontation in Syria). Nuclear weapons would be the Iranian regime’s ultimate insurance policy against US-imposed regime change or invasion, and this is why the Islamic Republic has paid such high political and financial costs (Western sanctions) to enrich uranium.
Iran does not need nuclear warheads to project its power in the Arab world. The existence and instability fomented by Hezbollah in Lebanon, the deployment of Qods forces in Syria, the Shiite militias attached to Iraq’s army, the Houthis in Yemen and the Bahraini Hezbollah prove that. Iran has intervened with its Revolutionary Guards Corps in the Lebanese, Yemeni, Iraqi and Syrian civil wars, an interventionism with roots deeper than the Islamic Revolution of 1979: the last Shah of Iran sent combat troops to neighboring Oman to help the Sultan’s army defeat Marxist-Leninist Dhofari secessionists in the 1970s.

Yet a nuclear Iran is the “Armageddon scenario” for a Saudi Arabia that sees revolutionary Iran as a threat to its “regime legitimacy” as the natural leader of the Islamic world. Yet any multipolar nuclear balance of terror in the Middle East would be unstable. There are no hotlines between Qom, Jerusalem and Riyadh, as existed between the superpowers of the Cold War. Nuclear deterrence in the Middle East can easily break down due to political miscalculation. Can the world really expect cold rationality while far-right ideologies, such as those espoused by Iran’s zealous clerical rulers or Binyamin Netanyahu’s xenophobic Likud in Israel, hold sway? Anyone who claims that predicting such actors’ responses under conditions of existential national crisis would be easy is sadly misguided. A multipolar region populated by nuclear powers would present us with a dangerously unstable nuclear balance of terror, one imposed by Israel and Iran against the backdrop of a crumbling post-Ottoman Arab state system. Even the ‘rational’ US and USSR came to the brink of nuclear war over Cuba in October 1962, and again during the Ramadan War of 1973.

If the accord reached last year breaks down and Iran does obtain an atomic weapon, what we will witness is the development of a tripolar arch of nuclear instability in the Middle East, with Israel, Iran and Saudi Arabia playing the role of nuclear powers (the latter obtaining a weapon via its client state Pakistan, as some believe it has already tried to do). Egypt and Turkey would not stand idly by and would probably be tempted to defy Washington and develop nuclear capabilities.

Communications protocols, verification regimes, high-tech satellite surveillance and strict bureaucratic hierarchies – Khrushchev-style – moderated the brinksmanship of the Cold War. These do not exist in the secretive oligarchies overseen by the Supreme Leader and the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques. If the future of peace in the Middle East is dependent on “rationality” and “restraint” in Jerusalem, Tehran and Riyadh, then world peace will have come to rest on an alarmingly fragile and wobbly foundation.

Both Israel and Iran formally deny having nuclear weapons, though the former’s possession of nukes was all but confirmed by the Pentagon last year. These powers have very flawed and limited intelligence on each other’s intentions, command-and-control systems, decision-making protocols, capabilities or operational nuclear doctrines. Saudi Arabia/Pakistan can only add another dimension of dangerous “nuclear ambiguity”. As long as Israel was the sole nuclear power in the region, deterrence was stable. A nuclear trio in the Middle East means a region with a highly unstable system of nuclear deterrence. Nuclear proliferation in the Middle East must be prevented at all costs, posing as it does a genuine threat to world peace. A world where megalomaniac dictators like Muammar Gaddafi could aspire to nuclear weapons or the Pakistani military built a clandestine “Islamic bomb” is not a world where proliferation risk can ever be minimized.

“Buying the bomb” was a strategy used by both Libya and Saudi Arabia with Pakistan the prospective supplier, while Syria’s Assad regime turned to North Korea for assistance. However, a Saudi-Pakistani nuclear transaction would have to be carried out with extraordinary secrecy in order to evade the constant threat of Western retaliation, be it in the form of economic sanctions or interceptions and sabotage by Mossad or the CIA. Discovery of such a deal between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan could result in economic sanctions which would destroy Saudi Arabia’s oil export reliant economy, which is already suffering from low energy prices. One would think that a House of Saud obsessed with the calculus of regime survival would view this as an unacceptable risk, but if there is one thing we know about the Middle East it is that we know very little at all.


1.Iran’s Political Economy Since The Revolution by Suzanne Maloney
2.Army and Democracy: Military Politics in Pakistan by Aqil Shah

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-spirit-of-iranian-nuclear-terrorism-yet-to-come/

Editorials

The ‘Spirit’ Of Iranian Nuclear Terrorism Yet To Come

5:52 PM ET

Iran: It amused critics of President Obama’s nuclear appeasement deal to hear him naively cajole Tehran not to violate “the spirit of the agreement.” But the Iranians’ contemptuous laughter is loudest.

Back on April Fool’s Day, President Obama groused that Islamofascist Iran, the world’s foremost terrorist-financing state, was violating “the spirit of the agreement” on building nuclear weaponry that his administration negotiated with Tehran last year. Yet Obama claimed Iran has “followed the implementation steps that were laid out and, as a consequence, sanctions related to their nuclear program have been brought down.”

What exactly is “the spirit” of this odd nontreaty that, whatever anyone imagines its legal standing to be, has never been signed and apparently never will be? According to Obama, this phantom has something to do with Tehran not “engaging in a range of provocative actions that might scare business off.”

The president specified: “When they launched ballistic missiles with slogans calling for the destruction of Israel, that makes businesses nervous. There is some geopolitical risk that is heightened when they see that taking place.”

Obama also cited supplying missiles to the terrorist group Hezbollah in Lebanon. “Iran has to understand what every country in the world understands,” he said, “which is businesses want to go where they feel safe, where they don’t see massive controversy, where they can be confident that transactions are going to operate normally. And that’s an adjustment that Iran is going to have to make as well.”

It didn’t take too long for Iran to spit back the president’s spoonful of sugar. Maj. Gen. Hassan Firouzabadi, the chief of staff of Iran’s armed forces, on Tuesday sneered: “We studied the details of the nuclear agreement and didn’t see anything but its text, and don’t have any information about its spirit.”

Firouzabadi added: “Therefore, the U.S.’ arrogant expectations and excessive demands are ungrounded and unacceptable, and no one in the Islamic Republic of Iran cares about them.”

In a similar “spirit,” Maj. Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari, commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, the most powerful military outfit in the country, promised to Iranian forces commanders on Tuesday, “Our missiles, which have become more precise and destructive, will multiply more than ever.” And he warned that his force “is waiting for an order to respond to the impudence and stupid behavior of regimes like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain and others which are the symbol of modern political backwardness, and whose behavior is the result of their reliance on the U.S. power.”

Jafari also boasted that the U.S. “would not be able to do a damned thing” against Iranian military power because Iran has “developed all our capacities and capabilities for decisive victories over such enemies.”

In the meantime, Congress is now probing whether Obama himself deceived lawmakers last year regarding the letter of the Iran nuclear deal, not just its elusive spirit, and that the pact appeases the terrorist state a lot more than was ever imagined.

 

[Housecarl]

Interesting article from Russia's Pravda......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.pravdareport.com/world/asia/07-04-2016/134094-saudi_arabia_iran-0/

Saudi-Iranian future: Three games, three scenarios

07.04.2016
By Manal Saadi

There is no need to argue on Saudi Arabia and Iran as the two biggest regional powers in the Gulf, the rising tension between the two countries who are engaged in proxy wars in Syria, Yemen, Iraq and somehow Bahrein had installed a climate of Cold War 2.

How did we get there?

Saudi Arabia existed since 1932 as a Sunni country and the birthplace of Islam. Its history of creation is so unique, mesmerizing and fascinating.

Iran, has a glorious past, with various empires that conquered the Arab-Islamic world at certain period of time.

While the Shah was in power, Iran's relations with the Arab Gulf States were normalized, Iran's navy used to act as the policeman of the gulf. The situation has changed when the Iranian Islamic revolution occurred in 1979, with consequences on both countries and on their relationships. Iran's Ayatollah wanted to export their respective model and undermine Saudi Arabia that Iranian officials see as corrupt and unworthy due to its relation with the United States and the West. The Shia country is also supporting Shia communities in the Gulf which is seen as a direct threat to Saudi Arabia.

Not only the leaders of the Iranian revolution see Saudi Arabia as a corrupt country, but they also see them as treacherous and disloyal. The reason behind is more than a Shia-Sunni rivalry; it is important to contextualize the order before the Islamic revolution; an oil embargo was occurring in the world where Iran's leaders wanted to stop selling oil to Western powers. They called upon Saudi Arabia to do the same in retaliation toward countries who helped Israel in the « Yom Kippur War », but Saudi Arabia didn't stop selling its oil, and decided to increase the price of the barrel to destabilize the economy of the Western countries that helped Israel, without disturbing their strategic alliance with the United States.

The succession of events from 2011 where Iran wants to seize the opportunity of a possible vacuum of power during the Arab Spring, by supporting the Shia protests that erupted in Bahrein and the idea of a Shia Islamic republic, has proved the ability of Saudi Arabia and the GCC to sends its troops into Bahrain. Was it a symbolic gesture, or a warning for Tehran?

Then it cames to Yemen, Iraq and Syria, where today Saudi Arabia and Iran are engaged in a proxy war. The Iranian Nuclear deal with the P5+1, the uncontrolled situation in Yemen, the Hajj crush where Iran claimed more than 400 dead citizens, The execution of 27 Sunnis by the Iranians, the execution of Nimr al Nimr (a Shia Sheikh) by the Saudis, the attack of the Saudi Embassy in Tehran, then the cuts of the diplomatic ties between the two countries, and the intensification of the rivalry.

What is for the future to expect? Three games, three scenarios.

Accommodation game:

In this scenario, Saudi Arabia and Iran will have to sit in the table of negotiation and find a compromise. But how can two rival countries negotiate? common interest if there is any or a mutual threat?

Iran and Saudi Arabia are both rich countries, with large access to natural resources, big territories and their economic model is based on oil. If there is no common interest between the two powerful states in the region, the creation of ISIS constitute a threat to both governments. Iran doesn't want a powerful Sunni group in Iraq and Syria and ISIS is threatening the Gulf monarchy. However, Tehran and Riyadh seems to have no intention to lower the temperature and talk again for a potential solution toward the defeat of « Daesh », and the rivalry between them is distracting attention from the war against ISIS. If a mutual threat is not enough to push for negotiations what can be the other solution?

As a consequence of the Iranian deal, the Saudis seem to be fed up with the shock therapy that the United States is exerting in the region at a point that they refused a seat in the Security Council. Saudi Arabia is today looking for new partnership with different countries, the latest highest meeting of the GCC has proved the lack of confidence of the Saudis regarding their alliance with the United States. With the intensification of tensions between Riyadh and Tehran, the Americans show no will to interfere and defend the interest of their historical ally, and Saudi Arabia is being exacerbated by the Washington-Tehran reconciliation.

Recently Saudi Arabia's King Salman met the Chinese President in Riyadh where they signed a memorandum of understanding on the construction of a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor that can help the growing energy demand for electricity and water desalination in the Monarchy. This will also evolve the beginning of a nuclear program in Saudi Arabia. Actually, Since 2006, The monarchy was projecting to construct and promote a peaceful nuclear capacity program within the GCC, and in 2007 the six Gulf States studied with the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) the feasibility for a regional nuclear power, with the assistance of France. Saudi Arabia started singing many international agreements for a nuclear cooperation with different countries as France, Argentina, South Korea, China.

Recently, in June 2015, Russia and Saudi Arabia signed an agreement for cooperation in the field of nuclear energy including the design, construction, operation of nuclear power, education and training and other aspects related nuclear reactors. Now, what if Saudi's decide to weaponize the use of nuclear? It will have subsequent effects in the region and will lead to an arms escalation of WMD.

Nevertheless, if this situation is unwanted, it can bring back stability in the region, the history has proved it.

During the cold war, the Soviet Union and the United States were expending their ballistic missiles, the Cuban missile crises and the threat of a nuclear war between the two blocs that can destroy Russia and the United States and may be the world, had generated the need for negotiations to find a compromise. Khrushchev was going to dismantle the offensive weapons in Cuba and in exchange the U.S made a public declaration that it would never invade Cuba without a direct provocation, but it also said it would dismantle its missiles from Turkey and Italy. The outcome of the negotiations between the two blocs resulted in the establishment of a hotline between the Kremlin and Pentagon and the beginning of the « detente » period.

The struggle of power in the region between Saudi Arabia and Iran is already leading to an arms escalation, and it might be possible for both countries to start a weaponization of nuclear facilities, it doesn't matter who will start first, as long as the other will follow. Pakistan never wanted a nuclear bomb until India got one. Achieving parity with a rival country would lead to sit in the table of negotiation and the achievement of a compromise. Iran can promise not to get involved in Yemen and in Bahrain while Saudi Arabia would pull-out its intervention in the Syrian conflict, and Iran would join the war against ISIS.

Destruction game:

The year 1979 marked the Islamic revolution in Iran, the Iranian theoretical or « spiritual » leader was aiming at exporting the Shia-Islam brand to Shiites minorities within the Middle East, this constitute a threat for the powerful Sunni-Monarchy, as it can undermine the existing equilibrium in the region. The Iranian clerics were urging the Shiites communities of the gulf States to rebel against their rulers, and demonstrations started in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and Iraq.

A year later, Iraq attacked Iran, and the two countries engaged in a war that was serving the interests of Iraq, and the Gulf countries, more precisely Saudi Arabia; despite the support by western countries, this war undermining the West's interests in terms of oil flows disruption. Saudi Arabia with Kuwait were financing Iraq, and the United States was indirectly supporting the Iraqi government by cutting off Iran's supplies. The Iranian revolution, followed by the war installed a climate of increasing rivalry between the powerful Shia and Sunni countries. With the recent uprising of the Arab Spring, the situation intensified.

Since the conflict in Syria and Yemen seems to offer no political solution, a climate of cold war is installed in the region between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

The 3rd round of the Geneva peace talks about Syria, included the participation of delegates from the Saudi-backed opposition, the delegates from the Syrian government, the High Negotiations Committee and other opposition figures to discuss a possible ceasefire, relate of prisoners, humanitarian aid deliveries and the threat posed by ISIS. The problem is that neither the opposition nor the actual Bashar's government wants to negotiate with each others, and neither Saudi Arabia and Iran are willing to bury the hatchet in Syria.

With the Iranian nuclear deal, the reconciliation between Iran and the west and the failure of finding a solution in Syria and Yemen, the tensions between the two powerful nations in the regions are reaching their peak. One should not forget that the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was sufficient to cause the first World War; and today a small incident in the region can have large consequences. Both nations are exacerbated from each others, we can imagine a small event going wrong in Syria or Yemen leading to a direct war between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

A war in the region can erupt at any moment, it is certainly the least preferable scenario, but the most likely to happen if the tensions between the two regional powers are not softened. A direct conflict between the two influent States would undermines the west interests, the oil prices, and the economy of the world and will shift a regional war to a Third Word War.

In one side, the United States with the European powers would back Saudi Arabia and the other Arab Golf States; on the other side Russia would back Iran and Syria militarily and financially. Who will be the winner? We can't tell, but a War is very expensive for both countries and for their allies, especially for Russia that is now suffering economically from its intervention in Syria. What is certain is that a Third World War can leave the economy, culture and politics of Iran and Saudi Arabia completely destroyed, and would change the actual « World Order ».

Conversion:

Since the Arab Spring, Iran started increasing its military presence in the Middle East. In Iraq, it has sent its soldiers to fight alongside the Iraqi Army, in Syria the Iranians are financially supporting the Assad's government, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen are backed by Iran. Can Iran's rising power destabilize the region stability and create a conversion of power?

