WAR 05-07-2016-to-05-13-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

[Housecarl]

Yeah I can see the FUBAR coming on this one too, particularly since we've already been bitten by it.....Save a dime to have to spend $20 later....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/05/12...ys-planned-reduction-of-civil-affairs-forces/

Strategic misfire: The Army’s planned reduction of Civil Affairs forces

By Thomas E. Ricks
May 12, 2016
By Maj. Arnel P. David and Maj. Clay Daniels, U.S. Army
Best Defense guest columnists

Understanding should precede action, yet a prime area of strategic weakness for the United States is its inability to understand the local social-political context of conflict and war. After failing to achieve any enduring strategic outcomes for this century, the Army returns to a state of suspended animation under the blissful blanket of combined arms maneuver. Rather than preserve human engagement capabilities that, dollar for dollar, do more to win the wars of today and the peace of the future, the Army is divesting itself of a large number of civil affairs forces. The 85th Civil Affairs Brigade is being deactivated. It is one of only two active duty civil affairs brigades, reducing nearly half of the force structure for the Army’s active duty civil affairs.

Built from the battlefield demands of Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, the 85th Civil Affairs Brigade was created to aid the Army and Joint Force with unique civil-military operations — ranging from humanitarian assistance and disaster response to supporting major campaigns. Soldiers trained in foreign languages, culture, mediation, and negotiations, with an organic expeditionary medical component, provided crucial support to missions like Operation Unified Assistance to combat the Ebola virus outbreak in Liberia and Operation Inherent Resolve in Iraq, among others.

The U.S. government invested significant time and money to train and educate civil affairs soldiers, only to cut these small but effective elements from the Joint Force to preserve America’s preferred way of war: a relentless amount of overwhelming, lethal force under the auspices of decisively executing combined arms maneuvers and then, in afterthought, performing “ancillary” activities required to win the peace. Sadly, as such subsidiary tasks were largely deferred, so was success in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The United States is in doubtless need of a comprehensive reform of its national security strategy, including a better balance of capabilities leading to a qualitative advantage in future warfare. If war is the continuation of politics and politics are about people, then why not maintain the forces best trained to contextualize this critical aspect of strategy? More importantly, powerful states have an inherent responsibility to pursue conflict resolution before electing to commit the use of force, particularly in environments where the nation is not engaged in direct war. As a recent series of issue papers on civil affairs explain, this national strategic capability has as much use in preventing wars as much as ending them.

The current fiscal environment allows the military to once again reforge Maslow’s hammer — the one that thinks everything looks like a nail. It has provided the convenience of reverting to more “traditional” notions of applied power in another era of post-conflict downsizing. Unfortunately, the obsession with stand-off weaponry furthers a way of fighting that only perpetuates the cycle of violence and cultivates a hatred of the West. We’ve allowed our force to re-default to what comes easy and naturally to it — fire and maneuver — rather than maintain relatively inexpensive elements that understand the local dynamics of conflict. The growing interconnectedness of the world warrants a renewed examination of our assumptions about applied power. UAV feeds rarely offer an opportunity for a maneuver element to recognize and address social or political volatility.

If strategy is the art of creating power, then the U.S. Army should consider the implications on the changing personality of warfare. Traditional power structures are in decline and a new super-empowerment of individuals is on the rise. New forms of power need to be built and projected — partner-prone and people-centric. Civil affairs forces regularly operate to extend the reach of U.S. embassy country teams in remote and contested areas. Understanding the social drivers of conflict and the regional issues at play in the tactical, operational, and strategic realms require dedicated specialists who understand the local, regional, and cultural context of our adversaries. Humans matter more than hardware, and a network of complex relationships yield unparalleled opportunities to mobilize the masses to take collective action against complex problems. Reducing the force explicitly designed to understand and address societal disequilibrium inherently weakens our force and reduces the ability to defeat our adversaries in our preferred battle space — their homeland.

We’ve seen this movie too many times. Since World War II, Civil Affairs forces have been repeatedly identified as a critical need, created, and employed — only to be cast aside. With no real ownership of civil affairs forces across the Joint Force, its talents, skills, and years of operational experience will evaporate until the next major conflict, again reconstituted as a critical requirement. Today’s Army remains unable to see its strategic value, even if employed operationally and tactically. Preventing and winning wars require constant, effective engagement, an understanding of the local political and cultural context, and a cohort of military professionals dedicated to employing the full range of national capabilities. That’s not a job for just anyone.

Major Arnel P. David is an active duty civil affairs officer, presently as the commander’s initiative group chief for special operations joint task force-Afghanistan. Major Clay Daniels is an active duty civil affairs officer commanding Delta Company, 83rd Civil Affairs Battalion. They have served multiple tours of duty in the Middle East, Asia, Central Asia, and Pacific. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of any agency of the U.S. government.

 

[mzkitty]

Per Carl's post #77:

13m
A US anti-missile defense system in Romania aimed at protecting NATO members becomes operational - AFP

-----------

US missile shield in Romania goes live to Russian fury

May 12, 2016

Deveselu (Romania) (AFP) - A US anti-missile defence system in Romania aimed at protecting NATO members from threats by "rogue" nations became operational Thursday, triggering Russian fury despite US insistence it does not target Moscow.

Located in Deveselu in southern Romania, the missile interceptor station will help defend NATO members against the threat of short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, particularly from the Middle East, officials said.

"Today the United States and Romania make history in delivering this system to the NATO alliance," said US commander in Europe and Africa Mark Ferguson at an inauguration ceremony with NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg.

But Russia sees the missile system as a security threat right on its doorstep, despite the US and NATO insisting it is not aimed at undermining Moscow's defences.

"According to our experts' opinion, we are convinced that the deployment of the missile defence system is truly a threat to Russia's security," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters in Moscow.

Relations between NATO and Moscow have sharply deteriorated since Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine in March 2014, sparking fears among other eastern European countries that they too could be the targets of Russian aggression.

Stoltenberg said the missile installation "represents a significant increase in the capability to defend European allies against proliferation of ballistic missiles" as it becomes part of a broader NATO missile shield with an installation in Poland as well.

But he stressed that the system was not aimed at Russia and in fact was not capable of intercepting Russian missiles.

"The site in Romania as well as the one in Poland are not directed against Russia. The interceptors are too few and located too far south or too close to Russia to be able to intercept Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles," he said.

- 'Purely defensive' -

The Deveselu site will host a battery of SM-2 missile interceptors and will officially be integrated into the NATO missile shield at the bloc's summit in Warsaw in July.

Work on the site began in October 2013 and is thought to have cost $800 million (700 million euros).

The Western military alliance insists the role of the missile shield is a "purely defensive" response to external threats, notably from so-called "rogue states", having referred in the past to Iran and North Korea .

The US ambassador to NATO, Douglas Lute, has described the activation of the missile system as a gesture of his country's commitment to Article Five by which all 28 NATO members pledge a one-for-all, all-for-one response to any military threat if a member invokes the treaty clause in the face of an attack.

But Russia meanwhile is bolstering its forces to counter what defence officials said was the NATO build-up close to its borders.

"It is a step towards the military and political containment of Russia," senior foreign ministry official Andrei Kelin said of the deployment, Russia's Interfax news agency reported.

Kelin warned it would "only worsen" the already-tense relations between Russia and NATO.

And Russia's ambassador to NATO, Alexander Grushko, said he was not "convinced by NATO declarations that the American anti-missile system is not aimed at Russia".

Cited by Interfax, he also condemned "anti-missile defence systems deployed in the region, always ready for combat," and "military infrastructures moving closer to Russia's borders".

Launched in 2010, NATO's anti-missile shield system -- based essentially on US technology -- involves the progressive deployment of missile interceptors and powerful radar in eastern Europe and Turkey.

The Deveselu site is part of the second phase of the project, after the deployment of radar in Turkey and four Aegis warships with anti-missile defence capacity in the Spanish port of Rota.

The third phase involves Poland.

Work on a site in Redzikowo in the north of the country is to be completed at the end of 2018. Situated some 250 kilometres (150 miles) from the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, it will host 24 land-based SM-3 missiles as well as anti-aircraft systems.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-missi...threat-russias-security-100817511.html?ref=gs

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1201367/the-second-coming-of-mirvs/

The Second Coming of MIRVs

by Michael Krepon | May 12, 2016 | No Comments


If the Pentagon is to be believed, the second coming of MIRVs is upon us, this time in Asia, with China’s deployment of the DF-5B missile. The advent of MIRVs in the first nuclear age was ruinous to prospects for keeping a tight lid on the superpower strategic arms competition. Once the barn doors were opened to MIRVs in the 1972 SALT I Interim Agreement, the best that Washington and Moscow could do two years later was to limit them to 1,320 delivery vehicles in the Vladivostok Accord.

The generosity of the Vladivostok provisions reinforced each side’s concerns over being disadvantaged by rapidly ballooning prompt hard-target-kill capabilities. The SALT process never really recovered from MIRVing, despite the Carter Administration’s attempts at damage limitation.

The second coming of MIRVs in Asia won’t be anything like the first. China has systematically carried out strategic modernization programs at an extraordinarily slow pace. If China continues this slow pace with respect to MIRVing, Beijing could increase its missile warhead totals to between 100-200 warheads over the next 10-15 years.

The lower end of this range seems more likely, but much will depend on US missile defense deployments and the state of bilateral relations. Compare these numbers to the thousands of warheads the United States and the Soviet Union added to their war-fighting capabilities as a result of MIRVs, and the Chinese program will seem pretty modest by comparison.

That’s the good news. The bad news is that any additional source of incremental stockpile growth will cause perturbations in Asia. China, India, and Pakistan are already flight-testing a panoply of new ballistic and cruise missiles. Their complex, interactive, triangular nuclear competition will ratchet upwards with the advent of MIRVs.

Even without the deployment in Asia of a just one multiple-warhead-tipped missile, the combined stockpiles of nuclear weapons in Pakistan, China and India could grow by around 250 warheads over the next ten years — if current trends continue.

Even without the deployment in Asia of a just one multiple-warhead-tipped missile, the combined stockpiles of nuclear weapons in Pakistan, China and India could grow by about 375 warheads over the next fifteen years — again, given current trends.

If China proceeds with MIRVing, there will be added ripple effects. A new Stimson Center book, The Lure and Pitfalls of MIRVs: From the First to the Second Nuclear Age, to be released on Monday, explores them. India most definitely has the capability to MIRV. Rajesh Basrur and Jaganath Sankaran, the authors of the India chapter in Stimson’s book, predict that India will follow China down this path. They estimate that New Delhi, like Beijing, will move at a slow pace.

The authors of the Pakistan chapter, Feroz H. Khan and Mansoor Ahmed, predict that if India MIRVs, Pakistan will also place multiple warheads on some of its missiles. Pakistan takes its nuclear-weapon requirements more seriously than India. Its military has, for example, articulated a “counterforce” rationale for its shortest- and longest-range missiles. (Counterforce targeting, as hard-core readers of ACW know, focuses on military-related designated ground zeroes, of which there are many.) Toby Dalton and I have estimated in A Normal Nuclear Pakistan that Pakistan is out-competing India in producing new warheads. But Pakistan, whose economy is nine times smaller than India, would face constraints in ramping up warhead production even more.

The prospects for negotiating a ban or serious constraints on MIRVing in Asia are as poor as during the first nuclear age. At present, there are no meaningful conversations on nuclear risk-reduction between China and India or between India and Pakistan. Bilateral or trilateral treaties are not in the cards.

The most important restraints are self-imposed. China and India have not bought into US and Soviet/Russian concepts of deterrence that rely on nuclear war-fighting capabilities. Nor have they bought into the necessity of counterforce targeting. Both China and India have adopted “No First Use” pledges. They have moved slowly to upgrade their nuclear forces. They do not use nuclear weapons to project power or to leverage diplomatic objectives. While Rawalpindi follows the beat of a different drummer, Beijing and New Delhi are more relaxed about their nuclear requirements, focusing on economic growth as the key to their national strength and domestic tranquility.

Chinese and Indian strategic concepts provide a necessary foundation for strategic restraint. This foundation is insufficient, however. Nuclear stockpiles and capabilities will continue to grow, and more growth is in the offing with MIRVs.

What’s missing is substantive engagement on strategic issues between China and India and between India and Pakistan. Also missing is nuclear risk-reduction and confidence-building measures. China and India have yet to negotiate their first nuclear risk-reduction measure. The last India-Pakistan nuclear risk-reduction measure was negotiated in 2007. When Indian leaders have sought to improve relations with Pakistan, explosions in India have followed, carried out by groups that are not terribly inconvenienced by Pakistan’s military and intelligence services or judicial proceedings.

The second coming of MIRVs in Asia – in addition to new ballistic and cruise missiles – places a greater obligation on national leaders to exercise strategic restraint and to take steps to reduce nuclear dangers. The key to strategic restraint with the second coming of MIRVs is to avoid the pursuit of counterforce capabilities. As Washington and Moscow have so clearly demonstrated, once going down this particular rabbit hole, there is a bottomless pit of targeting requirements.

Note to ACW readers in the DC area: Our book launch is from 11 am-2:30 pm on May 16th. Speakers are Alexey Arbatov, Brendan Rittenhouse Green, Lynn Davis, Jeffrey Lewis, Michael Chase, Jaganath Sankaran, Mansoor Ahmed, and yours truly. Stimson is located at 1211 Connecticut Avenue, NW. We’re on the 8th floor. If you wish to join us, please RSVP to twheeler@stimson.org.