As my professor Anis Bajrektarevic well summarized on the Gulf and its surrounding intellectual scenery: "as it solely bridges the two key Euro-Asian energy plateaus: the Gulf and Caspian. This gives Iran an absolutely pivotal geopolitical and geo-economic posture over the larger region - an opportunity but also an exposure! ...Nearly all US governments since the unexpected 1979 Shah's fall, ... have formally advocated a regime change in Teheran. On the international oil market, Iran has no room for maneuver, neither on price nor on quotas. Within OPEC, Iran is frequently silenced by a cordial Saudi-led, GCC voting". Therefore, only now, the United Nations sanctions against Iran are formally lifted, which reconnected Iran to the global economy. The European embargo on Iranian oil is to come to an end and the Iranian banks will re-establish connections with the European banking system and private companies would be able to operate with no fear of a western sanction.

Nowadays, Iran is representing a diverse emerging market in the fields of manufacturing, retail and energy.

The public sphere was demonizing Iran for decades, but with the Rouhani government Iran is converting to a charming country. Jawed Zarif, Iran's foreign minister, gives the image of an open country for negotiations, that is looking for long term solution and for stability in the region and in the world, but also a country that is trying to improve the economical and political situation of its young citizens.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia is suffering from a huge deficit in its public financing for the first time. With the crash of the crude prices, the deficit in the resource-rich Monarchy is more than 20% of the GDP that is according to Saudi Arabia's finance minister around $120bn. To balance the budget, the kingdom needs an oil price of 100$ a barrel, its decision to keep the production high caused the plunge of the oil prices.

The decision of OPEC with the influence of Saudi Arabia to keep the production high, is going to burden the U.S shale oil and put the U.S gas industry under pressure, which can undermine the relationship between the two allies in the region.

The emergence of a prosperous Iran at the international level could serve as a pattern in the region, and shift the attention from the petrodollar monarchy to the « charming » country not far from it. While today Iran is improving its image in the public opinion, changing from the « devil » to « the sexy lady », Saudi Arabia's model of « Wahhabism » is more and more connected to Islamic extremism and is blamed of causing terrorism.

Iran can use its new charisma plus its energy resources to attract the west, improve the situation in the country, offer a stability in Iraq and Syria and fill all the gaps where Saudi Arabia has failed.

The two regional powers are playing a poker game... Will the winner take it all?

Video

Manal Saadi

Manal Saadi, of Saudi-Moroccan origins, is a postgraduate researcher in International Relations and Diplomacy at the Geneva-based UMEF University. She was attached to the Permanent Mission of Morocco to the UNoG and other Geneva-based IOs, as well as to the Permanent Mission of the GCC to the UN in Geneva.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm......

http://www.ibnlive.com/blogs/world/...ficant-than-being-made-out-14405-1225367.html

PM Modi's Saudi Sojourn: More significant than being made out

Posted on: 05:51 PM IST Apr 04, 2016 IST

Wisdom & Valour - The General's Views
Lt Gen Syed Ata Hasnain
Comments 3

Prime Minister Narendra Modi's advisers have taken to heart the flak from many of his detractors regarding the high visibility of his foreign visits and the media hype connected to them. There is no reason why such a significant visit at a most appropriate time should be covered in the inner pages of print media and not even receive a pre-event build up by visual media.

The 'romantic' angle takes a much lower rung when it comes to a country such as Saudi Arabia. Even the UAE as a Gulf country received a reasonable share of romanticism during the PM's visit, due to its comparative openness. With the Saudis it is more about geo-politics, trade, energy, radicalism, terror and counter terror. This near about covers almost everything the PM is discussing with Saudi leaders and there are no high-profile social events involving the diaspora which can get the adrenaline flowing.

It's all about business and interests and that for media appear to have limited dwell time. The diaspora is huge at 3 million but comparatively low end as far as social strata is concerned. These are grim realities no one can deny. Yet, the sheer size of financial remittances is something no one can ignore either.

The Modi visit is being criticised for its timing (a little too late is the perception) and for not taking Iran into its ambit, especially after Iran's emergence from its isolation and the recent visits by President Rouhani to Islamabad and that of President Xi Jinping to Tehran. That is a separate issue but balancing relations between these two important countries is indeed important.

However, if anything, PM Modi needs to give Saudi Arabia its place under the sun at a time when friends are fast deserting it. The word seems to be out in circles of the international strategic community that Saudi power is on the decline, low oil prices is leaving it cash strapped and its involvement with promotion of radical Wahabi culture is inviting severe criticism. Recent targeting of a Shia cleric, and the aimless and some say pointless war in Yemen also have won it no friends. In fact Western nations are all evaluating their own approach to Iran after the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or Iran nuclear deal. While relations with Iran are important it is not a zero sum game with regard to their relations with Saudi Arabia.

That is the approach India too needs to evolve. No denying that the Modi government is attempting to do exactly that but unfortunately the message is not adequately carrying due to expert views in media still rooting for an 'either or' relationship with these two countries. Possibly the lower publicity of the visit is also with a view not to send any negative signals to Iran.

What is at stake is well known. Briefly, assurance of continued energy supply is one of the important issues. Although Saudi Arabia is also happy with India's ravenous energy hunger and low energy prices will drive supply, it is the crisis situations that are as important. The Gulf is vulnerable to crises of unpredictable nature which can place obstacles in the way of continued supplies. For such contingencies India and Saudi Arabia need to remain in consultation.

As the second largest trading partner in the Middle East its economic significance cannot be underplayed. However, even more important is the trillion dollar plus intent it has of investing in internal infrastructure; India of course would want a piece of the cake although the recent flyover collapse in Kolkata will surely dent its confidence and that of potential clients. No doubt there will be many MOUs signed but this has become routine in foreign visits. The proof of success will be in terms of how many are followed up after the high profile visibility of exchange of portfolios.
Diaspora issues are important in their own way. It is learnt that the market for Indian labour is generally reducing in Middle East with Philippines being the gainer. Diaspora remittances have been and still are an essential element of the Indian economy. Also important is to keep the diaspora motivated and display how much the home government is concerned about Indian people. It conveys adequate messages to the host government about the extent to which it can take the Indian workers for granted.

While business, trade and energy are no doubt important, PM Modi's visit will be judged more from what is achieved in the strategic domain. Terrorism and counter terrorism, radicalisation and deradicalization, dealing with Daesh and most importantly building a relationship without reference to the P word. There is a broad perception in India and in the rest of the world's strategic community that the Zia Plan to target India through irregular warfare and the bankrolling of Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme were both closely supported by Saudi Arabia. Despite this the Indo-Saudi relationship remained on even keel. Saudi Arabia has inevitably supported Pakistan on issues concerning J&K and its overall political backing to Pakistan has enabled that country to remain emboldened. A special military relationship between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia ensures that Pakistan provides for the security of the royal family in Riyadh. Some doubts may have occurred when Pakistan declined to send troops to Yemen in support of the Saudis. However, retrieval has been effected by Pakistan's wholehearted participation in the recent Exercise Northern Thunder conducted by Saudi Arabia as a message of its power projection against Syria and the Shia alliance.

PM Modi's timing has been good. When a nation struggles and finds it difficult to accept notions of its declining strategic significance, political diplomacy and personal rapport between leaders assists very largely in establishing or maintaining strong relationships. India's relationship with Saudi Arabia has always been good despite irksome Pakistani attempts to dilute it. The Saudi King was the Chief Guest at the Republic Day Parade a few years ago. Continuing to give the Saudis importance at a time when there is potential of dilution of Saudi Arabia as a politico-strategic entity will only enhance the future of any relationships. Saudi Arabia is so geo-strategically located that a dilution of status can only be a temporary hiccup which may continue a few years.

I do feel that the Prime Minister would have sensitised the young Crown Prince on the intricacies of terror threats including nuclear terror. He may also have informed him of the threats of nuclear terror emanating from Pakistan in the event of a meltdown. Now that Israel and the Saudis have emerged as friends due to the common Iranian threat this could also be an opportunity for India to display sagacity and work towards an Israel Iran detente which may then draw Saudi Arabia into it too. Hopefully some mention may have been made of this and responses tucked away for the not too distant future.

This has been Mr Modi's second visit to the Middle East. He will return in the near future to visit Israel which is quite used to being treated differently from the official stance of many countries. By then, not having a more comprehensive plan to visit Iran too would send irksome signals. Can the visits to the two countries follow or precede in the same run? That will be an interesting decision to take and would depend a lot on the comprehensive understanding of the dynamics of the Middle East.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.nknews.org/2016/04/n-korean-submarine-attempts-to-test-fire-ballistic-missile-mbn/

N.Korean submarine attempts to test-fire ballistic missile: MBN

Pyongyang in process of perfecting SLBM technology, South Korean experts say

JH Ahn
April 7th, 2016

North Korea on Wednesday morning attempted the launch of a submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) from a Sinpo-class submarine, MBN reported.

According to the article, the submarine left the port early in the morning, but returned to the dock near Wonsan at 9 a.m. local time, which South Korean experts saw as indicating a failed fourth SLBM launch attempt.

“The submarine would have not returned to the port that quickly if it were scheduled to take part in another training or operation,” a former South Korean admiral told NK News on condition of anonymity.

“It seems that the submarine dealt with a malfunction during the process of their fourth SLBM test launch, and decided to return.”

The Sinpo-class submarine suddenly started to sail toward the East Sea on early morning Wednesday, according to MBN. South Korean intelligence immediately started to track the whereabouts of the submarine. But no provocative acts followed and the submarine returned.

The South Korean Defense Ministry refused to confirm or deny MBN’s claim.

“All we can say is that our military, with the close cooperation with the U.S., is keeping an eye on North Korea’s SLBM development trends,” the military official from South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff said during Thursday’s press briefing.

The exact location of where the event took place was not provided either by the report or by the South Korean Defense Ministry.

But as the report said the submarine returned to the port near Wonsan, the failed launch attempt likely took place somewhere at the east side of Korea, possibly between Wonsan and Mayang Do Naval Base – one of two North Korean submarine bases – located in South Hamgyong Province.

Pyongyang’s latest successful SLBM launch took place on May last year, which their state-run media claimed as evidence “that the ballistic missile fired from the submarine fully met the requirements of the latest military science and technology.”

Even if their most recent launch ended in failure, another South Korean expert said that, assuming the report is true, this would be one of many SLBM launch attempts to come.

“To raise the degree of completion of SLBMs, North Korea will execute dozens more tests in the future,” Moon Keun-sik, the director at the Korea Defense and Security Forum told NK News.

“Perfecting SLBM technology requires a numerous tests … both on the ocean and on the ground. Pyongyang has been miniaturizing their nuclear weapons, and this launch – if it were successful – could’ve been their message to claim that they have completed adapting their warheads to a SLBM.”

On the same day as the reported test, the South Korean Defense Minister said the chances of North Korea conducting another nuclear test are high.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/...ive-ground-troops-needed-160406163810756.html

Iraq halts ISIL offensive as more ground troops needed

Build-up operation to retake Mosul paused until police and tribal reinforcements arrive to hold captured ground.

07 Apr 2016 06:47 GMT | ISIS, Iraq, Middle East

An Iraqi army offensive touted as the first phase of a campaign to recapture the northern city of Mosul from Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant has been paused until more forces arrive to hold ground, the commander in charge said on Wednesday.

Almost three weeks into the operation, Iraqi forces have retaken just three villages from ISIL, also known as ISIS, in the Makhmour area, which is set to be a key staging ground for a future assault on Mosul, about 60km further north.

The faltering start has cast renewed doubt on the capabilities of the Iraqi army, which partially collapsed when ISIL took about one-third of the country in 2014.

The news came as eight Iraqi forces were killed in an attack launched by ISIL on a military barracks in al-Ma'amel village, east of Fallujah, sources told Al Jazeera.

Major General Najm Abdullah al-Jubbouri, who is in charge of the Makhmour offensive, said Iraqi forces were now waiting for the arrival of federal police units and additional local tribal fighters to hold territory after it is retaken.

That would free up his forces to go on the offensive against the rebels, Jubbouri said in a statement, dismissing what he described as efforts to disparage the army.

"We do not want to use all our units to hold territory," he said.

The initial target of the latest offensive was Qayara - an ISIL hub on the western bank of the Tigris river - but Iraqi forces have so far failed to recapture the hilltop village of Nasr on the eastern side.

In the statement, Jubbouri said fighters had dug a network of tunnels beneath Nasr and prepared suicide bombers and a fleet of vehicles rigged with explosives, some of which contain weaponised chlorine, a chemical weapon ISIL has used before in northern Iraq.

US Army Major Jon-Paul Depreo, operations officer for the international coalition fighting ISIL in Iraq and neighbouring Syria, said at the weekend the insurgents were determined not to lose Nasr because of its strategic position on high ground.

Depreo also said difficult terrain meant it was not possible to deploy a large number of forces there against fighters, who are more familiar with the area.

"These [Iraqi army] forces aren't from that area necessarily, so they're learning the area," Depreo told reporters in Baghdad.

READ MORE: Wave of ISIL attacks kills 60 in Iraq

The coalition, led by the United States, has trained thousands of Iraqi police and soldiers in preparation for the operation to retake Mosul - by far the largest city in ISIL's self-proclaimed caliphate.

Depreo said the fighting was only one part of the challenge. "There's going to be a lot of fighting but there's also going to be a lot of logistical infrastructure that needs to follow and be established."

Shia militias and Kurdish Peshmerga have played a major role in the fight, but with Mosul the plan is for the army to take the lead to avoid inflaming ethnic and sectarian sensitivities in the mainly Sunni Arab city.

The army won its first major victory over the fighters last December in Ramadi and aims to retake Mosul this year, but Iraqi officials privately question whether that is possible.

"It's a tough fight," Depreo said of the offensive in Makhmour, describing it as a "shaping operation" for the bigger battle ahead. "We have a lot of work to do before we take control of Mosul again."

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-denmark-security-idUSKCN0X419Q

World | Thu Apr 7, 2016 12:16pm EDT
Related: World, Syria

Denmark arrests four suspected IS recruits returning from Syria

COPENHAGEN | By Teis Jensen

Danish police said they had arrested four people on Thursday at different addresses near Copenhagen on suspicion of having been recruited by the militant group Islamic State (IS) in Syria to commit terrorist violence.

Ammunitions and weapons were found in a connected search, the police said.

"All four suspects are accused of having violated the penal code ... by allowing themselves to be recruited by IS in Syria to commit terrorists acts," a statement by Copenhagen police said.

Neighboring Sweden on Thursday charged a 20-year-old man with terrorism for allegedly building a suicide bomb with the intent of staging an attack in Sweden.

The Danish arrests were part of a joint effort by police and the intelligence service PET to combat the enlisting of people by terrorist groups in war-torn areas of Syria and northern Iraq, the statement said.

The police operation was still going on and further arrests could not be ruled out, Chief Superintendent Poul Kjeldsen told a televised news conference.

The police would not provide more details on the identity of, or suspicions, about the four, who will appear before a judge for a preliminary hearing on Friday.

The prosecution had requested that Friday's hearing be closed to the public, Kjeldsen said.

More than 125 people from Denmark are believed to have joined IS after going to Syria and Iraq, PET said in October, adding that at least 27 of them had died there.

"We know that people who have fought for IS in Syria or Iraq may pose a specific security threat against Denmark," Justice Minister Soren Pind said in statement shortly after the arrests.

Only one person, a 23-year-old man, has previously been charged with being recruited for terrorist acts under the same section of the Danish penal code. He was charged in December and his trial is expected to begin in May.

Danish authorities have been on high alert since two people were killed in shooting attacks at a free speech event and a synagogue in Copenhagen in February last year.

Islamic State claimed responsibility for suicide bomb attacks that killed 32 people in Brussels last month and attacks in Paris in November that killed 130 people.


(Additional reporting by Nikolaj Studsgaard, Editing by Richard Balmforth)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sudan-darfur-idUSKCN0X41XW

World | Thu Apr 7, 2016 11:36am EDT
Related: World, Africa

Khartoum sentences 22 South Sudanese to death

An anti-terrorism court in Khartoum has sentenced 22 South Sudanese nationals to death and three others to life in prison on Wednesday for belonging to a militant group in Darfur.