 

[Housecarl]

I know that for those who've been following all of this for literally years this seems like a "November Sierra" piece but for the "low information voter" types out there this should be a WTF?!?!....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/11/politics/special-ops-small-wars-isis-al-qaeda/index.html

U.S. special forces wage secretive 'small wars' against terrorists

By Barbara Starr, CNN Pentagon Correspondent
Updated 9:59 AM ET, Thu May 12, 2016

Video

Washington (CNN) — President Barack Obama is increasingly calling upon Special Operations forces to carry out so-called "small wars" across the Middle East and Africa to challenge both ISIS and al Qaeda in places where the U.S. maintains a footprint beyond Syria and Iraq.

In his first trip overseas since taking command of U.S. Special Operations a month ago, Gen. Raymond Thomas told a Middle Eastern audience recently that "complex" fails to adequately describe the current security environment. That complexity is leading the Obama administration to expand the use of small teams of Special Operators in various terror hotspots.

Thomas previously served as head of the secretive Joint Special Operations Command -- the unit that includes Navy SEALS, the Army's Delta Force and other covert Special Operations units.

RELATED: Can 50 U.S. troops in Syria make a difference?

"We are attempting to identify opportunities to expand [Special Operations'] global presence, forward access and relationships to leverage opportunities short of crisis," Thomas said.

He did not offer additional details, but many military officials privately have noted that ISIS came to power and began controlling large swathes of territory, posing a major terror threat, faster than the U.S. could respond. They don't want to see it happen again.

That explains why -- although much of the U.S. response is clearly focused on Iraq and Syria -- Special Ops forces are being asked to prevent both ISIS and al Qaeda from gaining a stronger foothold in places like Libya, Somalia and Yemen. The military characterizes many of the operations as "advising and assisting" local forces with intelligence and overhead surveillance to help identify targets. But in reality there are also many instances of the U.S. conducting direct attack operations on terror targets.

Among the places where "small war" activities are underway:


Somalia

About 50 U.S. troops operate at undisclosed locations across southern Somalia advising and assisting Somali, Kenyan and Ugandan forces in their fight against Al-Shabaab, the local al Qaeda affiliate.

On Thursday, U.S. Special Operations forces came under fire from Al-Shabaab militants in Somalia when a mission to help Ugandan troops turned into unexpected combat for the Americans. The incident occurred west of Mogadishu, according to a U.S. military official familiar with reports from the scene. No U.S. troops were wounded in what quickly turned into a firefight that left five militants dead.

RELATED: US forces in Somalia firefight

The U.S. headquarters for the effort remains at the airport in Mogadishu, but the fact that the troops are at times in the field shows how far the U.S.-Somali military relationship has come since the 1993 U.S. battle in Mogadishu, Somalia, often referred to as the "Black Hawk Down" battle, in which several U.S. troops were killed.

Al-Shabaab has conducted a number of attacks in Kenya against Western interests in recent years, raising concerns for the U.S. about its ability to recruit more fighters in the region and the growing influence of al Qaeda on the group. The U.S. has also conducted counter-terrorism operations against Al-Shabaab, both in raids on the ground and from drone and aircraft strikes. In March, the Pentagon said it conducted a large-scale airstrike against an Al-Shabaab camp in Somalia, killing some 150 fighters there.


West Africa

The U.S. has sent up to 300 military personnel to Cameroon. Many are involved in drone operations there from Garoua to help provide intelligence in the region to assist local forces. There are additional drone operations based out of Niger. A U.S. military official said a major concern remains Boko Haram inside Nigeria and its declared affiliation with to ISIS. The U.S. sees ISIS increasingly trying to recruit fighters from West Africa, the official said.


Yemen

The Pentagon will offer few details, but recently a small number of U.S. troops went back into Yemen to help Saudi and United Arab Emirates forces in their battle against the al Qaeda affiliate there. The U.S. troops are providing intelligence assistance and advice, according to several U.S. military officials.


Libya

A small number of U.S. forces occasionally travel into Libya, according to several U.S. officials. A few months ago, the Pentagon had to acknowledge the presence of U.S. personnel in Libya when photos showing them appeared online. The Pentagon said they were there trying to meet with locals but left the country at the request of local authorities.

The current U.S. troops are trying to connect with political and security officials in Libya to get more information so if a national government is formed, the U.S. will be ready to provide additional military assistance. The Pentagon recently acknowledged there is a "concept of operations" for Libya that includes continued airstrikes against ISIS targets when they can be located.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/12/us-kicks-major-military-drill-eastern-europe/

U.S. kicks off major military drill in eastern Europe

By Carlo Muñoz - The Washington Times - Thursday, May 12, 2016
3 Comment(s)

Nearly 1,300 American and European troops will participate in a massive military drill in eastern Europe, a major step toward creating a new NATO force designed to curb Russian aggression in the region.

The exercise, dubbed Noble Partner 2016, kicked off Thursday and will run until May 26, Pentagon spokesman Capt. Jeff Davis told reporters at the Pentagon.

The exercise will “increase education, cooperation and training” between the 500 Georgian light infantry troops and the 800 U.S. and British troops participating in the drills, which will focus on mechanized armor and heavy artillery operations, Capt. Davis said.

“This [NATO force] provides a rapid military response force to deploy quickly wherever needed,” he said. “And in addition to its operations role, it uses opportunities like Exercise Noble Partner to increase cooperation, education and training for all participants.”

The Georgian troops participating in the exercise will be the same ones who will be the country’s contribution to a proposed NATO rotational force in the Baltic states and possibly Poland, set up as a deterrent to Russian aggression there.

The proposed force would consist of four battalions, or 4,000 troops, and would be in addition to the 4,200-man U.S. Army armored brigade Pentagon officials plan to deploy separately to the region next February, according to the Pentagon.

In response, Moscow announced plans to create three new military divisions to protect its southern and western borders, days after U.S. and NATO military leaders unveiled plans for a 4,200-man force in eastern Europe to counter recent Russian aggression there.

The new divisions, totaling roughly 30,000 troops, the bulk of which will be deployed to Russia’s Western Military District, will be in place by the end of this year, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said in a televised interview with Russian media outlets earlier this month.

Tensions between Moscow and Washington have increased in recent weeks, after a series of aggressive engagements between both countries’ forces in the Baltics.

However, recent public statements by Russian officials seem to indicate Moscow’s willingness to defuse tensions with the U.S. and NATO.

On Thursday, Russian Foreign Ministry officials said Moscow stands ready to work with NATO “on an equal basis” even in the face of the alliance’s troop buildup.

“We are open to dialogue, but our only condition is that the dialogue should be mutually respectful and take into account each other’s interests,” Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova told reporters in Moscow.

But she did note recent deployments of U.S. anti-ballistic missile systems in eastern Europe would almost certainly shot down any dialogue between Russia, the United States and NATO.

The missile system, based in Poland and Romania, represented “a direct threat to regional and international stability” in the region, Ms. Zakharova said, adding Russia “retains the right to adopt responsive measures of military and technical nature,” to respond to the perceived threat.

Russia claims the U.S. missile systems, deployed to protect U.S. and Europe from potential intercontinental ballistic missile attacks from North Korea and Iran, could be easily be turned toward Russian ballistic missile sites.

Capt. Davis refuted such claims, saying the missile defense systems based in eastern Europe were “not about Russia.”

When asked whether the systems could shift their sights onto Russian targets, Capt. Davis replied: “There are no plans to do that, and if we do take actions to deter Russia that is something we are going to tell you about.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-violence-idUSKCN0Y40FM

World | Fri May 13, 2016 4:37pm EDT
Related: World

Islamic State attacks north of Baghdad kill 16, sources say

TIKRIT, Iraq | By Ghazwan Hassan

Shooting and bomb attacks claimed by Islamic State killed at least 16 people north of Baghdad on Friday, days after Islamic State's deadliest blasts so far this year in the capital stirred public criticism of government security measures.

Three gunmen opened fire with machine guns around midnight at a cafe in the predominately Shi'ite Muslim town of Balad where young men, including fans of Spain's Real Madrid soccer club, had gathered to start the weekend, police and hospital sources. At least 12 were killed and 25 wounded.

The assailants fled and hours later one of them set off his explosive vest at a nearby vegetable market after police and Shi'ite militia members cornered him in a disused building and exchanged gunfire, security sources said. Four were killed and two critically wounded, medical sources added.

Islamic State said in a statement distributed online by supporters that three suicide attackers targeting Shi'ite militiamen had detonated their explosives, though security sources said they had only identified one bomber.

A Reuters witness saw the scorched body of a suspected assailant hanging upside down from a post outside the cafe on Friday morning.

Residents said they had seized the man from a nearby house where he had fled following the attack. They said they had burned him alive after he confessed. An intelligence official confirmed this account.

Islamic State nearly overran Balad, 80 km (50 miles) north of Baghdad, in 2014 and maintains a frontline around 40 km away.

Friday's attackers had passed three police checkpoints before reaching their target, said police sources. Security forces deployed throughout the town, fearing more attacks.


SOCCER FANS

The intelligence official said fighters from the powerful Iranian-backed Badr Organisation raided a nearby house and detained 13 members of a Sunni family. There were reports of gunfire in an adjacent orchard.

Iraqi authorities are facing scrutiny over security breaches that allowed suicide attackers to set off three bombs on Wednesday in Baghdad, killing at least 80 people.

The country is also struggling through a political crisis over a cabinet overhaul that has crippled government for weeks and threatens to undermine the U.S.-backed war against Islamic State, which still controls swathes of territory in the north and west it seized in 2014.

The fight against the ultra-hardline Sunni militants has exacerbated Iraq's sectarian conflict, mostly between the Sunni minority and the Shi'ite majority, that emerged after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

A 22-year-old victim named Tahseen told a doctor he had been smoking a water pipe when a man wearing civilian clothes and a bandolier filled with ammunition crossed the street toward al-Furat Cafe. He recounted hearing several blasts, likely from stun bombs, amid gunfire that lasted about ten minutes.

Inside the cafe hung pictures of famous footballers and a sign for a local group of Real Madrid fans. Witnesses said there was no match on Thursday night but spectators often congregated there.

Real Madrid said its players would wear black arm bands on Saturday to honor the victims.

"Football and sport shall always be spaces in which to come together and in which harmony and peace reign and with which no form of barbaric terrorism will be able to compete," it said in an online statement.

A suicide bombing in March at a youth soccer match south of Baghdad killed 26 people and wounded 71 others.



(Additional reporting by Omar Fahmy in Cairo; Writing by Stephen Kalin and Saif Hameed; Editing by Ralph Boulton and Richard Balmforth)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/pentagon-chinese-military-modernization-enters-211320005.html

Pentagon: Chinese Military Modernization Enters “New Phase”

May 13, 2016

China’s decades-long military modernization “entered a new phase” last year under the aggressive leadership of President Xi Jinping, a new Pentagon report on Beijing’s military capabilities said today. The “sweeping transformation” includes making the formerly mass army a nimbler, more balanced force that is acquiring the kind of expeditionary capabilities the U.S. military already enjoys.

“China’s military modernization is producing capabilities that have the potential to reduce core U.S. military technological advantages” on the sea and in the air, the report found.

The most visible outward sign of China’s military muscle-flexing can be seen in the 3,200 acres it has reclaimed on reefs and rocks in the South China Sea. Three of those sites in the Spratly Islands now have port facilities and 10,000-foot runways that can handle any plane in the Chinese arsenal, the report found. Those territorial claims, which clash with rival claims from other states in the region, are backed up with coast guard and civilian ships.

“It seems to us that these activities are designed to stay below the threshold of conflict,” but demonstrate that China is willing to defend its territorial claims, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for East Asia Abraham Denmark said while unveiling the report at the Pentagon.

The report, an annual update mandated by Congress, notes that the Chinese moves “have caused countries in the region to enhance their ties to the United States.” Given the still-growing Chinese defense budget, the report found, “these concerns are likely to intensify as the PLA continues to modernize, especially in the absence of greater transparency.”

But the potentially more significant, long-term developments are found closer to home. Xi is pushing through a series of deep reforms in the People’s Liberation Army, including a massive reorganization of the historically unwieldy institution, moving it from a collection of distinct regional units to a more rigidly top-down organization. The Chinese leader is also purging the military’s officer corps, arresting dozens on charges of corruption over the past year while cutting some 300,000 troops from the army’s bloated ranks.

The reforms are rebalancing China’s military, making the army smaller while the navy and the air force grow; the report noted that Chinese aviation technology is “rapidly closing the gap with western air forces.” At the same time, China’s nuclear and missile forces have been reorganized as an independent service and have been bolstered with a new array of weapons that push China’s potential reach farther out into the Pacific.

The moves come at a time when Xi is widely seen as attempting to consolidate his control over China’s institutions. The military has always been seen as a political institution in China, and it exists to protect, and carry out the orders of the Communist party.

Given China’s emphasis on being able to operate farther from home — as outlined in last year’s defense white paper — the Chinese navy continues to get preferential treatment. The Pentagon report noted that the 300-ship PLAN “now possesses the largest number of vessels in Asia,” boasting a growing number of advanced surface ships, new submarines, amphibious ships, and its first aircraft carrier.

The report also stressed Beijing’s use of the so-called Chinese Maritime Militia, a paramilitary organization of hundreds of civilian fishing boats which acts as a virtual picket line, sailing hundreds of miles outside of Chinese territorial waters to keep an eye on other vessels and harass any that stray too close to Chinese claims.

In many ways, this year’s report echoes previous studies. The lack of transparency in Chinese military developments has long been a concern for the Pentagon, and Chinese behavior in the South China Sea has been a source of tension for several years. In addition to tensions in the South China Sea, Chinese defense planners have remained very focused on being able to project power against Taiwan, if needed.