"The judge sentenced them to death by hanging on charges of terrorism, fighting the state, bearing arms against the state and undermining the constitutional order," Mahjoub Dawoud, defense attorney, told Reuters.

The defendants belong to the Justice and Equality Movement, a rebel group based in Darfur that took up arms against the Sudanese government in 2003, complaining that their region was being marginalized.

The group, led by Bakhit Abdul Karim (Dabjo), signed a peace agreement with the Khartoum government in 2013.

Shortly after the agreement, the group handed in its weapons to the government and in return the Sudanese president, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, pardoned members of the group.

However, the presidential pardon did not include the 25 South Sudanese nationals. The government considered them foreign fighters and brought them to trial for bearing arms against Sudan.

Lawyers of the defendants said they will appeal the court decision next week, calling the Sudanese authorities to treat their clients as prisoners of war.

Sudan regularly accuses its neighbor of backing insurgents in its Darfur, Blue Nile and South Kordofan regions.

South Sudan, which split away from Sudan in 2011 after decades of civil war fueled by ethnicity and oil, dismisses the allegations and accuses Khartoum of arming militias in its territory.

(This version of the story corrects headline to say 22 death sentences)


(Reporting by Khaled Abdelaziz writing by Amina Ismail Editing by Jeremy Gaunt)

 

[almost ready]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/...ive-ground-troops-needed-160406163810756.html

Iraq halts ISIL offensive as more ground troops needed

Build-up operation to retake Mosul paused until police and tribal reinforcements arrive to hold captured ground.

07 Apr 2016 06:47 GMT | ISIS, Iraq, Middle East

An Iraqi army offensive touted as the first phase of a campaign to recapture the northern city of Mosul from Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant has been paused until more forces arrive to hold ground, the commander in charge said on Wednesday.

Almost three weeks into the operation, Iraqi forces have retaken just three villages from ISIL, also known as ISIS, in the Makhmour area, which is set to be a key staging ground for a future assault on Mosul, about 60km further north.

The faltering start has cast renewed doubt on the capabilities of the Iraqi army, which partially collapsed when ISIL took about one-third of the country in 2014.

The news came as eight Iraqi forces were killed in an attack launched by ISIL on a military barracks in al-Ma'amel village, east of Fallujah, sources told Al Jazeera.

Major General Najm Abdullah al-Jubbouri, who is in charge of the Makhmour offensive, said Iraqi forces were now waiting for the arrival of federal police units and additional local tribal fighters to hold territory after it is retaken.

That would free up his forces to go on the offensive against the rebels, Jubbouri said in a statement, dismissing what he described as efforts to disparage the army.

"We do not want to use all our units to hold territory," he said.

The initial target of the latest offensive was Qayara - an ISIL hub on the western bank of the Tigris river - but Iraqi forces have so far failed to recapture the hilltop village of Nasr on the eastern side.

In the statement, Jubbouri said fighters had dug a network of tunnels beneath Nasr and prepared suicide bombers and a fleet of vehicles rigged with explosives, some of which contain weaponised chlorine, a chemical weapon ISIL has used before in northern Iraq.

US Army Major Jon-Paul Depreo, operations officer for the international coalition fighting ISIL in Iraq and neighbouring Syria, said at the weekend the insurgents were determined not to lose Nasr because of its strategic position on high ground.

Depreo also said difficult terrain meant it was not possible to deploy a large number of forces there against fighters, who are more familiar with the area.

"These [Iraqi army] forces aren't from that area necessarily, so they're learning the area," Depreo told reporters in Baghdad.

READ MORE: Wave of ISIL attacks kills 60 in Iraq

The coalition, led by the United States, has trained thousands of Iraqi police and soldiers in preparation for the operation to retake Mosul - by far the largest city in ISIL's self-proclaimed caliphate.

Depreo said the fighting was only one part of the challenge. "There's going to be a lot of fighting but there's also going to be a lot of logistical infrastructure that needs to follow and be established."

Shia militias and Kurdish Peshmerga have played a major role in the fight, but with Mosul the plan is for the army to take the lead to avoid inflaming ethnic and sectarian sensitivities in the mainly Sunni Arab city.

The army won its first major victory over the fighters last December in Ramadi and aims to retake Mosul this year, but Iraqi officials privately question whether that is possible.

"It's a tough fight," Depreo said of the offensive in Makhmour, describing it as a "shaping operation" for the bigger battle ahead. "We have a lot of work to do before we take control of Mosul again."

HC, do you hear any worries from the informed that ISIS/ISIL/IS actually might blow the Mosul Dam, or attempt to do so if Iraq troops move in on them?

I was wondering if that's why Iraq is saying "it's a tough fight" and more work to do, yada yada.

The uninformed unwashed (my crowd) certainly have done some speculating to that effect.

 

[Housecarl]

Get ready for this to stir the pot up.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-N...ested-source-says/9171460035491/?spt=rln&or=2

Kim Jong Un assassination suspects arrested, source says

By Elizabeth Shim | April 7, 2016 at 9:37 AM

SEOUL, April 7 (UPI) -- At least two suspects who attempted to assassinate North Korean leader Kim Jong Un were arrested, according to unconfirmed reports in the country.

The suspects had been reportedly arrested at the China border near the Tumen River as they were preparing a hit on Kim in the city of Hoeryong in North Hamgyong Province, Radio Free Asia reported Thursday.

A source in the North who spoke to Japanese news service Asia Press on the condition of anonymity said he had heard the "terrorists" had not yet crossed the Tumen, which separates North Korea from China, when North Korean border guards crossed the border to arrest them.

The source went on to say the suspects were transferred to the State Security Department, and that the border guards were given rewards – including a chance to become members of the Korean Workers' Party.

One of the suspects is allegedly a North Korean defector from the South, but the other one or more were Chinese nationals.

Japanese journalist Jiro Ishimaru, founder of Asia Press, said it is likely a rumor that was manufactured by the state to bolster support for the party ahead of its Seventh Congress in May.

Preparations are taking place in the country ahead of the Congress that is to be held for the first time in more than three decades.

Ishimaru said the North is heightening control in the country in a run-up to the event, and through the circulation of rumors the state could be trying to "stir up fear" among the people.

North Korea could also be stepping up regulations for other reasons.

A recent survey of North Korea experts in the South indicated the stability of Kim's regime is lower than that of his father, Kim Jong Il, South Korean newspaper Donga Ilbo reported.

Nearly 60 percent of analysts surveyed said they believe support for Kim among North Korea's power elite was down and nearly 65 percent said they believe support among ordinary North Koreans for Kim was lower than for his father.

 

[Housecarl]

HC, do you hear any worries from the informed that ISIS/ISIL/IS actually might blow the Mosul Dam, or attempt to do so if Iraq troops move in on them?

I was wondering if that's why Iraq is saying "it's a tough fight" and more work to do, yada yada.

The uninformed unwashed (my crowd) certainly have done some speculating to that effect.

I've seen some reports with those concerns, along with the dam just falling apart on its own.

As to the Iraqi military and security forces, I've seen, and posted. articles that talk about the Iraqi government units not being up to the kind of fighting they're experiencing. A lot of those reports are coming from the Kurds who are holding the line that those Iraqi units are passing through. Reports are they're either not pressing their attacks or are faltering and running in the face of resistance and counter attacks.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/dipl...orth-korea-has-become-increasing-threat-china

‘North Korea has become an increasing threat to China’

Commentary in state run People’s Daily’s overseas edition also compares instability in Korean peninsula with Syria’s political turmoil

Mimi Lau
5mimi.lau@scmp.com
PUBLISHED : Thursday, 07 April, 2016, 3:09pm
UPDATED : Friday, 08 April, 2016, 12:14AM
Comments 8

North Korea has become an increasing threat to China, according to an online commentary by the state-run People’s Daily overseas edition, which compared the Korean peninsula’s instability with Syria’s political turmoil.

An online opinion piece by the Daily yesterday said it was time for North Korea to rethink its nuclear weapon strategy as it might eventually jeopardise Pyong*yang’s stability. The piece was later deleted.

It also said ties between both countries had worsened, especially since China’s Ministry of Commerce rolled out sanctions supporting the United Nation’s call to stop imports of coal, iron ore, gold, titanium and rare earths, and exports of a range of products, including jet fuel, to North Korea. These moves are likely to have an impact on Pyongyang within six months to a year.

China reaffirms its commitment to North Korea sanctions(

The UN sanctions aim to starve North Korea of funding for its nuclear and ballistic missile programmes after Pyongyang conducted a fourth nuclear test in January and launched a long-range rocket in February.

The opinion piece also cited recent comments by a North Korea think tank, which referred to China as “a vanity-driven nation bowing down to the US” at the cost of losing a precious friendship forged in blood.

The commentary said Pyongyang lacked the capability and determination to launch a war, while domestically it was using anti-US sentiment to unite its people.

“What seems to be the most dangerous and critical timing is often the least likely [time] for a war to break out,” the article said.

It criticised North Korea for failing to trust China and Russia to ensure its security and for instead placing its faith on security through nuclear weapons.

It also compared the Korean peninsula’s instability with Syria’s political unrest.

“Syria’s turmoil came about as the result of a population of only 20 million or so people,” it said. “Just imagine what it would be like for the Korean peninsula with [about] 80 million?

“With inadequate economic, military, technological and management capability, should there be any nuclear leaks, like those that occurred in Japan [at Fukushima] ... what would happen to northeastern China’s security?”

It warned that developing nuclear weapons would trigger a wave of international condemnation of the North Korean regime, not recognition.

Cui Zhiying, a Korean affairs expert at Shanghai’s Tongji University, said bilateral ties between China and North Korea would not deteriorate completely.

“North Korea still relies heavily on China via normal economic development despite UN sanctions and China will continue to uphold good neighbourly relations with North Korea,” Cui said.

 

[almost ready]

I've seen some reports with those concerns, along with the dam just falling apart on its own.

As to the Iraqi military and security forces, I've seen, and posted. articles that talk about the Iraqi government units not being up to the kind of fighting they're experiencing. A lot of those reports are coming from the Kurds who are holding the line that those Iraqi units are passing through. Reports are they're either not pressing their attacks or are faltering and running in the face of resistance and counter attacks.

Thank you for adding some background into the bigger picture. You are a master at saying much with few words.

Best,
AR

 

[Housecarl]

You're most welcome AR....


For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20160407000939

N. Korea defends its nuclear capability

Published : 2016-04-07 21:09
Updated : 2016-04-07 21:09

North Korea on Thursday reiterated its stance that its nuclear capability is the outcome of what it claims is nuclear blackmail from Washington, and threatened to launch a nuclear attack on the U.S. mainland.

The Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), Pyongyang's official news outlet, said the U.S.'s call for a "world without nuclear weapons" is a prelude to a nuclear war against the communist state.

"The 4th Nuclear Security Summit held in the U.S. was an extremely deceptive and provocative farce aimed to persist in its nuclear high-handed and arbitrary practices," the KCNA said.

The North claimed that during the nuclear security summit last week, the U.S. forced its allies into boosting the atmosphere of "sanctions" and pressure on Pyongyang by saying the communist state's nuclear threat is the greatest problem facing the international community.

"If the U.S. shows even the slightest sign of provoking a nuclear war of aggression, we will make a merciless nuclear strike at the U.S. mainland. The nuclear force of the DPRK is the one of justice for ending the U.S. nuclear crimes," the report said.

DPRK is the acronym of the North's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

During a meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in Washington last week, South Korean President Park Geun-hye warned North Korea against staging another provocation.

North Korea is under growing international pressure to drop its nuclear ambitions after it carried out its fourth nuclear test on Jan. 6 and a long-range rocket launch on Feb. 7.

The U.N. Security Council has imposed the toughest-ever sanctions on North Korea that call for, among other things, the mandatory inspection of all cargo going into and out of the North and a ban on the country's exports of coal and other mineral resources to cut off North Korea's access to hard currency. (Yonhap)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/vietnam-tells-china-shift-rig-stop-complicating-ties-115326800.html?nhp=1

Vietnam tells China to shift its rig and stop complicating ties

April 7, 2016

HANOI (Reuters) - Vietnam demanded China move a controversial oil rig on Thursday and abandon plans to start drilling in waters where jurisdiction is unclear, the latest sign of festering unease among the two communist neighbors.

The $1 billion rig, which was at the center of a fierce diplomatic stand-off between the countries in 2014, had moved into an area of the Gulf of Tonkin in the South China Sea about which Vietnam said the two countries were still "executing delineation discussions".

China calls the rig Haiyang Shiyou 981. Vietnam refers to it as Hai Duong 981.

"Vietnam resolutely opposes and demands China cancel its plan to drill and immediately remove the Hai Duong 981 oil rig out of this area," Foreign Ministry spokesman Le Hai Binh said in a statement on the government's news website.

China claims most of the resource-rich South China Sea amid rival claims by Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam.

China, Binh said, should take "no further unilateral actions that further complicate the situation, and make practical contributions to peace and stability".

Two years ago, China parked the rig for 10 weeks in waters Vietnam considers its exclusive economic zone, triggering their worst row in decades and an outcry among Vietnamese nationalists.

Many experts call the move a miscalculation by Beijing that played into the hands of the United States. Since the row, Vietnam has become closer to Washington than ever before.

Vietnam closely tracks the movement of the oil rig which has operated as far away as the Bay of Bengal and has been close to disputed waters several times since 2014.

It was the second occasion this year that Vietnam has protested against the rig's activity, both times coinciding with leadership changes in Hanoi.

Vietnam swore in a new prime minister on Thursday and a new president last week. Its previous complaint about the rig was in January, two-days before the start of its Communist Party's five-yearly congress.

Binh also criticized China's decision to start operating a lighthouse on one of its artificial islands in the Spratly archipelago, which he said violated Vietnam's sovereignty and was "illegal and worthless".

(Reporting by Martin Petty and Mai Nguyen)

 

[Housecarl]

Iraqi troops turn tail vs. ISIS — again
Started by Dennis Olsoný, Today 12:25 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?488965-Iraqi-troops-turn-tail-vs.-ISIS-—-again

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-04-07-13-30-37

Apr 7, 1:30 PM EDT

Siege tactics complicate fight for key IS-held Iraqi town

By SUSANNAH GEORGE
Associated Press

HIT, Iraq (AP) -- As they advanced on the Islamic State-held town of Hit, Iraqi counterterrorism troops had to decide how to press the attack. If they stormed in with armor and airstrikes, they risked heavy casualties and might allow the militants to flee.

Gen. Abdel Ghani al-Asadi, the commander of the elite troops, chose a different approach: Surround the strategic western town with a slow and methodical cordon, trapping the extremists inside.

It's a tactic that's been used elsewhere to claw back Iraqi territory that was seized by the Islamic State group in 2014.

While the decision may have been more time-consuming, allowing the militants in Hit to dig in, lay defenses and launch attacks that initially also trapped tens of thousands of civilians, Iraqi forces believe the approach is a key to making their territorial gains stick and reduce their casualties.

Six counterterrorism battalions pushed up from the west last weekend to cut off Hit's northern edge, zigzagging in the soft desert terrain and taking more than 12 hours to advance only a few kilometers (miles).

"We don't want them to be able to flee," al-Asadi said, referring to the IS fighters. "We want them to stay inside so we can finish them."

If the militants escaped, he said, they would probably return and infiltrate the town once his men had moved on to the next battle.

Hit, in Anbar province west of the capital of Baghdad, sits along an IS supply line that links Iraqi territory controlled by the extremist group with its base in Syria. Officials in the Iraqi military and the U.S.-led coalition fighting IS believe that by clearing the town, they can build on recent territorial gains in the vast province.

That would move them closer to two major goals: isolating the IS-held city of Fallujah, 40 miles (65 kilometers) west of Baghdad, and linking up government forces in the west and the north in preparation for an eventual push on Mosul, Iraq's second-largest city that also is held by the extremist group.