But this year’s report highlighted ways in which the Chinese military is slowing shedding much of its doctrinal baggage. Traditionally, the Chinese eschewed overseas bases and deployments, and focused on close defense. This year’s report stresses Chinese deployments overseas for peacekeeping and anti-piracy missions, a growing network of logistical support bases in the Indian Ocean — including China’s first-ever overseas base in Djibouti — and technological developments that make it easier for Chinese ships to operate farther from home, including better air defenses on new frigates and destroyers and the country’s first operational aircraft carrier.

On Thursday, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Joseph Dunford and his Chinese counterpart, Gen. Fang Fenghui, spoke for the first time since Dunford took office in October, according to a statement released by the Pentagon.

Dunford “acknowledged the areas of cooperation” between the two militaries, while delivering “messages regarding U.S. commitment to uphold the rules-based international order, defend U.S. allies and interests in the South China Sea, while affirming a desire to avoid confrontation,” the statement said.

View Comments (38)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-concer...zuela-meltdown-officials-225523812.html?nhp=1

U.S. concern grows over possible Venezuela meltdown: officials

By Matt Spetalnick
May 13, 2016

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States is increasingly concerned about the potential for an economic and political meltdown in Venezuela, spurred by fears of a debt default, growing street protests and deterioration of its vital oil sector, U.S. intelligence officials said on Friday.

In a bleak assessment of Venezuela's worsening crisis, the senior officials expressed doubt that unpopular leftist President Nicolas Maduro would allow a recall referendum this year, despite opposition-led protests demanding a vote to decide whether he stays in office.

But the two officials, briefing a small group of reporters in Washington, predicted that Maduro, who heads Latin America’s most ardently anti-U.S. government and a major U.S. oil supplier, was not likely to be able to complete his term, which is due to end after elections in late 2018.

They said one “plausible” scenario would be that Maduro’s own party or powerful political figures would force him out and would not rule out the possibility of a military coup. Still, they said there was no evidence of any active plotting or that he had lost support from the country’s generals.

The officials appeared to acknowledge that Washington has little leverage in how the situation unfolds in Venezuela, where any U.S. role draws government accusations of U.S.-aided conspiracies. Instead, the administration of President Barack Obama wants "regional" efforts to help keep the country from sliding into chaos.

“You can hear the ice cracking. You know there’s a crisis coming,” one U.S. official said. “Our pressure on this isn’t going to resolve this issue.”

Venezuela’s Information Ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Mobs in Venezuela have stolen flour, chicken and even underwear this week as looting increases across the crisis-hit OPEC nation where many basic products have run short, and the U.S. officials said this could spiral into widespread unrest. Soldiers fired tear gas at stone-throwing protesters on Wednesday as Venezuela's opposition marched to pressure electoral authorities into allowing a recall referendum against Maduro.

Maduro has sworn he will not be forced out before his term expires in 2019 and accuses the opposition of seeking a coup against him to destroy the socialist legacy of his predecessor, the late Hugo Chavez. Washington has had an acrimonious relationship with Caracas for years, especially following U.S. support for a short-lived 2002 coup against Chavez.

The U.S. officials insisted that the United States was not “rooting against” Caracas but just wanted to see the crisis defused.

They expressed concern for a possible spillover to its neighboring countries, especially Colombia, but said most of the instability would be “self-contained” to Venezuela.

Such intelligence assessments help U.S. policymakers decide on how to respond. There was no immediate comment from the White House. The administration quietly sought last year to improve relations but the imposition of new U.S. sanctions and drug-related indictments stoked fresh tensions.

The officials cited the risk of a Venezuelan debt default. Maduro's government has consistently paid its debt on time and has slammed market fears of a default as an international smear campaign.

Weak oil markets and an unraveling socialist economy have fanned concerns that the Venezuelan oil firm PDVSA will be unable to make nearly $5 billion in bond payments between now and the end of the year.

(Editing by Stuart Grudgings and Mary Milliken)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/un-alarmed-boko-haram-ties-200805834.html?nhp=1

UN alarmed about Boko Haram ties to IS

May 13, 2016

United Nations (United States) (AFP) - The UN Security Council on Friday said it was alarmed by Boko Haram's ties to the Islamic State Group and threw its support behind a Nigerian-led regional summit to confront the threat.

The 15-member council said in a statement that it welcomed President Muhammadu Buhari's "crucial initiative" to hold the summit on Saturday, which will be attended by regional leaders and French President Francois Hollande.

The council statement was drafted by the United States as a show of support for Buhari on the eve of the meeting.

The summit should help develop "a comprehensive strategy to address the governance, security, development, socio-economic and humanitarian dimensions of the crisis," said a council statement.

The council expressed "alarm at Boko Haram's linkages with the Islamic State" and voiced "deep concern that the activities of Boko Haram continue to undermine the peace and stability of the West and Central African region."

Boko Haram pledged allegiance to IS last year and Nigerians have been reportedly fighting in lawless Libya, as well as having ties with Al-Qaeda-linked groups in the wider Sahel.

US Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken and British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond are among the senior foreign dignitaries expected in Abuja on Saturday.

The council renewed its call for regional countries Cameroon, Chad and Niger in a multinational joint task force to "further enhance regional military cooperation and coordination" to root out Boko Haram.

It demanded that Boko Haram "immediately and unequivocally cease all violence and all abuses of human rights" and "release all those abducted" including the 219 schoolgirls abducted in Chibok, Nigeria in April 2014.

Boko Haram was named in the latest Global Terrorism Index as "the most deadly terrorist group in the world" in 2014. An estimated 20,000 people have been killed since 2009.

Comments (13)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/snipers-...ing-fallujah-us-official-195351320.html?nhp=1

IS snipers prevent civilians leaving Fallujah: US official

May 13, 2016

Washington (AFP) - Islamic State snipers are targeting humanitarian corridors established by Iraqi security forces to relieve suffering in the IS-held city of Fallujah, a Pentagon official said Friday.

Baghdad-based military spokesman Colonel Steve Warren said the shooters were preventing residents from escaping Fallujah, which is only about 30 miles (50 kilometers) west of Baghdad and is facing major shortages of basic supplies including medicine.

"We know that the Iraqis have attempted on several occasions to open up humanitarian corridors to allow some of those civilians to come out," Warren told Pentagon reporters in a video call.

"Those have met with generally not much success. ISIL has done things like set up snipers to cover down on those corridors, to kill people as they're trying to get out. So that has really discouraged their use," he added, using an acronym for the IS group.

Warren later said Iraqi forces had tried to set up three corridors, but these have been all but abandoned because of the snipers.

"Word must have spread because no civilians have tried to use the corridors in the last few weeks," he said.

Anti-government fighters took control of Fallujah in early 2014 during unrest that broke out after security forces demolished a protest camp farther west, and it later became an IS stronghold.