As Iraqi forces closed in on Hit, al-Asadi said he ordered the town's main bridge over the Euphrates River destroyed by a coalition airstrike to slow the flight of IS fighters. In the days that followed, dozens of boats IS used were also destroyed by coalition bombs, the Pentagon said.

In the initial stage of the operation last month, some IS militants sought to knit themselves further into the civilian fabric of the town. Fighters vanished from Hit's main streets, occupying abandoned houses or forcing their way into homes where civilians were still living, according to residents who evacuated.

"They began moving more and more into the narrow side streets and the civilian areas," one resident told The Associated Press, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to protect the safety of relatives still trapped in Hit.

Al-Asadi said his men were increasingly finding fighters from the Islamic State group posing as civilian refugees.

"One of the ways we can tell is you can see they shaved their beards very quickly," al-Asadi said, smiling. "They have cuts from the razor on their faces."

Because tens of thousands of civilians were still inside Hit when the operation began, only about 20 coalition airstrikes per week were launched to clear territory, Iraqi commanders said.

By contrast, coalition jets conducted 20 airstrikes in a single day when Iraqi forces retook the northern town of Sinjar last year - and more than 60 in the week it fell. But Sinjar was smaller than Hit, and almost all civilians had left.

The trickle of civilians from Hit turned into a flood on Monday as a column of Humvees carrying elite Iraqi forces began rolling through agricultural neighborhoods and then into residential blocks. Thousands of civilians filled Hit's northern main road, the only route left open.

A half-dozen Humvees escorted the initial wave of evacuating civilians, with elderly people in wheelchairs loaded onto the back of the vehicles. Troops shouted for children to stay within the tire tracks of the big vehicles, and farm animals were prodded into that safe path as well.

A day earlier, dozens of bombs that had been sown by militants along the road had been cleared by the troops.

While civilians were being loaded into trucks to be taken to a camp, one of the bombs exploded with a plume of orange smoke along the path they had just traversed. Commanders said it had been triggered prematurely and no one was hurt.

All the while, helicopter gunships circled above, firing into the town.

The evacuation further slowed the military operation, with dozens of vehicles and troops having to be pulled back from the front to control the crowd of civilians.

"They come toward our forces. They know that if they flee toward Daesh, they will be shot," said Brig. Gen. Sami Khathan al-Aradi, using an Arabic acronym for the Islamic State.

Al-Aradi admitted that the evacuation had brought military activity to a near halt at times, but he noted that "these are orders" from his fellow commanders.

"The streets are narrow. You can't move the civilians to the side because of all the roadside bombs," he said.

A 19-year-old named Athra, who asked that her last name not be used in order to protect relatives still in IS-held territory, said she understood why the Iraqi forces were moving slowly and deliberately around Hit and not allowing the militants to escape.

"They don't want them to just return after the fighting is over," said Athra, who originally was from Ramadi and left Hit with her family when clashes broke out in the streets around her home.

She explained that many Anbar residents believe the rise of IS in Anbar province was facilitated by the large number of al-Qaida sympathizers who moved back in or remained in towns and villages after U.S. forces withdrew in 2011 following the war.

"We don't want the same thing to happen again," she said.

---

Associated Press writer Khalid Mohammed in Hit contributed to this report.

 

[Possible Impact]

Romania Wants New 'Allied Fleet' in Black Sea
Including Ukraine, Georgia

21:47 07.04.2016(updated 22:07 07.04.2016)
http://sputniknews.com/military/20160407/1037661073/romania-black-sea-nato-initiative-analysis.html

© Photo: Ministry of National Defense of Romania

Romania is calling for the creation of a new, NATO-supported 'allied fleet'
in the Black Sea, including non-NATO members Ukraine and Georgia;
Defense Minister Mihnea Motoc told Romanian media that Bucharest would
be pushing the idea at NATO's summit in Warsaw in July.

What's behind the initiative, and how will Russia respond?
Sputnik investigates.

"Basically, the formula will be open to those countries along the Black
Sea which are not NATO allies, but partner countries, including Ukraine
and Georgia; of course it will also be open to some [NATO] allies that
are not Black Sea countries, but which have a regular or continuous
presence in the Black Sea, participating in exercises or port visits
– I have in mind here first and foremost the United States," Motoc said,
in an interview for Romanian news portal Hotnews.ro earlier this week.

Kiev and Tbilisi have already "given signals that they may be interested
in joining this unified platform," Motoc said.

At the same time, he suggested, somewhat unconvincingly, that the
initiative "is not directed against anyone, and does not apply to anyone
in particular, be it the Russian Federation or anyone else," but that
"certain developments, be it the illegal annexation of Crimea, instability
in eastern Ukraine," or the "military buildup" in the Black Sea,"
prompted the idea.

Moreover, Motoc noted, Romania has plans to modernize its fleet,
with the help of its international partners. Studying the Romanian
defense minister's comments, and the prospects for his proposals
actually being implemented by the North Atlantic Alliance, Russian
officials and defense analyst hinted that they would not be losing
much sleep over the initiative.

Speaking to independent Russian newspaper Svobodnaya Pressa,
Vyacheslav Tetekin, a member of the Russian Duma's Committee
on Defense, said as much, noting that "the alignment of forces in
the Black Sea will not change from the Romanian defense minister's
empty words."

This, Tetekin suggested, would remain the case "even if we assume
that several Black Sea countries will pool their scant naval forces under
a single operational command under the auspices of NATO."

For starters, the lawmaker noted, "the Georgian Navy ceased to exist
in August 2008. Even before that, it was virtually a non-entity, with a
few rusty minesweepers and patrol boats." At the same time, he added,
"Ukraine's Navy is in a very sorry state. They have only one frigate-class
warship, capable of limping its way into the Mediterranean. It cannot be
expected to perform any great feats."

© REUTERS/ Francois Lenoir
Trump Slams NATO Allies, Calls for Breakup of Military Alliance

"Romania's fleet is a bit more respectable – including about a half-dozen
frigates, missile boats and minesweepers. However, most of the ships
are out of date. Speaking about the Romanian armed forces in general,
one can paraphrase one German general, who put it like this: 'if they
are against us, we would need ten divisions to break them; if they were
our allies, we would need the same ten divisions to defend their army.'"

In any case, Tetekin noted, what's important to understand is "that
Romania has a great wealth of experience extorting money from its
strategic partners. While it was an ally of the Soviet Union, the country's
leaders strenuously pushed for assistance from their 'big brother' to
build socialism. Now, with even more pressure, they are asking their
new overseas patrons to give them more money for 'defense' against
their former patrons. And in order to avoid the impression that they
are asking only for themselves, they decided to drag Ukraine and Georgia
into it."

"I do not doubt that both Tbilisi and Kiev will accept this idea with great
enthusiasm, because the leadership of those countries too likes any and
all ideas that would give them a chance to draw even a little money from
Uncle Sam's pockets. Perhaps they hope that under this 'allied fleet'
idea, they might receive a few warships, or help in the construction
of military infrastructure."

"However," the lawmaker emphasized, "the Americans are practical
people; they understand very well that the transfer of warships to their
vassals will not raise the fighting capacity of these countries to any
significant extent, because Ukraine and Georgia would be unable
to maintain them in an acceptable state for very long."

© AP Photo/ Oded Balilty
Friends With Benefits: Turkish Navy Enters Ukraine Port as Part of Military Cooperation

Moreover, Washington already has a Black Sea ally – Turkey, "which
already has a pretty good navy. They have no interest in frittering away
their resources on Romania or Georgia; they are not fools to invest
money into such an obviously disastrous venture." For his part, Mikhail
Alexandrov, a senior expert at the Center for Military and Political
Studies at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations,
suggested that in addition to the financial dimension, there's also
the legal aspect to consider.

"NATO warships cannot stay in the Black Sea on a permanent basis,
in accordance with the Montreux Convention. They could fly a Romanian
flag; however, I doubt that the US or other naval powers would actually
agree to transfer ships for use by Romania."

Ultimately, Alexandrov suggested, "NATO has enough of its own
problems, and hardly needs to get involved in regional squabbles,"
such as Georgia's issues with Abkhazia. In any case, "NATO ships
already enter the Black Sea on a rotating basis. Therefore, it's likely
that this whole story is within the scope of information warfare
[against Russia]."
​

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/syria-rebels-seize-main-supply-route-turkey-155750242.html

Syria rebels seize main IS supply route with Turkey

AFP
April 7, 2016

Beirut (AFP) - Syrian rebels seized control Thursday of the Islamic State group's main supply route to Turkey, a monitor said.

"Rebel factions and Islamists took control of the northeast of Al-Rai," a town occupied by IS on the border between Syria and Turkey, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said.

"This is the main and one of the last crossing points with Turkey."

Observatory director Rami Abdel Rahman told AFP that rebels entered Al-Rai on Thursday following two days of clashes.

According to Abdel Rahman, the jihadists still control a crossing point further east, in the town of Halwaniyeh, but "Al-Rai was where they mainly smuggled in jihadists, whereas Halwaniyeh is reserved for top commanders".

IS has suffered a string of setbacks in recent months, including the loss of the ancient city of Palmyra, east of Damascus, to pro-regime forces in March.

A ceasefire that came into effect on February 27 has drastically reduced violence across Syria, but areas controlled by IS, the Al-Qaeda affiliated Al-Nusra front, and other jihadist groups were exempt from the truce.

Abdel Rahman said that IS had lost control of at least 18 villages in the northern province of Aleppo in recent days.

Since Syria's conflict erupted in March 2011, thousands of people have gone missing -- many of them arbitrarily arrested by armed forces -- across the country.

More than 270,000 people have been killed and millions have fled their homes.

UN-backed peace talks to bring an end to the conflict are set to resume next week in Geneva.

View Comments (25)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/islamic-state-grows-libya-local-militias-fight-back-175427391.html?nhp=1

Islamic State grows in Libya, but local militias fight back

LOLITA C. BALDOR
April 7, 2016

WASHINGTON (AP) — The number of Islamic State militants in Libya has doubled in the last year or so to as many as 6,000 fighters, with aspirations to conduct attacks against the U.S. and other nations in the West, the top U.S. commander for Africa said Thursday.

Army Gen. David Rodriguez, head of U.S. Africa Command, said that local Libya militias have had some success in trying to stop the Islamic State from growing in Benghazi and are battling the group in Sabratha. But he said that decisions to provide more military assistance to the Libyans await a working national government.

The latest numbers for IS in Libya make it the largest Islamic State branch of eight that the militant group operates outside Iraq and Syria, according to U.S. defense officials. The officials were not authorized to provide details of the group and spoke only on condition of anonymity.

The U.S. has conducted two airstrikes in Libya in recent months targeting Islamic State fighters and leaders, but Rodriguez said that those are limited to militants that pose an "imminent" threat to U.S. interests. He said it's possible the U.S. could do more as the government there takes shape.

The U.S. and its allies are hoping that a U.N.-brokered unity government will be able to bring the warring factions together and end the chaos there, which has helped fuel the growth of the Islamic State. The U.S. and European allies would like the new government to eventually work with them against IS.

The U.S., France and other European nations have sent special operations forces to work with Libyan officials and help the militias fight. In February, American airstrikes hit an Islamic State training camp in rural Libya near the Tunisian border, killing more than 40 militants. And last November, a U.S. airstrike killed top Islamic State leader Abu Nabil in Libya. He was a longtime al-Qaida operative and the senior Islamic State leader in Libya.

Rodriguez said, however, that it will be a challenge for the Islamic State to become as big a threat as it is in Iraq and Syria because of resistance from local Libyan fighters and the population, which is wary of outside groups.

He said the militias in Libya have fought Islamic State militants in Benghazi and Derna with some success, and fought hard in Sabratha with more limited gains. Efforts to battle the group in Sirte have not worked as well, he said. Their biggest problem, he said, is that often the militias fight among themselves.

"It's uneven and it's not consistent across the board," Rodriguez told reporters at a Pentagon briefing. "We'll have to see how the situation develops, but they are contesting the growth of ISIS in several areas across Libya, not all of it."

Asked if waiting for the new government to form will allow the Islamic State more time to gather momentum, Rodriguez downplayed the risk.

"It's going to be a challenge for them to get to that point because of the Libyan population, people and militias that are out there," he said. "It could be a bigger fight and everything. But again, we're watching that very carefully and taking action as we see those threats develop."

___

Associated Press writer Deb Riechmann contributed to this report.

View Comments (3)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/07/asia/secular-bangladeshi-writer-murdered/

Secular Bangladeshi writer murdered in the street

By Sugam Pokharel, Ivan Watson, and Yuli Yang, CNN
Updated 5:37 AM ET, Thu April 7, 2016

New Delhi (CNN) — Machete-wielding attackers struck in the capital of Bangladesh Wednesday night, killing 26-year-old secular writer Nazimuddin Samad.

Samad, described by Bangladesh police as a masters student at Jagannath University, is the sixth secularist writer or publisher to have been murdered in Dhaka in the last 16 months. Police called the murder a pre-planned attack.

"He was on his way back home from his evening classes when he was circled by a group of three to four people," Senior Assistant Police Commissioner Nurul Amin of the Dhaka Police, told CNN.

"First the attackers hacked Samad with machetes, then shot him."

Police say the attackers then fled the scene on motorcycle. No arrests have yet been made.

Bloody repression

The murder is certain to add to fears among intellectuals and writers who have dared to challenge religious thought in Bangladesh, a majority Muslim country with a sizable Hindu religious minority.

The constitution in Bangladesh defines Islam as the state religion. But it also includes a clause promising to defend the "principle of secularism."

Imran Sarker, who leads a blogging and online activist network in Bangladesh, described Samad as a "very active secular activist."

"He was very vocal on issues of religious fundamentalism, war crimes, minority issues, corruption and injustice against women," Sarker told CNN.

"He used to regularly post notes on Facebook expressing his views."

Murdered blogger's stepdaughter: Dad taught me to be informed, bold, unafraid

Tributes

Friends and supporters took to social media to express their grief, and tributes for, the young writer.

"Rest in Power, Nazimuddin Samad," one Facebook post said. "There is no end to this brutality."


On Twitter, the U.N. Special Rapporteur Karima Bennoune said that extremism "is a human rights issue."



Mukto Mona, an English- and Bangladeshi-language website which frequently challenges and criticizes religious beliefs, added its voice to the tributes.

"Nazimuddin was a courageous freethinker; he was vocal in his support for a secular and humane Bangladesh," the post reads.

The 'sin' that could get you killed in Bangladesh

Victim had 'gone into hiding'

"This is terribly shocking," said Gulam Rabbi Chowdhury, a childhood friend and former high school classmate of Samad. Chowdhury said Samad went into hiding for several months last year because he feared for his life.

Mukto Mona posted excerpts of an exchange between a writer who expressed concern for Samad's safety.

"I am also scared... scared of getting killed," Samad responded in writing, according to a post published on Mukto Mona.

"But what else can I do? It's better to die rather than living by keeping my head down."

Mukto Mona's founder, a US-based Bangladeshi writer named Avijit Roy, was murdered by machete wielding attackers outside an annual book fair in Dhaka in February 2015.

Press freedoms groups have been sounding the alarm about the campaign of violence against writers in Bangladesh.

"Bangladesh has been ravaged by a spate of bloody attacks on bloggers and other writers who espouse secular viewpoints," said Karin Deutsch Karlekar, director of Freedom of Expression Programs at PEN America.

The group urged the US government and other countries to provide shelter to writers at risk of being attacked.

Sugam Pokharel reported from Delhi, India. Ivan Watson and Yuli Yang reported from Hong Kong.

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/student-activist-hacked-death-bangladesh-054015376.html?nhp=1

Student opponent of radical Islam slain on Bangladesh street

April 7, 2016

NEW DELHI (AP) — Three motorcycle-riding assailants hacked and shot to death a student opponent of radical Islam as he was walking with a friend along a street in Bangladesh's capital, police said Thursday.

The killing on Wednesday night follows a string of similar attacks last year, when at least five secular bloggers and publishers were killed, allegedly by radical Islamists.

Police suspect 28-year-old Nazimuddin Samad was targeted for his outspoken atheism in the Muslim-majority country and for supporting a 2013 movement to demand capital punishment for war crimes involving the independence war against Pakistan in 1971, according to Dhaka Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Nurul Amin.

No group immediately claimed responsibility.

The assailants, who had been riding a single motorcycle, escaped after the assault while shouting, "Allahu Akbar," or "Allah is great."

Fellow students and friends of Samad rallied at the state-run Jagannath University, where Samad was studying law and had attended class the evening of the attack.

"This is very sad for us. We are trying whatever we can do to support the family during such difficult time," university proctor Nur Mohammad said.

People also flooded Samad's Facebook page with messages to their late friend. "Friend, please pardon us. You were, you are, you will be (with us)," wrote one friend called Rahat Chowdhury.

Many of Samad's posts criticized radical Islam and promoted secularism. A supporter of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's secular Awami League party, Samad also took part in the movement that successfully pushed for prosecutors to have more scope for going after suspected war criminals.

Hasina's government has been cracking down on radical Islamist groups, which it blames for the deadly attacks last year on secular bloggers, minority Shiites, Christians and two foreigners. It accuses the opposition of supporting religious radicals in seeking to retaliate against the government for prosecuting suspected war crimes.

Some of the attacks were claimed by the Islamic State group, but the government dismisses those claims and says the Sunni extremist group has no presence in the country.

David Saperstein, U.S. ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom, tweeted: "Horrified by murder of student activist in #Bangladesh, our thoughts and prayers with Nazimuddin Samad's family."

Rep. Joe Crowley, a Democratic lawmaker and chair of U.S. congressional Bangladesh Caucus, said: "The disturbing pattern of violent attacks on bloggers in Bangladesh is extremely concerning. These gruesome crimes have had a chilling effect on freedom of religious expression and speech."

Two international groups promoting freedom of expression said the ongoing attacks showed Hasina's government was failing to protect people.

"We urge the Bangladeshi police and other authorities to do everything in their power to investigate and prosecute this vicious attack on free speech and thought, and halt this terrible pattern of murders," said Karin Deutsch Karlekar of PEN America, a group of 4,400 U.S. writers.

She also called on the U.S. and other countries to provide refuge to writers and secularists being targeted in Bangladesh. Samad's killing "is a cruel illustration of the costs of inaction," she said.

The Center for Inquiry also expressed concern. The center's public policy director, Michael De Dora, said the Bangladeshi government "must do much more to protect its own people from marauding Islamist killers."

"These murders keep happening because they are allowed to happen," Dora said.

View Comments (96)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2016/04/07/the-awakening-of-xis-chinese-dream/#more-50148

The awakening of Xi’s Chinese Dream

7 April 2016
Author: Shaheli Das, Jawaharlal Nehru University
Comments 3

The ‘China Dream’, a signature slogan of President Xi Jinping, has drawn worldwide attention. At a time when the growing assertiveness of China is being linked to the revival of the idea of Sino-centrism, the resurgence of a once ‘humiliated’ nation is being viewed by some countries with much apprehension. But what exactly is Xi’s vision of the ‘China Dream’?

The Chinese Dream, according to President Xi, refers to the collective aspiration of ‘the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation’ as well as the personal dreams of the individual citizens of China to attain productive, healthy and happy lives. Xi has emphasised that the ‘China Dream’ is a dream of the Chinese people that can only be attained through ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics’.

Internationally, the Chinese Dream can be viewed as a continuation of the country’s peaceful development strategy. It is a key component of China’s soft power campaign, which seeks to counter the theory that China is a threat to regional peace and security and promote instead a benign and positive image of the country. To quote President Xi: ‘We Chinese love peace. No matter how much stronger it may become, China will never seek hegemony or expansion. It will never inflict its past suffering on any other nation.’

Over the years, China has moved away from Deng Xiaoping’s strategy of ‘lie low, bide your time’ and has adopted an assertive foreign policy approach. The Chinese Dream discourse has been designed to institute a robust foundation for the development of a new overarching diplomatic strategy. The goal is to not only promote a renewal of the nation, but also enhance China’s international appeal to the rest of the world and, in turn, its stature in world politics.

A key step towards this end is fostering China’s relationships with other developing countries, particularly in Latin America and Africa. President Xi’s visits to South Africa, Tanzania and the Republic of Congo as part of his first overseas trip emphasised the importance of these countries in China’s foreign policy agenda. Strengthening relations with Latin American and African countries would benefit China in terms of securing energy resources, which is vital to sustaining its economic boom.

The Chinese leadership also seeks to promote a new type of major power relations with the United States ostensibly based on the principles of non-confrontation, mutual respect and mutual benefit. And China has broadened its cooperation with the other major global players, including the European Union, and has deepened its strategic trust with Russia.

President Xi has proclaimed China’s commitment to the idea of multilateralism and has stressed the importance of key multilateral bodies such as the UN. China has taken keen interest in fostering synergy between the BRICS nations — Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa — resulting in the establishment of a BRICS Development Bank. This is part of a broader drive towards a new and a more ‘equitable’ international and political order.

But how do those outside China view Xi’s Chinese Dream?

The Chinese Dream discourse has been a subject of much speculation in the West. It is commonly viewed as a nationalist doctrine that is likely to hold perilous implications for international security in the future. Western nations are apprehensive about the more assertive and expansionist foreign policy approach seemingly implied by the Chinese Dream, particularly as it relates to China’s increasing military assertiveness in the South and East China Seas.

Critics also suggest that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to realise the Chinese Dream. This is both due to China’s economic slowdown and, more importantly, the reality that it is unlikely that ‘each Chinese person’ will dream the same dream, and that that dream will be consistent with that of the Chinese Communist Party. The 2014 pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong demonstrated the fragile foundation of a unified Chinese dream. In mainland China, the Chinese leadership is also confronted by widespread public resentment against instances of injustice and corruption.

Xi’s ‘China Dream’ is ultimately founded on his determination to both preserve the dominance of the Communist Party and persuade Chinese citizens to look beyond the immediate challenges to an image of Chinese national rejuvenation. How successful this dream will be, both at home and abroad, remains to be seen.

Shaheli Das is a PhD candidate at the Centre for East Asian Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion...president-erdogan-gambles-loses/#.Vwbt1KT5PIW

Commentary / World

Turkey’s President Erdogan gambles and loses

by Daniel Pipes
Apr 6, 2016

WASHINGTON – The Republic of Turkey, long a democratizing Muslim country solidly in the Western camp, now finds itself internally racked and at the center of two external crises, the civil war in next-door Syria and the illegal immigration that is changing European politics. The prospects for Turkey and its neighbors are worrisome, if not ominous.

The key development was the coming to power of Recep Tayyip Erdogan in 2002, when a fluke election outcome gave him total control of the government, which he then brilliantly parlayed into a personal dominion. After years of restraint and modesty, his real personality — grandiloquent, Islamist and aggressive — came out. Now, he seeks to rule as a despot, an ambition that causes his country incessant, avoidable problems.

Initially, Erdogan’s disciplined approach to finance permitted the Turkish economy to achieve China-like economic growth and won him increasing electoral support while making Ankara a new player in regional affairs. But then conspiracy theories, corruption, short-sightedness and incompetence cut into the growth, making Turkey economically vulnerable.

Initially, Erdogan took unprecedented steps to resolve his country’s Kurdish problem, acknowledging that this ethnic minority making up roughly 20 percent of the country’s population has its own culture and allowing it to express itself in its own language. But then, for electoral reasons, he abruptly reversed himself in 2015, resulting in an evermore determined and violent Kurdish insurgency, to the point that civil war has become a real prospect.

Initially, Erdogan accepted the traditional autonomy of the major institutions in Turkish life — law courts, the military, the press, banks, schools. No longer; now he seeks to control everything. Take the case of two prominent journalists, Can Dundar and Erdem Gul: because their newspaper, Cumhuriyet, exposed the Turkish government’s clandestine support for the Islamic State group, Erdogan had them imprisoned on the surreal charges of espionage and terrorism. Worse, when the Constitutional Court (Turkey’s highest) reversed this sentence, Erdogan accused the court of ruling “against the country and its people” and indicated he would ignore its decision.

Initially, Erdogan maintained cautious and correct relations with Moscow, benefiting economically and using Russia as a balance against the United States. But since the reckless Turkish shoot-down of a Russian warplane last November, followed by a defiant lack of apology, the little bully (Erdogan) has more than met his match with the big bully (Vladimir Putin) and Turkey is paying the price. French President Francois Hollande has publicly warned of “a risk of war” between Turkey and Russia.

Initially, Erdogan’s accommodating policies translated into a calming of domestic politics; now, his bellicosity has led to a string of minor and major acts of violence, to the point that Ankara suffers from more political violence than Baghdad, Beirut, Kabul or Mogadishu.

Initially, Turkey became a plausible candidate for membership in the European Union thanks to Erdogan’s muted behavior. Now, his slide toward despotism and Islamism means the Europeans go merely through the motions of pretending to negotiate with Ankara, while counting on the Republic of Cyprus to blackball its application; as Turkish journalist Burak Bekdil notes, “modern Turkey has never been this galactically distant from the core values enshrined by the European civilization and its institutions.”

In the early months of the Syrian uprising, Erdogan offered sage advice to the dictator in Damascus, Bashar Assad, about relaxing his grip and allowing political participation. Things have gone so awry that — as Dundar and Gul reported — Erdogan now supports IS, the most fanatical and Islamist organization of today, and perhaps ever. That support has taken many forms: permitting foreigners to cross Turkey to reach Syria, allowing recruitment in Turkey, providing medical care, and provisioning money and arms. Despite this, IS, fearful of betrayal by Ankara, threatens and attacks Turks.

Erdogan’s error of backing IS and other Sunni Islamist organizations in Syria has hurt him in another way, leading to a massive influx of Syrian refugees to Turkey, where, increasingly unwelcome by the indigenous population, they cause new social and economic strains.

Which brings us to Erdogan’s latest gambit. The many Syrian refugees wanting to go on to northwestern Europe provide him with a handy mechanism to blackmail the European Union: pay me huge amounts of money (€6 billion at latest count) and permit 80 million Turks to travel visa-free to your countries, or I will export more Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans, Somalis, et al. to you.

So far, the ploy has worked. Led by Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel, the Europeans are succumbing to Erdogan’s demands. But this may well be a Pyrrhic victory, hurting Erdogan’s long-term interests. In the first place, forcing Europeans to pretend they are not being blackmailed and to welcome Turkey with clenched teeth, creates a foul mood, further reducing, if not killing off, Turkish chances for membership.

Second, Erdogan’s game has prompted a profound and probably lasting shift in mood in Europe against accepting more immigrants from the Middle East — including Turks — as demonstrated by the poor showing of Merkel’s party in elections last month.

This is just the start. In combination, these errors by Erdogan point to more crises ahead. Gokhan Bacik, a professor at Ipek University in Ankara, notes that “Turkey is facing a multifaceted catastrophe,” the scale of which “is beyond Turkey’s capacity for digestion.” If Iran is today the Middle East’s greatest danger, Turkey is tomorrow’s.

Daniel Pipes is president of the Middle East Forum. © 2016 by Daniel Pipes

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/e...-eu-may-not-survive-grim-challenges-1.2600874

Eamonn McCann: Undemocratic EU may not survive grim challenges

Greek crisis reflects growing notion of every country for itself which undermines union

about 24 hours ago
Comments 38

David Cameron says that if the referendum on British membership of the European Union returns a majority for leaving, it would take two years to negotiate the terms of a new relationship. Others argue that the process could take 10 years.

If the 10-year estimate is right, the assumption that there will be an EU to leave may turn out to be ill-founded. The union is facing a series of challenges coming together in grim coordination.

Last Saturday, WikiLeaks published the minutes of a meeting on March 19th at which two leading officials of the International Monetary Fund discussed how to deal with the Greek debt crisis. It has been popularly assumed that this crisis had come to an end last July when the Syriza government capitulated to the EU and accepted an austerity package more severe than measures rejected by a substantial majority of the Greek people in a referendum just a week previously.

The government of Alexis Tsipras was humiliated, the result of the referendum tossed away like a used tissue and the Greek people told to tighten their belts another notch. Who could ask for anything more? The IMF, as it happens.

The officials involved in the March meeting were Paul Thomsen, head of the IMF’s European section, and the fund’s “mission chief for Greece”, Delia Velkouleskou. The meeting concerned the possibility of the Greek difficulty escalating into another full-blown crisis. Fresh austerity measures were needed, the two officials agreed – specifically, raising taxes, cutting pensions and reducing working conditions.

Thomsen complained that the Greeks “are not even getting close . . . to accepting our views”. Velkouleskou suggested that the Tsipras administration might climb down and swallow the bitter medicine “if they get pressured enough”.

As to whether the Greek people would placidly yield to pressure in the form of yet another forced reduction in their living standards, we may find out soon enough.

The Greek crisis reflects a broad rumbling beneath the surface. The notion of every country for itself is becoming the new common sense, in direct contradiction of the intended basis of the EU.

Crude nationalism is on the rise. In Greece, the anti-EU, anti-migrant, anti-Semitic Golden Dawn is taking easy advantage. Campaigning under a flag with a symbol resembling a swastika , the neo-fascist group recorded 500,000 votes in last September’s general election, 7 per cent of the poll, returning 18 MPs. Five years ago it was stuck on half a per cent, with no representation in parliament.

Oppression
More than 500,000 migrants arrived in Greece last year. In the first three months of this year, another 150,000 made landfall. The EU plan to deport those who haven’t established or claimed asylum and to replace them on a one-for-one basis with “genuine” refugees began to be implemented this week.
The numbers affected so far have been small. No violent resistance has been reported. It’s hard to see this continuing.

Huge numbers fleeing violence, poverty and oppression are massed at the borders of the union, fenced out with nowhere to go. They will keep coming, unceasing and uncontainable. They cannot be expected to huddle in camps dependent on frugal charity without complaint. We may all hope for a resolution without tear gas and worse. But only a cock-eyed optimist could be confident that this is how it will be.

The difficulty in handling debt problems and the needs of migrants is compounded by the thoroughly undemocratic nature of the EU. In the Guardian on Tuesday, former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis recalled his attempts last year to find common cause with EU colleagues.

After he made a plea for an easing of the terms of the bailout, explaining that this was the devout wish of the Greek people as expressed in the recent election, German finance minister Wolfgang Schauble made a reply which should send shivers up the spine of every democrat: “‘Elections cannot be allowed to change the economic programme of a member state.’”

Discontent
Another finance minister consoled him: “Yanis, you must understand that no country can be sovereign today, especially not a small and bankrupt one like your own.” (The late Brian Lenihan appears to have been given the same message.)
Varoufakis comments: “The true meaning is that sovereignty is passé unless you are the United States or China or maybe Putin’s Russia. Moreover, the Eurogroup, where most of Europe’s important economic decisions are taken, is a body which doesn’t even exist in European law, that keeps no minutes of its procedures and insists its deliberations are confidential – that is, not to be shared with the citizens of Europe. ”

There is no democratic redress for any of the problems afflicting the union. Discontent will either be bottled up or will erupt on to the streets.

The EU may not survive.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/07/middleeast/syria-war/

ISIS captures hundreds of Syrian cement factory workers, report says

By Greg Botelho and Mohammed Tawfeeq, CNN
Updated 5:08 PM ET, Thu April 7, 2016

(CNN) — ISIS-affiliated militants captured more than 300 workers and contractors at a cement factory in Syria, state news reported Thursday.

Al-Badiyeh Cement Co. said the militants were holding the workers and contractors from the plant near Damascus, according to the state-run Syrian Arab News Agency, citing a source in Syria's Ministry of Industry.

The company had not been in contact with staff as of late Thursday afternoon.