Warren said Iraqi security forces now "generally" surround Fallujah and have begun to slowly "chip away" at it.

"This is the very first city that ISIL gained control of," he said.

"ISIL's been there for more than two years, so they are dug in and dug in deep. This is a tough nut for us to crack here. This is a tough nut for the Iraqis to crack."

US forces are training and advising Iraqi partners as they try to repel IS jihadists from the country.

The Pentagon says the IS group is losing ground, and the jihadists have suffered major defeats in Iraq, including the loss of the cities of Heet and Ramadi.

But they remain in control of Iraq's second-largest city Mosul and it is not clear when Iraqi troops will mount an assault to retake it.

Warren said there was no "no military reason" for Iraqi forces to liberate Fallujah before they could tackle Mosul.

About half of Iraq's security forces are focused on protecting Baghdad, where IS fighters claimed responsibility for a string of suicide attacks this week.

At least 94 people were killed in three blasts in Baghdad on Wednesday, the deadliest day in the Iraqi capital this year.

View Comments (23)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/un-repor...ot-pistols-north-koreans-222237175.html?nhp=1

UN report: Congolese officers got pistols from North Koreans

EDITH M. LEDERER
May 13, 2016

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — U.N. experts say Congolese army officers and police reported receiving pistols from a group of 30 North Korean instructors training their presidential guard and special police forces, which would appear to be a violation of U.N. sanctions banning Pyongyang from exporting weapons or providing military training.

The panel of experts monitoring U.N. sanctions against Congo said they found that pistols similar to those produced in North Korea were issued to some members of the Congolese army and national police serving in the U.N. peacekeeping mission.

"The group also found that the same type of pistol was available for sale on the black market in Kinshasa," the Congolese capital, the panel said in excerpts from the report seen by The Associated Press on Friday.

On another issue, the experts said Rwanda is continuing to train and finance Burundian refugees in Congo with the ultimate goal of removing Burundian President Pierre Nkurunziza from power.

The Rwandan government "denied any involvement," the experts said.

In a report in February, the experts said about 400 Burundian refugees in Congo were recruited and trained by Rwandan military personnel last year in military tactics, small arms such as assault rifles and machine guns, and hand grenades and mortars, among other weaponry, with the aim of overthrowing Nkurunziza.

"Similar outside support continued through 2016," the new report said. "This took the form of training, financing, and logistical support for Burundan combatants crossing from Rwanda" to Congo.

The experts said they also met Rwandans who told them they had been involved in training Burundian combatants or had been sent to Congo to help support the Burundian opposition.

Burundi has been wracked by violence since April 2015 when Nkurunziza declared his bid for a third term, which he eventually won in July, despite protests that it violates the constitution.

More than 400 people have been killed and an upsurge of violence, including tortures and increased disappearances, has created a climate of fear and led more than 250,000 people to flee to neighboring countries.

The Congo conflict is a spillover from the 1994 genocide in neighboring Rwanda. Hundreds of Hutus who participated in the mass slaughter escaped into Congo and still fight in the mineral-rich and volatile east, along with other armed groups. The U.N. has a 20,000-strong peacekeeping force in the country, mainly in the east.

View Comments (1)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nigeria-security-usa-idUSKCN0Y41QH

World | Fri May 13, 2016 4:07pm EDT
Related: World, Libya, Africa

Boko Haram may be sending fighters to Islamic State in Libya: U.S. officials

ABUJA | By Ulf Laessing


There are signs that Nigeria's Boko Haram jihadists are sending fighters to join Islamic State in Libya, and of increased cooperation between the two groups, a senior U.S. official said on Friday.

Nigeria has asked the United States to sell it aircraft to fight Boko Haram, which has been waging a seven-year insurgency in the north and last year pledged loyalty to Islamic State, which is active in Syria, Iraq and Libya.

Little is known about the extent of cooperation between the two radical Islamist groups. But Western governments worry that Islamic State's growing presence in north Africa and ties with Boko Haram could herald a push south into the vast, lawless Sahel region and create a springboard for wider attacks.

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken said there were "reports" that Boko Haram fighters were going to Libya, where Islamic State has established a large presence, taking advantage of security chaos.

"We've seen that Boko Haram's ability to communicate has become more effective. They seem to have benefited from assistance from Daesh," he said, using a derogatory name for Islamic State. There were also reports of material and logistical aid.

"So these are all elements that suggests that there are more contacts and more cooperation, and this is again something that we are looking at very carefully because we want to cut it off," Blinken told reporters in Nigeria.


HUMAN RIGHTS

Blinken said the United States was helping Nigeria in its fight against Boko Haram with armoured vehicles. But he declined to comment on a request by the West African nation to sell it aircraft.

U.S. officials told Reuters this month Washington wants to sell up to 12 A-29 Super Tucano light attack aircraft to Nigeria in recognition of President Muhammadu Buhari's army reforms. Congress needs to approve the deal.

Under Buhari's predecessor Goodluck Jonathan, the United States had blocked arms sales, partly due to human rights concerns.

Blinken said Nigeria had made several requests for military hardware. "We are looking very actively at these requests," he said.

Nigeria's Foreign Minister Geoffrey Onyeama earlier said the government had set up reporting mechanisms inside the military to monitor human rights which should convince Congress to approve the sale.

Blinken said the military under Buhari had made "important efforts" to address human rights but the U.S. was "troubled" by an Amnesty International report from this week that children were dying in military detention.

The army had rejected the report.

Blinken said Washington was also concerned about an alleged army massacre of Shi'ites in northern Nigeria in December, during which hundreds were killed, according to residents.

He said a state commission to probe the killings should provide a "transparent and credible report".


(Reporting by Ulf Laessing; Editing by Richard Balmforth and Hugh Lawson)

 

[Housecarl]

US to Activate European Missile Shield Today
Started by imaginative‎, Yesterday 04:34 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?491216-US-to-Activate-European-Missile-Shield-Today


For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-shield-russia-idUSKCN0Y41OF

Business | Fri May 13, 2016 2:18pm EDT
Related: World, Russia, Aerospace & Defense

Russia will act to neutralize U.S. missile shield threat: Putin

SOCHI, Russia | By Vladimir Soldatkin

A ballistic missile defense shield which the United States has activated in Europe is a step to a new arms race, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Friday, vowing to adjust budget spending to neutralize "emerging threats" to Russia.

The United States switched on the $800 million missile shield at a Soviet-era base in Romania on Thursday saying it was a defense against missiles from Iran and so-called rogue states.

But, speaking to top defense and military industry officials, Putin said the system was aimed at blunting Russia's nuclear arsenal.

"This is not a defense system. This is part of U.S. nuclear strategic potential brought onto a periphery. In this case, Eastern Europe is such periphery," Putin said.

"Until now, those taking such decisions have lived in calm, fairly well-off and in safety. Now, as these elements of ballistic missile defense are deployed, we are forced to think how to neutralize emerging threats to the Russian Federation," he said.