Local official Nadim Kreizan told SANA that witnesses saw about 125 "abducted workers" being put on buses headed toward areas more firmly under ISIS control.

Ramdi Abdulrahman, head of the London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, told CNN that he believes 150 to 250 factory employees were missing.

The factory is in Al-Dhmeir, a town 48 kilometers (about 30 miles) northeast of Damascus, the Syrian capital and the base of President Bashar al-Assad's government.

isis used families as human shields damon_00011201

Envoy: Peace talks to resume next week

Civilians have been caught in the middle of Syria's 5-year-long civil war. ISIS has been accused of committing atrocities such as systematic rapes, killings and abductions and using the Syrian people as human shields.

The conflict has left more than 250,000 people dead, more 1 million injured and more than 11 million displaced in and outside the country, according to the United Nations.

Related Video: ISIS used families as human shields 02:42

Key parties in the fighting are slated to take part in resumed peace talks next week in Geneva, Switzerland, said Staffan de Mistura, the U.N. envoy to Syria. (ISIS and al Qaeda-affiliated al Nusra Front are not part of the talks.)

Talking to reporters Thursday, de Mistura said negotiations should begin as soon as Monday. Syrian government officials may not arrive in Geneva until April 14 or 15 after parliamentary elections -- though the U.N. envoy downplayed the significance of their absence, noting that these "proximity talks" don't involve all players sitting face to face in the same room.

De Mistura spoke of pushing toward a "political transition" in Syria, a change Western governments and Syrian rebels have championed.

But Assad has steadfastly refused to step down as President though he's opened the door to having opposition figures in the government.

CNN's Nic Robertson contributed to this report.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.voanews.com/content/regi...al-point-for-kerry-bahrain-visit/3273304.html

News / Middle East

US, Gulf to ‘Push Back' Against Iran

Pamela Dockins
Last updated on: April 07, 2016 5:15 PM
Comments 2

MANAMA, BAHRAIN — The U.S. and Gulf allies have a shared concern about "Iran's destabilizing actions in the region," said Secretary of State John Kerry on Thursday, following talks with Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) ministers.

"We will continue to push back" against such provocations, said Kerry, during an appearance with Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir.

He commented following a series of talks on regional security issues with Bahraini and GCC officials.

Jubeir, speaking on behalf of the six-state GCC, said that if Iran wanted normal relations with the regional body, it would have to change its policies.

Iranian missiles, proxy fighters

Since September, military ships have intercepted four vessels containing weapons that were believed to have come from Iran. All were believed intended for Houthi rebels in Yemen.

The most recent incident took place in late March. The U.S. Navy said it seized AK-47 rifles, rocket-propelled grenade launchers and machine guns from a dhow off the coast of Oman.

Also, Tehran has repeatedly tested ballistic missiles. U.S. officials say the tests do not violate the nuclear agreement, but are a U.N. Security Council resolution violation.

Earlier Thursday, Bahrain's foreign minister said Iran needs to change its foreign policy in the region and stop weapons shipments, training "terrorists" and financing and supporting "proxies."

Khalid bin Ahmed Al Khalifa said Tehran needed to devote as much effort to its neighbors as it did to securing the nuclear agreement with the United States and five other world powers.

Gulf leaders had begun raising concerns about Iran's destabilizing activity in the region before the deal was implemented in January. It is an issue the Obama administration has been addressing with Gulf leaders since a 2015 summit at Camp David.

"The fact of the matter is that, notwithstanding our reassuring rhetoric, U.S. actions have not tempered Iranian behavior in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain or Saudi Arabia," said Adam Ereli, a former U.S. Ambassador to Bahrain.

"Unless and until our Arab Gulf allies see the U.S. match words with deeds, they will remain appropriately skeptical," he added.

U.S. expands aid to Yemen

Kerry also announced new aid for Yemen, where a U.S.-backed Saudi-led coalition has been leading airstrikes against Houthi rebels.

He said the U.S. Food for Peace Program would provide $139 million in new funding this year to assist with humanitarian efforts.

Bahrain's rights record questioned

Bahrain's human rights record was a focal point during Kerry's appearance with Al Khalifa.

He was asked about the case involving Zainab al-Khawaja, a political activist who was detained with her young son last month.

Al Khalifa said the woman chose to keep her son with her in detention.

He also said she would be released "pending her case in the court."

Without specifically addressing the case, Kerry said Bahrain had made progress in some areas, but that more work remained.

Regional conflict discussed

The main goal of Kerry's visit to Bahrain is to lay the groundwork for President Barack Obama's attendance at the April 21 GCC summit in Saudi Arabia.

Kerry and Gulf ministers also discussed the status of the cessation of hostilities and political talks in Syria, as well as efforts to combat Islamic State militants.

Kerry visits U.S. Navy base

Kerry also visited the U.S. Navy base in Bahrain that is the headquarters for both the Fifth Fleet and a multinational force that deals with maritime security and combats piracy.

"The core of the focus is the destruction of Daesh, ISIL," said Kerry to military personnel at the base, referring to Islamic State.

"You are all central to our ability to do this," he added.

Bahrain is the first stop of a weeklong trip for Kerry. Later, he travels to Hiroshima, Japan, where he will attend a G7 ministerial meeting and visit a World War II memorial.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-afghanistan-army-nato-idUSKCN0X42VP

World | Fri Apr 8, 2016 5:46am EDT
Related: World, Afghanistan

For NATO trainers, race against time to prepare Afghan troops to go it alone

SORAB, Afghanistan | By James Mackenzie

Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Chung, leading a team of U.S. advisers in Helmand province to help train the Afghan army's embattled 215th Corps, knows he does not have much time.

If Washington sticks to its schedule for withdrawing troops, by the time his tour ends in November, the NATO training mission in Afghanistan will be nearing its end, despite local forces struggling to fight the Taliban insurgency alone.

"There is still much work to do," said Chung, a veteran of several Afghan tours, speaking at Sorab base, a dusty expanse of blast walls and wire fences in Helmand.

"You have to adjust your expectations," he told Reuters during a recent visit to the base in the southern province, where Taliban militants, bent on overthrowing the government and driving out foreign forces, made major gains in recent months.

Corruption and issues like irregular leave due to heavy fighting and pay have undermined efficiency and hurt morale among local troops.

He has seen progress since arriving in February but remains realistic: "We understand we're not going to be able to fix all that."

As things stand, U.S. forces in Afghanistan are due to be nearly halved to 5,500 from the current level of 9,800 by the start of 2017. At that level, U.S. officials say the training mission would not be able to continue.

But the timetable is coming under scrutiny, as the new U.S. commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan conducts a review of security before making recommendations to Washington some time in June.

General John Nicholson recently told Reuters that heavy fighting and casualties in 2015 had meant the training mission was behind schedule.

NATO commanders say big strides have been made by fledgling Afghan security forces, built virtually from scratch since the Taliban was toppled from power in 2001.

But the sharp escalation in casualties and territorial losses in 2015, the first year Afghan forces fought without combat support from NATO, has underlined the risks involved in having only 5,500 U.S. soldiers in the country.

Afghan officials say forces lack vital resources including close air support, which the small local air force cannot yet provide at anything like the levels NATO could, as well as expertise in areas like maintenance and logistics.

"Those capabilities are still under development and there is a lot more work needed," Acting Defence Minister Masoom Stanekzai said on a recent visit to the Afghan 215th Corps headquarters at Sorab. "We need international assistance."


FROM DEFENSE TO OFFENsE

One of the biggest challenges Chung said he faced was trying to change the mindset of Afghan soldiers, as NATO pushes them to be more offensive in operations against the Taliban.

"They'd go out to a certain area, and the first thing they'd do is ... build a checkpoint. From that point on, they'd become very stationary," he said, describing how local forces tended to operate.

Chung and his team are among around 500 U.S. troops dispatched to bolster 215th Corps, a reflection of international alarm at how Helmand security had deteriorated early in 2016.

The training, mainly by Afghan officers backed up by U.S. mentors, covers everything from battle tactics to driving, vehicle maintenance, equipment care and bomb disposal.

"At some point, there's going to be an end-date on this," Chung said. "We're here to help them build something that they can sustain and manage."

But U.S. officials acknowledge that the task has been complicated by problems including corruption among some officers that undermined confidence and morale.

"If you don't know someone higher up in the army, all your benefits go to soldiers who know army officials," said Darweza Khan, a 215th Corps soldier serving in Gereshk district.

A spokesman for the "Resolute Support" training mission said earlier this year that several senior officers in the 215th Corps had been replaced for graft that led to soldiers not being adequately looked after and supplies and equipment being stolen.


"MORE TIME WOULD BE GREAT"

Nicholson has declined to comment on troop levels as he prepares his review, but U.S. military spokesman Brigadier General Charles Cleveland said asking for more flexibility, including in use of air power, was among options he was considering.

That would be welcome by the government, which has struggled to contain the insurgency since NATO formally ended combat operations at the end of 2014, leaving only a fraction of an international force that peaked at more than 130,000.

Whether there is appetite for more delays in reducing U.S. forces remains to be seen, particularly in election year.

If the current plan remains, U.S. focus will switch to counterterrorism operations against Islamic State, al Qaeda and other groups, with little capacity for training and advising.

Foreign officers involved in the program remain realistic, given that time is running short.

"This is not an overnight fix," said British Major General Paul Nanson, commandant of the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, which has worked closely with the Afghan army's officer training school near Kabul on building a new generation of army leaders.

"This is a generational change. We've now committed to seeing it through 2016 which is good news. If we haven't got more time, we've got to do the best we can with the time available."


(Additional reporting by Mohammad Stanekzai in Lashkar Gah; Editing by Mike Collett-White)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-insight-idUSKCN0X50O0

World | Fri Apr 8, 2016 5:53am EDT
Related: World, Russia, Syria

Syria's Assad shows no willingess to compromise

CAIRO | By Samia Nakhoul

CAIRO (Reuters)- - As the Syria peace talks resume next week, President Bashar al-Assad, backed militarily by Iran and Russia, shows no willingness to compromise, much less step aside to allow a transition Western powers claim is the solution to the conflict.

Threatened by rebel advances last year, Assad is now pumped up with confidence after Russian air strikes reversed the tide and enabled his army to recover lost ground from Sunni insurgents as well as the jihadis of Islamic State.

While Syria experts doubt he can recapture the whole country without an unlikely full-scale ground intervention by Russia and Iran, they also doubt President Vladimir Putin will force him out - unless there is a clear path to stability, which could take years.

Instead, Russia’s dramatic military intervention last September -- after five years of inconclusive fighting between Assad and fragmented rebel groups mostly from Syria’s Sunni majority -- has tilted the balance of power in his favour and given him the upper hand at the talks in Geneva.

The main target of the Russian air force bombardment was mainstream and Islamist forces that launched an offensive last summer. Only recently have Russia and Syrian forces taken the fight to Islamic State, notably by recapturing Palmyra, the Graeco-Roman city the jihadis overran last year.

The Russian campaign, backed by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and Shi’ite militia such as Lebanon’s Hezbollah, has for now outmatched the rebels, including the al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front and units supported by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and the United States.

REBELS LOSE MOMENTUM

Dealing with those groups rather than Islamic State seemed the main aim of Moscow's intervention, analysts say.

"The Russian intervention fundamentally reshaped the Syrian conflict," says Kheder Khaddour from the Carnegie Middle East Center. "The momentum of the rebels does not exist any more."

Putin, diplomats say, weakened the opposition to coax it into accepting a settlement on Russian and Syrian terms. That does not mean the "transitional authority" sought by the U.S. and its allies, but a government expanded to include elements of the opposition, with Assad at its head for the immediate future.

Russia still wants Assad to lead the transition to the elections, while the opposition and its regional allies, including the United States and Europe, insist he should step down. So far no compromises are in sight.

"We need things to advance in the coming weeks. If the political process is just about putting a few opposition people in nominal cabinet posts then this isn't going to go very far," said a European diplomat close to the talks..

"If there isn't a political transition the civil war will continue and Islamic State will benefit from it," he said.

Fawaz Gerges, author of ISIS: A History, said: "At this point the Russians have the upper hand in dictating a solution. The Americans are playing on Russia’s playing field."

UNCERTAINTY

His judgment is underlined by Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister, who boasted in a recent interview that "the Americans understand they can do nothing without Russia. They can no longer solve serious problems on their own".

Yet uncertainty surrounds Moscow’s intentions, after Putin suddenly withdrew part of his forces from Syria last month. That led to speculation among Assad's enemies that Russia was contemplating whether to ditch Assad – an outcome many Syria watchers find highly improbable.

"The key issue remains when and if the Russians will act to facilitate this transition. It's unclear, and we get the feeling that the recent talks didn't change much in the Russian position," the European diplomat said.

"I don't think the upcoming round will reach any real decisions on the political process, he added.

Gerges says the partial pull-back sent a message to the Americans that Russia is a rational and credible force that is interested in a diplomatic settlement.

It was also intended as a jolt to Assad, by then so emboldened at the way Russia and Iran had transformed his weak position that he was announcing plans to recapture all of Syria.

"The message to the Assad regime was that Russia doesn’t play by Assad’s playbook, it doesn’t want to get down in Syria’s quagmire (but) wants to cut its losses," Gerges believes.

But it is far from clear that Assad interprets these messages the same way.

Last month, he dismissed any notion of a transition from the current structure, as agreed by international powers, calling instead for "national unity" solution with some elements of the opposition joining the present government.

"The transition period must be under the current constitution, and we will move on to the new constitution after the Syrian people vote for it," Assad told Russia's Sputnik news agency.


ASSAD "WILL NOT GO QUIETLY"

Faisal al-Yafai, a leading commentator from the United Arab Emirates, says Russia "played its cards in Syria very cleverly, but miscalculated in one aspect".

"They assumed that once the (Assad) regime felt secure, it would be more willing to negotiate. In fact, the opposite has happened”.

"There’s a limit to the pressure that Russia can exert on Assad. Assad absolutely will not go quietly -- and certainly not when there is no real alternative to him, even within the regime," says al-Yafai.

Robert Ford, the former U.S. ambassador to Syria and now a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute in Washington, agrees that Russia may not be able to compel Assad to go.

The secret police backbone of Assad’s rule remains intact, he says, and "Assad seems confident again, after his much more sober tone last summer. The Russians may have helped him too much, such that Assad can maintain control of key cities and roads for a long time".

Ford also drew attention to the competition over Syria between Russia and Iran, Assad’s two main allies. Moscow’s emphasis is on its traditional relations with the Syrian military establishment, while Tehran focusses on the militia network it built with Hezbollah to shore up the regime.

“Assad is plenty smart to know how to play one country off against the other. I am not even sure Russia would test its heavy pressure capacity against that of Iran in Damascus. The Russians know they might lose", Ford said.

Russia’s involvement in Syria has given it greater insight into the structure of the Assad rule, constructed to intermesh the Assad family and allies from its minority Alawite community with the security services and military command.


ASSAD BUOYANT

Khaddour from Carnegie says Russia now realises the circumstances for a transition do not yet exist, because removing Assad might unravel the whole power structure.

"There is a problem within the regime. It is not capable of producing an alternative to itself internally," says Khaddour, adding the only concession it has made – simply to turn up in Geneva – was the result of Russian pressure.

With limits to Russian and Iranian influence on a newly buoyant Assad, few believe the Geneva talks will bring peace.

"If the Russians felt it was time for a solution they would have reached an understanding with the Americans to give up on Assad without giving up on the Alawites. The circumstances are not ripe yet for a solution," says Sarkis Naoum, a leading commentator on Syria.

The diplomat added: "The fundamental question is still whether the Russians are serious and want this to happen."

"Nobody knows what's in their mind and I'm not sure they even know."


(Additional reporting by John Irish; Editing by Giles Elgood)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/student-activist-hacked-death-bangladesh-054015376.html?nhp=1

Student opponent of radical Islam slain on Bangladesh street

April 7, 2016

NEW DELHI (AP) — Three motorcycle-riding assailants hacked and shot to death a student opponent of radical Islam as he was walking with a friend along a street in Bangladesh's capital, police said Thursday.

The killing on Wednesday night follows a string of similar attacks last year, when at least five secular bloggers and publishers were killed, allegedly by radical Islamists.

Police suspect 28-year-old Nazimuddin Samad was targeted for his outspoken atheism in the Muslim-majority country and for supporting a 2013 movement to demand capital punishment for war crimes involving the independence war against Pakistan in 1971, according to Dhaka Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Nurul Amin.

No group immediately claimed responsibility.

The assailants, who had been riding a single motorcycle, escaped after the assault while shouting, "Allahu Akbar," or "Allah is great."

Fellow students and friends of Samad rallied at the state-run Jagannath University, where Samad was studying law and had attended class the evening of the attack.

"This is very sad for us. We are trying whatever we can do to support the family during such difficult time," university proctor Nur Mohammad said.

People also flooded Samad's Facebook page with messages to their late friend. "Friend, please pardon us. You were, you are, you will be (with us)," wrote one friend called Rahat Chowdhury.

Many of Samad's posts criticized radical Islam and promoted secularism. A supporter of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's secular Awami League party, Samad also took part in the movement that successfully pushed for prosecutors to have more scope for going after suspected war criminals.

Hasina's government has been cracking down on radical Islamist groups, which it blames for the deadly attacks last year on secular bloggers, minority Shiites, Christians and two foreigners. It accuses the opposition of supporting religious radicals in seeking to retaliate against the government for prosecuting suspected war crimes.

Some of the attacks were claimed by the Islamic State group, but the government dismisses those claims and says the Sunni extremist group has no presence in the country.

David Saperstein, U.S. ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom, tweeted: "Horrified by murder of student activist in #Bangladesh, our thoughts and prayers with Nazimuddin Samad's family."

Rep. Joe Crowley, a Democratic lawmaker and chair of U.S. congressional Bangladesh Caucus, said: "The disturbing pattern of violent attacks on bloggers in Bangladesh is extremely concerning. These gruesome crimes have had a chilling effect on freedom of religious expression and speech."

Two international groups promoting freedom of expression said the ongoing attacks showed Hasina's government was failing to protect people.

"We urge the Bangladeshi police and other authorities to do everything in their power to investigate and prosecute this vicious attack on free speech and thought, and halt this terrible pattern of murders," said Karin Deutsch Karlekar of PEN America, a group of 4,400 U.S. writers.

She also called on the U.S. and other countries to provide refuge to writers and secularists being targeted in Bangladesh. Samad's killing "is a cruel illustration of the costs of inaction," she said.

The Center for Inquiry also expressed concern. The center's public policy director, Michael De Dora, said the Bangladeshi government "must do much more to protect its own people from marauding Islamist killers."

"These murders keep happening because they are allowed to happen," Dora said.

View Comments (96)

http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...or-Bangladesh-bloggers-facing-imminent-danger

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/0...ngladesh-bloggers-facing-imminent-danger.html

Asia

US considers 'humanitarian parole' for Bangladesh bloggers facing imminent danger

Published April 08, 2016 · FoxNews.com
Comments 45

The U.S. said Thursday it’s considering granting refuge to a select number of Bangladesh bloggers who face imminent danger for speaking out against radical Islam after militants killed another outspoken opponent of extremism.

Nazimuddin Samad, 28, was hacked and shot to death by unidentified assailants Wednesday in the streets of Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh. The attackers allegedly shouted “Allahu Akbar” and escaped by motorcycle.

Five secular bloggers and publishers were killed last year in similar fashion. The murders have heightened concerns that extremists are gaining a foothold in Bangladesh, a Muslim country with traditions of secularism and tolerance, and that authorities are failing to provide any kind of protection.

Karin Deutsch Karlekar of PEN American, a U.S.-based human rights group, has called on the U.S. to offer “humanitarian parole” for Bangladeshi writers targeted by extremists for secular beliefs. She reiterated that call to the U.S. and other countries Thursday, saying that Samad’s killing “is a cruel illustration of the costs of inaction.”

State Department spokesman Mark Toner strongly condemned the "barbaric murder" of Samad and told reporters the U.S. offers "unwavering support to the Bangladeshi people in their struggle against violent extremism."

He said that humanitarian parole for a select number of bloggers who continue to be under "imminent danger" is one option under consideration, but referred questions on it to the Homeland Security Department.

https://w.graphiq.com/w/6md3gOGI06N...th=600&data-script-version=true&data-sv=1.0.0

Humanitarian parole is used sparingly to bring a person into the United States for a temporary period of time due to a compelling emergency.

No group has claimed responsibility for the killing of Samad, a supporter of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's secular Awami League party.

Authorities in Bangladesh believe Samad was targeted for his outspoken atheism and for supporting capital punishment for war crimes during the country’s fight for independence against Pakistan in 1971.

Hasina's government set up special tribunals to try war crimes cases, including against senior leaders of an opposition, Islamist party. Hasina's government has accused the opposition of supporting religious radicals it blames for the attacks on bloggers, minority Shiites, Christians and foreigners.

Some of the attacks were claimed by the Islamic State, but the government dismisses those claims and says the Sunni extremist group has no presence in the country.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/...d-cement-workers-in-Northeast-Damascus-450651

Breaking News
By REUTERS \ 04/08/2016 12:25

ISIS massacres 175 kidnapped cement workers in Northeast Damascus

ISIS militants massacred 175 workers who were captured at a cement factory Northeast of Damascus, a Syrian military source said on Friday.

It was reported that Islamic State fighters kidnapped scores of workers in an area northeast of Damascus after launching an attack on government forces there this week, Syrian state television and a monitoring group said on Thursday.

State TV quoted the industry ministry as saying 300 workers and contractors of Al Badia Cement were taken from near the town of Dumeir and that the company had lost all contact with them.

The British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights later gave a figure of around 170 workers who had been abducted from the cement factory and taken to undisclosed areas controlled by the militants in the Damascus suburbs.

The monitor, which tracks violence across the country, said 140 workers at the plant had fled before the militants arrived.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/china-moves-expand-its-nuclear-capabilities

China Moves to Expand Its Nuclear Capabilities

Analysis
April 8, 2016 | 09:30 GMT

Forecast
China will significantly adjust its nuclear force structure, even as it officially maintains its no-first-use and minimal deterrence policies.
Adjustments will include enlarging the Chinese nuclear arsenal while enhancing its mobility and capabilities.
As China's nuclear force grows, the United States and Russia will make a greater effort to include Beijing in future arms control agreements.

Analysis

Since conducting its first successful nuclear test in 1964, China has maintained one of the least belligerent nuclear policies in the world. But certain changes in technology over the past two decades have forced Beijing to re-evaluate its approach. In the coming years, China will look to revamp its nuclear force to keep its deterrent credible against the increasingly lethal arsenals of the United States and Russia.

Of all the nuclear powers, China was the first to declare a no-first-use nuclear policy, pledging to use its nuclear weapons only against states that launch a nuclear attack against it first. Beijing has also promised never to deploy its nuclear weapons on foreign soil, and it has long opposed the idea of establishing an extended nuclear deterrence. Furthermore, though China has built up an arsenal that is both large and diffuse enough to survive an initial strike, it has avoided engaging in an arms race with the United States and Russia to match their nuclear strength. It also stores its nuclear warheads in a separate location from its delivery systems, mating the two only in times of great tension. In short, Beijing has confined its nuclear program to providing a credible but minimal deterrence.

And for the past few decades, the approach has suited China's particular needs. Beijing has long understood that it lacks the technological capability, industrial capacity and financial resources needed to keep up with its U.S. and Russian rivals. Joining the massive nuclear arms race of the Cold War would have been a losing proposition, especially since China's minimal deterrence was effective on its own. (Even though the U.S. and Russian arsenals were vastly superior, China was able to use its expansive geography and numerous underground facilities to maintain its second-strike capability.)

https://www.stratfor.com/sites/defa...le-Warheads-Spending-040716.png?itok=2bOl44oB

Beijing also feared the prospect of keeping its nuclear arsenal on high alert, ready to launch at a moment's notice. Doing so would have made its missiles more vulnerable to seizure and use by rogue forces, a particularly troubling possibility for Beijing during periods of political turbulence, such as the Cultural Revolution. Because of its minimal deterrence policy, China has been better able to ensure that it retains control of its nuclear arsenal.

Beijing's nuclear doctrine has given it more room to maneuver in its interactions with other nuclear states as well. For example, its own refusal to extend its nuclear deterrence outside its borders has given China the ability to similarly denounce the inclusion of neighboring Japan under the U.S. nuclear umbrella. In addition, China's stance has likely done less to drive countries in its region, including South Korea and Japan, to pursue their own nuclear arsenals than an aggressive approach would have.

Is Beijing Falling Behind?

However, since the end of the Cold War, technological progress has gradually undermined China's certainty that its nuclear arsenal and policies are enough to protect it. Though the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals have gotten smaller, they have also become far more accurate — and as a result, more deadly. At the same time, new technologies have dramatically improved countries' intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities, while emerging weaponry, such as hypersonic missiles, is undermining traditional missile defense systems. Each of these developments has weakened Beijing's ability to rely on its vast territory and underground facilities to protect its nuclear arsenal from attack. The United States, for instance, is in theory much more able to find and destroy China's nuclear missiles now — no matter where they are located in the country's expansive terrain — than it was during the Cold War.

Beijing has similar concerns about its nuclear weapons' offensive effectiveness. Advances in ballistic missile defenses have raised the question among Chinese leaders as to whether their nuclear weapons, should they survive a first strike, would even be able to penetrate an enemy's defenses.

As China's assessment of its nuclear posture changes, so will its patterns of investment and technological development. Beijing has already begun pouring more money into the sea leg of its nuclear triad, launching its first nuclear ballistic missile submarine patrol last year. Nuclear submarines are difficult to detect, and their exposure to danger can be reduced when they are used as part of a bastion strategy, which involves protecting nearby seas without venturing too far from Chinese ports. China's ability to pursue nuclear ballistic missile submarines, which require nuclear warheads to be mated with their delivery systems, can be credited at least in part to Beijing's growing assurance that it can keep its arsenal secure. The same confidence will encourage the Chinese to start wedding the two sets of components in land-based systems as well, enabling Beijing to order a more immediate nuclear response to any incoming attack.

Meanwhile, China will also continue to grow its nuclear arsenal in a way that improves its chances of surviving an enemy assault. The Chinese are not only moving their missiles from fixed silos to mobile platforms, which are more difficult to target, but they are also building nuclear missiles that have a much longer reach and can be launched from deep in the heart of China. These missiles include the DF-41, the world's longest-ranged nuclear missile. Moreover, China will begin to rely more on missiles equipped with multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles, or MIRVs, rather than single warheads. Such missiles have a better chance of making it past an enemy's ballistic missile defenses with at least some of their warheads intact.

China's nuclear force alterations will not mean the abandonment of its long-standing no-first-use and minimal deterrence policies. In fact, from its perspective, arsenal upgrades are a necessary measure for maintaining the credible threat underpinning those policies. However, other states are unlikely to assume such benign motives and will remain wary of China's actions. Rapidly advancing nuclear powers with roughly equivalent arsenals, such as India, may interpret Beijing's moves as the initial signs of an impending arms race. Even China's non-nuclear rivals, including Japan, could respond by reviewing their own nuclear positions. Meanwhile, the United States and Russia, ever cognizant of China's increasingly powerful nuclear arsenal, will try to tamp down Beijing's efforts by integrating it into future arms control agreements.

Lead Analyst: Omar Lamrani

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/under-nuclear-deal-iran-can-have-nuclear-detonators/

Under Nuclear Deal Iran Can Have Nuclear Detonators

6:13 PM ET

Nuclear Iran: Tehran’s defense minister says the terrorist state will produce a massive explosive used to detonate atomic bombs. Obama’s Iran deal is increasingly delivering the opposite of its promises.

Why would Iran want to produce the nuclear weapons detonator Octogen, also known as HMX, or “high melting point explosive,” if it doesn’t have its eyes on becoming a nuclear weapons power?

Moreover, why is Tehran seeking HMX only three months after official implementation of the nuclear pact that the West negotiated with it (without Iran signing it, though)? Clearly, pursuing Octogen earlier would have been a red flag indicating that Iran’s claims of not seeking nuclear weapons were false.

Iran’s military “has put on its agenda the acquisition of the technical know-how to produce Octogen explosive materials and Octogen-based weapons,” Iranian Defense Minister Brig. Gen. Hossein Dehqan announced on Wednesday at the formal opening of an explosives production plant in Tehran.

Iran having HMX weakens deal proponents’ persistent argument that the agreement’s “one year or longer breakout timeline” for approximately 10 years means the pact makes the world safer. Having a nuclear detonator ready to go means Iran becoming a nuclear weapons power faster.

A December 2015 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations’ nuclear “watchdog,” concluded that “exploding bridge wire” detonators “developed by Iran have characteristics relevant to a nuclear explosive device” and that Iran was conducting nuclear weapons research all the way into the first year of the Obama presidency.

HMX isn’t exclusively used for nukes, but the seriousness with which the IAEA takes it was on full view early during the Iraq War. As the New York Times reported regarding the disappearance of hundreds of tons of HMX from the Saddam Hussein regime’s huge al-Qaqaa facility in 2004,” Mr. Hussein’s engineers acquired HMX and RDX (rapid detonation explosive) when they embarked on a crash effort to build an atomic bomb in the late 1980s. . . . Weapon inspectors determined that Iraq had bought the explosives from France, China and Yugoslavia, a European diplomat said.”

And in February 2003, “nine days after Secretary of State Colin L. Powell presented his arms case to the Security Council,” then-IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei, who later won the Nobel Peace Prize, “reported that the agency had found no sign of new atom endeavors” by Iraq, “but ‘has continued to investigate the relocation and consumption of the high explosive HMX,’ ” the Times story noted. “Dr. ElBaradei, a European diplomat said, is ‘extremely concerned’ about the potentially ‘devastating consequences’ of the vanished stockpile.”

The newspaper also pointed out that HMX’s “benign appearance makes it easy to disguise as harmless goods, easily slipped across borders,” and that it is “used in standard nuclear weapons design.”

So not only is HMX of grave concern regarding Iran’s own nuclear weapons ambitions; it could help any of the many terrorist groups Iran finances in their atomic aspirations.

It was already known that Obama’s deal was defective on the issue of nuclear detonators; the HMX announcement makes it clear Tehran is taking full advantage.

 

[Housecarl]

http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...s-may-be-a-trap-for-Obama-Nikkei-Asian-Review

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Eco...mp-s-nuclear-comments-may-be-a-trap-for-Obama

April 8, 2016 8:10 pm JST

Trump's nuclear comments may be a trap for Obama

NAOYA YOSHINO, Nikkei staff writer

WASHINGTON -- Donald Trump, the front-runner in the U.S. Republican presidential primaries, has suggested that the U.S. withdraw its forces from Japan, and that Japan and South Korea obtain nuclear capability.

These suggestions not only threaten security alliances -- Japan and South Korea are now under the American nuclear umbrella -- they also pose a challenge to global security and economic policies.

Trump's timing seems to have been carefully calibrated.

His remarks came right before the final Nuclear Security Summit, in Washington, in late March, and allowed the New York tycoon to steal a march on U.S. President Barack Obama, the host of the summit. Obama has long talked of his desire for "a world without nuclear weapons," but Trump's words loomed over the summit, attended by leaders of over 50 countries, and drew global attention.

In an interview with The New York Times, Trump unveiled what he dubbed his "America First" foreign policy. "If the U.S. keeps on its path, its current path of weakness," he said, "they're going to want to have [nuclear arsenals] anyway." Were Japan to acquire a nuclear weapon in the face of the North Korean threat, Trump said, he is "not sure that would be a bad thing for [the U.S.]."