Coupled with deployment in the Mediterranean of U.S. ships carrying Aegis missiles and other missile shield elements in Poland, the site in Romania was "yet another step to rock international security and start a new arms race", he said.

Russia would not be drawn into this race. But it would continue re-arming its army and navy and spend the approved funds in a way that would "uphold the current strategic balance of forces", he said.

U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work said on Thursday that the shield would not be used against any future Russian missile threat.

Frank Rose, deputy U.S. assistant secretary of state for arms control, warned at the time that Iran's ballistic missiles could hit parts of Europe, including Romania.

Putin said the prospect of a nuclear threat from Iran should no longer be taken seriously and was being used by Washington as an excuse to develop its missile shield in Europe.

The full defensive umbrella, when complete in 2018 after further development in Poland, will stretch from Greenland to the Azores.

It relies on radars to detect a ballistic missile launch into space. Sensors then measure the rocket's trajectory and destroy it in space before it re-enters the earth's atmosphere. The interceptors can be fired from ships or ground sites.


(Reporting by Vladimir Soldatkin; Writing by Dmitry Solovyov; Editing by Lidia Kelly and Richard Balmforth)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/irans-unstoppable-march-toward-dominance-16182

Iran's Unstoppable March Toward Dominance

Tehran's "moment" was coming long before the nuclear deal.

Mohammed Nuruzzaman
May 12, 2016
Comments 104

In late June 2013 the Economist underscored the need for stripping Iran of its nuclear program “to stem the rise of Persian power.” A “nuclear Iran,” it asserted, would seriously challenge Western interests in the Middle East and endanger “Israel’s right to exist.” The magazine concluded: “When Persian power is on the rise, it is not the time to back away from the Middle East.” Arguing from the opposite angle, Hillary Mann Leverett, a former U.S. National Security Council official, wrote in March 2015: “In reality, Iran’s rise is not only normal, it is actually essential to a more stable region,” because America’s recent “imperial overstretch” to permanently create a pro-American regional order, and the post-1979 Faustian bargain involving Israel and Saudi Arabia to contain Iranian power, had failed.

President Obama has of late reckoned with this reality, after long denial by successive U.S. administrations since 1979. At the end of the second GCC-U.S. summit meeting in Saudi Arabia held on April 21–22, he delivered two important messages, among others, to the Gulf Arab leaders: that the United States had no interest in direct confrontation with Iran, and that the Gulf leaders should depend more on their military capacities to defend their countries. Implicit in Obama’s two messages was another significant message: the United States views Iran as a powerful actor in the Middle East, a reference to what he previously said in his interview with the Atlantic that the GCC should “share the neighborhood” with Iran, provoking sharp reactions from some of the Gulf allies.

Today, the rise of Iran is less of a political topic to debate and more of a reality to recognize. Compared to its Middle Eastern neighbors, Iran has made impressive strides in space technology in the past few years, putting the first satellite into orbit in February 2009; has emerged as a cyber power on the level of China or Russia; and has achieved significant advances in military hardware production, including sophisticated unmanned aerial vehicles, main battle tanks, and medium and long-range ballistic missiles. The Iranian defense industry is making gradual inroads into global armament markets, with Iraq, Syria and Lebanon already receiving regular arms shipments to fight Islamic State and other rebel forces. The Iranian state is capable of projecting force in the Gulf and the Levant, and has often challenged the United States—successfully or not—to stay out of the Gulf region, showing a high degree of foreign-policy independence.

Furthermore, traditional elements of Iranian power, such as its strategic location with unfettered access to the Indian Ocean and considerable control over the Strait of Hormuz in the southern entrance of the Persian Gulf, through which one-third of the world’s seaborne oil shipments passes; its long shorelines on the Caspian Sea, connecting Tehran to the Central Asian states and Russia; a large and educated population; huge reserves of oil and gas; and an expanding industrial base contributing to nearly 40 percent of GDP, despite Western sanctions—all these buttress Iran’s bid for a major power role in the Middle East.


Iran’s Moment in the Middle East

The immediate tipping point for Iran’s rise as a major regional power has been the historic nuclear deal, dubbed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Tehran and the P5+1 group of states (the United States, the UK, China, France, Russia plus Germany) signed in mid-July 2015, unleashing a rare “Iranian moment.” Politically, the deal forced the Americans to accord legitimacy to an cleric-led country they so far branded a “rogue state” or classified it in the so-called “axis of evil.” Economically, it mostly frees the Iranian economy from UN and Western sanctions to reintegrate into the world economy and thrive, while the West accepts Iran as a strategic partner in the fight against Islamic State violence and extremism.

The “Iranian moment” did not, however, emerge from the nuclear deal alone. It was two to three decades in the making, amid momentous developments that shook up strategic landscapes in and around the Middle East. Two of these crucial changes were the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the elimination of Iran’s two bitter enemies—Taliban Afghanistan to the east and Saddam Hussein’s regime to the west—by the United States in the early 2000s. Iran became the greatest strategic beneficiary of America’s military assault on Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq under the rubric of the War on Terror, which the United States had hardly intended. The so-called Sunni wall of defense against Shia Iran completely crumbled, empowering Iran to influence political and strategic developments in post-Saddam Iraq.

In the ruins of the Soviet Union, there emerged half a dozen states in Central Asia, creating a buffer zone between Iran and Russia and thus relieving Russian pressure on Iran’s northern and northeastern borders. Relations between Iran and Russia were historically plagued with tensions and conflicts, including wars of territorial aggrandizement. As recently as 1941, the Soviet Union and Britain deposed the founder of the Pahlavi dynasty, Reza Khan Pahlavi (1926–1941), for his opposition to a joint British-Soviet plan to use Iran as a supply route for Soviet troops fighting German forces in areas northwest of Iran. Imperial Russia captured much of Persia’s territory in the Caucasus and Central Asia, forcing the Persian Qajar dynasty (1789–1925) to sign the Treaty of Turkmenchay in 1828. These historical defeats and humiliations at the hands of Russia remain quite fresh in Iran’s memory, though the two countries have in recent years forged an informal alliance relationship to oppose U.S. dominance and defend the Bashar al-Assad government in Syria, battered by a civil war unleashed by the Arab Spring.

It was the Arab Spring, especially the rise of the Islamic State in the summer of 2014, that acted as a catalyst for Iran to expand its regional sphere of influence. Tehran perceived the threats of Islamic State and Western-backed rebel groups against Syria and the Shia-dominated government in Baghdad as threats to its own security and the viability of the so-called “axis of resistance” comprising Iran, Syria and Hezbollah. The Revolutionary Guards justified military involvements and actions in Syria and Iraq in defensive terms: “If we do not fight them [Islamic State forces and various rebel groups] in Damascus, we have to fight them back in the streets of Tehran.” President Hassan Rouhani promised unconditional support for Iraq to combat ISIS terror, and Ali Akbar Velayati, a top foreign policy advisor to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, has often reiterated that President Bashar al-Assad’s ouster before his term ends is “Iran’s redline” in Syria. Iran appears firmly entrenched in Iraq and Syria, and has elevated its status as a power broker in the Arab world.

At the same time, a general decline in Arab state power has greatly aided Iran’s rise as the dominant regional player. Battered by the prodemocracy movements, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen are in a state of violence and chaos; Lebanon is walking a political tightrope, infested with sectarian poison and caught between “push-and-pull” pressures from Iran and Saudi Arabia; Jordan is flooded with a massive influx of Syrian refugees; and Egypt’s military-run government is under stress from domestic challenges, the most serious being a jihadist insurgency spreading in the Sinai peninsula. The Arabs seem in no effective position, at least for now, to mount any serious challenge to deflect Iranian pressure or prevent its rise. Saudi Arabia’s efforts to square off against Iran in Syria, Iraq and Yemen have so far yielded no notable outcomes.


Strategies to Enhance Power and Influence

Iran’s rise to power has come with a big strategic shift from the export of revolutionary ideology to the cultivation of solid political ties with Shia constituencies across the Middle East. Ayatollah Khomeini’s post-1979 revolutionary rhetoric, especially his call on the Arabs to rise up and overthrow their un-Islamic, pro-U.S. kings and emirs, scared hereditary Arab rulers and the West in equal measure. That forced the United States and the Gulf rulers to jointly limit Khomeini’s revolutionary zeal by militarily and financially supporting the Iraqi invasion of Iran in 1980. Khomeini’s revolutionary appeal fell on deaf ears, as no Muslim community answered his call for revolutionary uprisings; neither did any Muslim country choose to establish an Iran-style velayat-e faqih (government of the jurist). Iran’s only external success was the creation of the Lebanese Shia resistance group Hezbollah in 1985, along Khomeini’s revolutionary ideals, to oppose Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon.

In contrast, Iran’s current strategy is nonideological. It consists of Shia political empowerment across the region, and the development of economic self-reliance—what the Supreme Leader calls the “resistance economy”—to absorb and survive economic shocks produced by hostile external economic policies, such as sanctions. Both elements of the current strategy substantially empower Iran for a robust regional role.

Historically, the cleavages of Persian versus Arab, and Sunni versus Shia, have stymied Iran’s efforts to spread its influence in the Arab world, except for a brief period after the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war. That situation probably changed for good after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which resulted in a shift of political power from Sunni to Shia hands. It encouraged Shia from across the region, including Iranian Shias, to develop political, economic and cultural ties to jointly stave off Sunni Al Qaeda fighters and oppose Sunni dominance in Iraq. For Iraqi Shias, a return to Sunni domination was more worrisome than Iran’s influence. Iran also created its own networks of political, business and cultural allies and clients to neutralize future Iraqi threats and to gradually force America to leave Iraq. With its deep involvement in the Syrian civil war to defend ally President Bashar al-Assad and his Shia Alawite community, Iran saw itself as the leader of a Shia revival stretching from Beirut to Tehran. It was the first country to send arms and military advisors to Iraq to resist Sunni Islamic State fighters, it has trained Shias from Afghanistan and Pakistan to fight in Syria, and it supports Houthi rebels in Yemen against a Saudi-led Sunni Arab coalition.

Tehran has thus overcome ethnic and intra-Shia differences to create and lead a largely unified Shia bloc in the Middle East to ensure two things: to fend off Sunni bids to capture political power in Iraq and Syria, and to defend Shia rights in other regional states.

The concept of “resistance economics,” on the other hand, originated from Iran’s efforts to offset the consequences of intrusive Western sanctions, particularly the U.S. and EU sanctions imposed on January 1, 2012, to force Iran to give up its nuclear program. The sanctions package completely cut Iran off from the global financial-transaction system, disconnected Iranian banks from the external world and significantly reduced oil production and exports, setting off negative economic growth rates of –6.6 percent in 2012 and –1.6 percent in 2013, with the Iranian rial losing 56 percent of its value between January 2012 to January 2014.

Former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s mismanagement was also partially responsible for this dire economic situation. Resistance economics was a solution to minimize the effects of existing and future sanctions. It aims to reduce Iran’s vulnerabilities to regional and global economic shockwaves by creating domestic capacities to promote a knowledge-based economy, improve industrial and technological competitiveness, fight back inflation and unemployment, and reduce dependence on oil and gas exports. The idea seems to have produced some positive result recently. In the last Iranian fiscal year (March 2015–March 2016), Iran had a non-oil trade surplus of $916 million.


The Three Challenges

Though Iran’s strategy of Shia empowerment and resistance economics is paying off, there are stiff challenges to its rise and dominance. Until recently, the most formidable challenge was the U.S.-led Western opposition to Iran that attempted to economically damage Iran, politically cut it off from the international community and diplomatically render it a pariah state. The nuclear deal has turned over that page, though tensions are still running high between Tehran and Washington over Iran’s ballistic missile program and the U.S. seizure of Iran’s frozen funds.

The second serious challenge comes from Iran’s neighbors, led by Saudi Arabia. Saudi efforts to check Iran’s rise are more geopolitical in nature and less sectarian in character, despite Riyadh’s strategy to mobilize Sunni Arab and Muslim states to counter Tehran. The Saudis, awash with petrodollars and in the absence of an effective counterweight to Iran, like Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, had hardly any option but to jump into the fray to face the historical competitor. The Saudi-led challenge is unlikely to end soon, but much depends on how Iran reaches out to Saudi Arabia and allays its concerns to initiate dialogues and cooperation. A China-style “peaceful rise” policy may prove more effective for Iran to engage Riyadh and other Muslim states.

The third challenge originates from within Iran itself, and is more threatening to Iran’s regional ambitions and goals. Iranian domestic politics is fissiparous, beset with multiple divides between the three overlapping groups of Islamic conservatives, reformists and pragmatists. Deep rifts characterize their views on core national issues, including relations with the West, development strategy, regional political and strategic issues, and so on. The problem is so serious that the reformist President Rouhani has called for a domestic JCPOA to iron out political differences, building national unity to implement sound policies, spurring economic development. Unless resolved or at least mitigated, domestic political disunity may prove a dreadful obstacle to Iran’s rise to regional power status.

Notwithstanding the regional and domestic challenges, Iran definitely looks poised to rise as a dominant regional power in the Middle East—a goal all Iranian leaders, from Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to Ayatollah Khomeini to Khamenei, have sought to achieve. It is presently much closer to achieving this goal than at any other time in modern history.

Mohammed Nuruzzaman is associate professor of international relations at Gulf University for Science and Technology in West Mishref, Kuwait.

 

[vestige]

U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work said on Thursday that the shield would not be used against any future Russian missile threat.

I wonder if he kept a straight face when he said that?

bump