With nuclear capability, Japan and South Korea would effectively be able to defend themselves. This would be a fundamental change in both countries' security policies, which have long relied on the nations' respective alliances with the U.S.

Each country would increase its defense spending. This would put their public finances and domestic economies in jeopardy. The global economy would also be impacted. North Korea would have cause to continue developing a nuclear weapon. The likeliness of an Asian arms race would spike.

One way Trump draws support is by criticizing American politicians, so consider his spoiling of Obama's summit a tactic. For Obama, who won the Nobel Peace Prize for his call for "a world without nuclear weapons," nuclear disarmament is a top priority. By suggesting the exact opposite when he did, Trump was able to savor a mouthful of schadenfreude.

Inflaming emotions

"If we get attacked, Japan doesn't have to do anything," Trump said after he launched his campaign in June. In fact, he has repeatedly criticized the present Japan-U.S. security alliance, describing it as an "unfair" deal.

Trump loves to play the "unfair" card. "We are not reimbursed for our protection of many of the countries ... including Saudi Arabia," he told The Times. And "we pay a disproportionate share" of NATO costs.

The notion of this "unfairness" is particularly resonant with many Americans, so many of whom feel powerless in a society that is meant to be impartial.

Trump is said to have used this idea in business negotiations, and there are those who say it is what his success is built upon.

No wonder, then, that his campaign strategy banks on kindling a kind of victimhood in the Republican electorate.

In 1989, Japan's Mitsubishi Estate decided to buy Rockefeller Center, in New York, triggering a wave of Japan bashing. Trump, a New Yorker, got a firsthand look at these raw emotions.

Now he seems to be trying to inflame them, like when he says the weak yen is making Komatsu, a major Japanese construction machinery maker, unfairly competitive in the U.S.

Time to do something else

But this hearkening back to the 1980s, this painting of the U.S. as a victim of Japan, is outdated.

Still, Trump is telling inward-looking Americans exactly what they want to hear. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan still cast long shadows over the country, and inequality is growing. This has many Americans simply wanting better lives for themselves -- and not striving for the ideal of a stable world.

So when Trump argues for Japan and South Korea to arm themselves rather than rely on the U.S. nuclear umbrella, his appeal grows. "America First!"

Rumors suggest that Trump's nuclear arms remarks were also intended as a set-up. The theory is that if Obama decides to visit Hiroshima in May while in Japan for the Group of Seven summit, Trump would accuse him of engaging in "apologetic" diplomacy.

A poll shows that nearly 60% of Americans think the dropping of the bomb was justified. If Trump were to use this accusation, the theory goes, he would all but guarantee himself the votes of war veterans. He would also be dealing a blow to Hillary Clinton, the front-runner in the Democratic primaries and Obama's first secretary of state.

"[Trump] doesn't know much about foreign policy or nuclear policy or the Korean Peninsula or the world generally," Obama said on April 1 at a press conference after the nuclear summit.

Although support for Trump is waning, he remains a strong candidate. Perhaps it is time for other politicians to start doing something other than talking down to him, like Obama did.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion...an-commentary/u-s-fold-nuclear-umbrella-asia/

Commentary / Japan

Should U.S. fold its nuclear umbrella in Asia?

by Doug Bandow
Apr 8, 2016

WASHINGTON – Donald Trump again is causing international consternation. His remarks about South Korea and Japan developing nuclear weapons set off a minor firestorm.

“It would be catastrophic were the United States to shift its position and indicate that we support somehow the proliferation of nuclear weapons to additional countries,” argued deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes.

Actually, what would be catastrophic is American involvement in a nuclear war as a result of its defense commitment to another nation, especially one able to defend itself.

Indeed, Rhodes praised the fact that “Japan and the Republic of Korea benefit from our very rock-solid security assurances that we will come to their defense in any event.” But this has turned prosperous, populous countries into permanent defense dependents.

Trump addressed this dependency. Neither country pays enough for its own protection, instead preferring to rely on Washington. He suggested that one answer would be for them to go nuclear. The issue “at some point is something that we have to talk about,” he explained.

That’s hardly a radical sentiment. The issue recently was raised by a former presidential candidate in South Korea. After Trump’s remarks, Cheong Seong-chang of the Sejong Institute observed: “If we have nuclear weapons, we’ll be in a much better position to deal with North Korea.”

Over the years there has been talk in Japan about pursuing the nuclear option. Former Osaka Mayor Toru Hashimoto said Trump’s sentiments allowed “Japan to change the peace-addled notion that America will protect us.”

Despite the campaign to treat nuclear nonproliferation as sacrosanct, it cannot be decided in isolation. Broadly speaking, it is better if fewer nations have nukes. Yet in some cases proliferation might be stabilizing. Had Ukraine not given up its nuclear weapons left over from the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia might not have grabbed Crimea and supported separatists elsewhere.

Worse, the way Washington won assent of some nuclear-capable powers to abstain is to provide a “nuclear umbrella,” that is, promise to use nukes to defend them if necessary. As a result, the price of nonproliferation in East Asia is America’s willingness to risk Los Angeles to protect Seoul and Tokyo, and maybe Taipei and Canberra too.

Today nonproliferation means only the bad guys get guns. In East Asia, China, Russia and North Korea are the nuclear powers. America is supposed to provide geopolitical balance.

The result of this situation truly could be catastrophic.

The question today is what approach is likely to most promote stability in Northeast Asia and least risk to U.S. security. So far, America’s defense promises have not caused the dragon or bear to lie down with the lamb.

China is acting aggressively toward Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam in particular; Russia has challenged the U.S. in the eastern reaches of Europe and the Middle East. North Korea is worse, constantly breathing fire against its neighbors and the U.S.

Still, policymakers act as if U.S. defense guarantees will never get called. The threat of nuclear retaliation undoubtedly has deterrent value. However, the two great wars of the 20th century started because deterrence failed.

In particular, threats that seem inconsistent with underlying interests have little credibility. Thus, the Chinese have publicly doubted that America would risk nuclear war over Taiwan’s independence.

Moreover, once given, it is hard to back away from “rock solid security assurances” that have lost their original purpose. Which means if deterrence fails America could be at war automatically without considering the stakes.

Finally, promising to defend other, smaller powers allows them to hold American security hostage. With Washington behind them they are more likely to engage in risky behavior. During the 2000s, Taiwan’s independence-minded President Chen Shui-bian upset Chinese sensibilities.

Japan has refused to even discuss the status of the Senkaku Islands with China. Washington’s view that they are covered by the “mutual” defense treaty likely has encouraged Tokyo’s tough stance. Philippines has a military which might not be even second rate, yet that government is attempting to enlist the U.S. in its squabble with Beijing over Scarborough Reef.

America’s nuclear umbrella is something that should be debated in both the U.S. and Asia. Yet Rhodes dismissed even discussing the idea, contending that “for the past 70 years” the U.S. has opposed nuclear proliferation. But when the world changes, policy also should change.

Trump was right when he argued that “at some point, (the U.S.) cannot be the policeman of the world.” America’s nuclear umbrella deserves scrutiny.

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. He frequently writes about military non-interventionism and is the author of “Foreign Follies: America’s New Global Empire.”

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.mpnnow.com/news/20160408/we-should-threaten-nuclear-proliferation

We should threaten nuclear proliferation

By Matt Schaertl
Posted Apr. 8, 2016 at 2:01 AM
Canandaigua, N.Y.

Supposedly, every president since the invention of nuclear weapons has actively been against nuclear proliferation. The Donald Trump statement, where he suggested Japan should consider arming itself with its own nuclear weapons for its own protection against North Korea, turned that political assumption on its ear.

Why would you ever reverse a position that was established generations ago? Simple — it’s not the same world anymore, and it hasn’t been for a long time. It is now more evident that one weak president or one aggressive former KGB leader can make the world more dangerous than two royal families.

I would be willing to bet that the fight against proliferation did not occur until after the U.S. held the nuclear advantage and that there was a possible future threat of the U.S. losing that advantage.

Iran does not need to invent nuclear weapons in Iran. It can simply set up shop in North Korea and export the product back to Iran or, as the Soviets did in Cuba, establish a launching position in North Korea in exchange for the badly needed dollars that Iran will be generating from oil revenues. Heck, Iran and North Korea could jointly develop naval-based systems that never touch the shores of any country. By the way, in case you do not know, India started deep-port construction in Iran against the wishes of the U.S. last year, prior to the sanctions being lifted (but to be fair to India, Iran also inked trade deals with Italy, France, Turkey, China, Russia, Iraq, Pakistan, England, Norway, Austria and Spain last year).

You cannot stop it. It is like gun ownership in the U.S. North Korea, Pakistan, India and Israel have all obtained nuclear status without the world's blessing. From a non-biased factual point of view, what has happened to those countries since then: No armies have invaded North Korea, nor have they invaded anyone either (they did sucker the U.S. into giving them aid for the promise of not pursuing). Pakistan and India have not restarted their war since they both became nuclear. Israel, a country that has had seven armies attempt to invade it, has had zero armies attack it since it went nuclear. Good or bad, once a country has nuclear weapons, it does not get invaded. Why would we not encourage our allies to have nukes?

Would Ukraine, a country whose 90 percent of the electorate voted in the 1990s for independence from Russia, had been invaded and annexed by Russia if it had kept its nuclear weapons? We shouldn’t be against proliferation — we should threaten proliferation. Right now, the U.S. should tell Iran that, in the event it does obtain nuclear weapons, the U.S. will respond by providing nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia.

Crazy idea in some ways, but what if, instead of Jimmy Carter heading to Korea with bags of cash back (twice) in the 1990s to bribe it, we sent General Dynamics with an empty bag and said, you want nuclear weapons? No problem, fill the bag, and we will give you what you can afford. What would its response be? If the U.S. isn’t afraid of us having nukes, maybe it’s not worth the investment? Maybe the ol' man's generals are feeding me a line of bull to stay in power? It is certainly more preferable to have sold the nukes and know exactly where they are and what they can do than to be bamboozled and not know where they are and not know what they can do.

Matt Schaertl of Shortsville is a frequent contributor to the Daily Messenger.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://fpif.org/south-korea-get-bomb/

Should South Korea Get the Bomb?

Donald Trump and a majority of South Koreans believe that South Korea should have a nuclear weapon. Are they right?

By John Feffer, April 7, 2016. Originally published in Hankyoreh.

In 2012, a year before he died, the distinguished political scientist Kenneth Waltz wrote an article in Foreign Affairs arguing that everyone should stop worrying about Iran getting a nuclear weapon. He didn’t think that Iran was likely to voluntarily abandon its efforts to acquire a nuke. Nor did he think that the country would be satisfied with a “break-out” capability – staying just outside the nuclear club by having sufficient material and expertise to build and test a weapon within a short space of time.

Instead, Waltz thought it inevitable that Iran, like North Korea, would eventually go nuclear. Counter-intuitively, he believed that this “would probably be the best possible result: the one most likely to restore stability to the Middle East.”

This variety of “nuclear realism” has been around for some time. Indeed, Waltz peddled this particular theory since at least the early 1980s. The conventional wisdom, embodied in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, holds that the fewer members of the nuclear club the better, for non-proliferation reduces the likelihood of nuclear war and restricts the amount of nuclear material available to malefactors. Waltz, however, long believed that the system of deterrence is only made stronger when many states possess nuclear weapons because they become more cautious as a result and less willing to escalate in a conflict situation.

Waltz’s remains a minority position. Barack Obama, for instance, became the first American president in 2009 to champion the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons. Although he hasn’t made much headway toward achieving this goal, he did set up a mechanism to advance disarmament and non-proliferation. The fourth such nuclear security summit took place in Washington, DC last week with representatives from 56 countries and organizations. There was much self-congratulatory rhetoric at the U.S.-sponsored meeting about the strength of the non-proliferation regime, particularly after last year’s nuclear deal with Iran. Waltz, it turned out, was spectacularly wrong. In exchange for a lifting of economic sanctions, Tehran was indeed willing to stop pursuing a nuclear capacity (in large part because it had stepped off that path several years earlier).

Participants were less optimistic about North Korea. The country conducted its fourth nuclear test in January and also announced that it had successfully constructed a nuclear warhead for its long-range missile. Although it remains unclear exactly how significant North Korea’s nuclear arsenal is – and whether it has in fact a missile-ready device – Pyongyang has managed to cast a long shadow over what Washington had hoped would be a more celebratory occasion.

The conversation about nuclear weapons in East Asia has also taken a turn in a Waltzian direction. Some voices both inside South Korea and outside are tired of preaching non-proliferation at North Korea and getting no answer. So, like Waltz, they are making the case that the more nuclear weapons in East Asia the merrier.

The latest person to join the fray is Donald Trump, who recently suggested that Japan and South Korea perhaps should acquire nuclear weapons – to help reduce their dependency on the United States as well as the corresponding costs to American taxpayers. It’s not exactly a well-though-out position (Trump’s positions never are). But at least Trump is challenging the longstanding liberal-conservative consensus that the United States should maintain a vast overseas military presence.

South Koreans are not averse to considering a homegrown nuclear capability. A February 2013 poll by the Asan Institute suggested that two-thirds of South Koreans want their country to acquire such weapons. A Joongang Ilbo poll this last February produced nearly identical results.

Although the top leadership in the country, including President Park Geun-Hye, rejects such a strategy, other influential voices are broaching what had once been a entirely taboo subject. The conservative newspaper Chosun Ilbo, for instance, argues that South Korea has to acquire nuclear weapons in order to level the playing field. “Even if the South bolsters its missile defenses with the aid of the U.S., such defense systems will only offer us brief psychological solace while the country remains in the crosshairs of the North’s weapons of mass destruction,” it argued in a January 2016 editorial. “Using conventional weapons to counter such a threat is ludicrous.” Unlike Trump, however, Chosun Ilbo would not advocate for weakening the U.S.-South Korean alliance.

For others in South Korea, the nuclear option is just to scare China into putting more pressure on North Korea. “I don’t think that South Korea actually wants nuclear weapons,” said Park Syung-je of the Asia Strategy Institute in Seoul told The Washington Post. “It’s a way of saying to the Chinese that ‘if you don’t cooperate on North Korea, then we’re going to get nuclear weapons of our own.’ ”

Neither of these arguments for acquiring a nuclear weapon is particularly convincing. South Korea has an overwhelming conventional military advantage over North Korea, plus America’s nuclear arsenal provides irrefutable deterrence. North Korea has invested so much in its own extremely modest nuclear capability precisely in order to achieve some modicum of parity with the South.

As for a South Korean nuclear program pushing China toward acting more aggressively against North Korea, that isn’t likely to work either. Pyongyang simply doesn’t listen to Beijing. And although it’s willing to support some economic sanctions, China isn’t willing to precipitate regime change in its neighbor because of the substantial risks involved to security, the regional economy, and the potential flow of migrants.

The more likely country to respond immediately if South Korea were to push forward on developing a nuclear weapon would be Japan. For some time, Tokyo has maintained a break-out capacity: it has plenty of stockpiled plutonium and enriched uranium and it could probably have an arsenal up and running in two years or less. It’s also not clear whether an Asian expansion of the nuclear club could stop at Japan and South Korea.

It’s not that I expect countries in the region to deliberately launch a nuclear war against each other. But there’s always the risk of miscalculation. And the more nuclear weapons there are, the more potential accidents could happen. Already during the Cold War, the world narrowly escaped nuclear annihilation on several occasions.

The world again avoided calamity last year when it negotiated a nuclear agreement with Iran. Both the United States and Israel were considering military attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities. And if Iran had entered the nuclear club, imagine how destabilizing it would have been if Saudi Arabia decided to follow suit, not to mention the Assad regime in Syria.

It’s entirely understandable that South Koreans feel vulnerable living so near a nuclear North Korea. But acquiring one’s own arsenal doesn’t eliminate those feelings of vulnerability – any more than it did for the United States during the Cold War. The real solution is to subtract nuclear weapons from the equation, not add more of them.


John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus.