WAR 05-19-2018-to-05-25-2018___THEWINDSofWAR

Housecarl · May 19, 2018

(321) 04-28-2018-to-05-04-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...5-04-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(322) 05-05-2018-to-05-11-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...5-11-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(323) 05-12-2018-to-05-18-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...5-18-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

==========

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.stripes.com/news/army-a...-carson-and-joint-base-lewis-mcchord-1.527874

Army announces new brigades at Fort Hood, Fort Carson and Joint Base Lewis-McChord

By ROSE L. THAYER | STARS AND STRIPES
Published: May 18, 2018

Three new Security Force Assistance Brigades designed to conduct advise-and-assist operations with allied and partner nations have been assigned to bases in Texas, Colorado and Washington, the Army announced Friday.

The Army said the 3rd Security Force Assistance Brigade will be assigned to Fort Hood in Texas, the 4th SFAB at Fort Carson in Colorado and 5th SFAB at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington. These specialized units consist of about 800 soldiers, ranked sergeant and above, with a primary mission to fulfill the Army’s train, advise and assist missions around the globe.

“There will always be a need to help build allied or partnered forces, and the SFABs will take on this critical mission and allow brigade combat teams to concentrate on preparing for potential full-spectrum combat operations against a near-peer adversary” Army Secretary Mark Esper said in a news release.

The three new SFABs are the final three active-duty units joining the 1st SFAB stationed at Fort Benning in Georgia and the 2nd SFAB at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. The National Guard is still considering locations for its SFAB. The Fort Benning brigade is deployed to Afghanistan.

The decision to station the brigades at these three posts was based on strategic considerations including projected time to activate and train an SFAB, presence of senior grade personnel to assign to the unit and required facility costs, the Army said.

related articles
With 1st SFAB deployed, Army looks to build more adviser brigades
US advisers: Training Afghan aircraft mechanics vital to country's military independence

“Security Force Assistance Brigades are a critical addition to our Army, and they will be increasingly called upon to deploy throughout the world to serve as combat advisers in support of theater security objectives,” said Lt. Gen. Paul E. Funk II, III Corps and Fort Hood commander.

Earlier this year, Fort Hood held a recruiting event for SFABs with nearly 1,000 interested soldiers in attendance, according to local news reports.

Maj. Gen. Randy A. George, commander of the 4th Infantry Division and Fort Carson, said he was pleased the new unit will be stationed there.

“It just makes sense when you consider Fort Carson’s premier training range areas, excellent high-altitude location and extremely supportive community,” George said.

Soldiers for the units are screened based on qualifications and experience and are among the most highly trained tactical leaders in the Army. The unit will receive the most advanced military equipment available. SFAB soldiers receive special training through the Military Advisor Training Academy to include language, foreign weapons and the Joint Fires Observer course, the Army stated.

Each SFAB’s officers and noncommissioned officers come with previous experience in the jobs that they are assigned. The Army has incentives to include promotion and special pay to join the SFAB, a $5,000 assignment bonus and choice of duty station for up to 36 months.

The Army also stated officials plan to establish a command element within Army Forces Command at Fort Bragg, with the intent to conduct training and readiness oversight of the SFABs.

“I think we’ll see a much better adviser capability built out of these brigades,” said Gen. Mark Milley, the Army chief of staff. “Meanwhile, we’ll recoup the readiness value of bringing the regular [combat] brigades home to train for their regularly designed missions.”

Thayer.rose@stripes.com
Twitter: @Rose_lori

previous coverage
Senate leader wants a new Army advisory brigade for Africa

Housecarl · May 19, 2018

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/05/19/uk-mulls-sending-more-troops-afghanistan.html

UK Considers Deploying More Troops to Afghanistan: Report

Agence France Presse 19 May 2018

Britain could substantially boost its troop numbers in Afghanistan, following demands from U.S. President Donald Trump that NATO members "pay their fair share", The Times reported Friday.

U.K. Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson is believed to have asked Prime Minister Theresa May for 400 more soldiers to be sent to help fight the Taliban, adding to the 600 already training Afghan forces.

Trump announced last year that the U.S. would send an additional 3,500 troops to secure areas that had fallen under Taliban control, and has frequently warned that members need to fulfill their commitments to NATO funding.

"Twenty-three of the 28 member nations are still not paying what they should be paying and what they're supposed to be paying for their defense," Trump said at NATO's headquarters in Brussels last year.

May is due to make an announcement at a NATO summit in July, where it is anticipated Trump may turn the screw even further.

Britain's Ministry of Defense (MoD) said it remained "committed to NATO's ...mission, in which we play an important role, and keep our contribution under constant review."

Richard Barrons, a former commander of Joint Forces Command, said Britain needed to acknowledge that challenges still remained in Afghanistan.

"When we left, it was not the case that the Afghan national army and the air force were strong enough to tip the balance against the Taliban -- and that now has to be reset," he told the BBC Radio 4 Today program.

Video

This article was from Agence France Presse and was legally licensed through the NewsCred publisher network. Please direct all licensing questions to legal@newscred.com.

Housecarl · May 19, 2018

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://amti.csis.org/china-lands-first-bomber-south-china-sea-island/

CHINA LANDS FIRST BOMBER ON SOUTH CHINA SEA ISLAND

PUBLISHED: MAY 18, 2018

The People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) announced on May 18 that it had landed bombers, including the top-of-the-line H-6K, on an outpost in the South China Sea for the first time. Social media posts on the PLAAF’s Weibo account, as well as the state-owned People’s Daily Twitter account, showed a long-range bomber landing and taking off from Woody Island—China’s largest base in the Paracel Islands.

Video

People's Daily,China
✔
@PDChina
Chinese bombers including the H-6K conduct takeoff and landing training on an island reef at a southern sea area

1:00 AM - May 18, 2018
143
128 people are talking about this

AMTI has previously detailed Woody Island’s role as a blueprint for eventual deployments to the Spratly Islands farther south. China has built large hangars at all three of its “Big 3” outposts in the Spratlys (Subi, Mischief, and Fiery Cross Reefs) that can accommodate bombers like the H-6 series (as well as large transport, patrol, and refueling aircraft).

The base H-6 aircraft’s combat radius of nearly 1000 nautical miles means even China’s basic bombers taking off from Woody Island could cover the entire South China Sea. Nearly all of the Philippines falls within the radius of the bombers, including Manila and all five Philippine military bases earmarked for development under the U.S.-Philippines Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement. An H-6K, with its technical upgrades giving it a combat radius of nearly 1900 nautical miles, would dwarf this radius, putting all of Southeast Asia in range of flights from Woody Island.

Future deployments to the Big 3 in the Spratlys would bring Singapore and much of Indonesia within range of even China’s lower-end bombers, while the H-6Ks could reach northern Australia or U.S. defense facilities on Guam.

https://cartocdn-gusc-d.global.ssl....012c8726ab:1526660626400/1,2,3,4,5/4/12/7.png

This news comes on the heels of other recent deployments of Chinese military platforms in the South China Sea, including Y-8 military transport planes, YJ-12B cruise missiles, and HQ-9B surface-to-air missile systems on each of the Big 3.

Housecarl · May 19, 2018

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://warontherocks.com/2018/05/t...s-philippine-defense-cooperation-to-languish/

THE DANGERS OF ALLOWING U.S.-PHILIPPINE DEFENSE COOPERATION TO LANGUISH

GREGORY B. POLING AND CONOR CRONIN
MAY 17, 2018
COMMENTARY

On April 17, Philippine defense secretary Delfin Lorenzana and U.S. ambassador Sung Kim took part in a groundbreaking ceremony for the first official construction project under the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA). The project to build a warehouse for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief supplies at Cesar Basa Air Base in Pampanga Province comes more than four years after the two sides inked EDCA, and two years after the Philippine Supreme Court affirmed its constitutionality. The ceremony was at once an important milestone, and a sobering reminder of how far short of expectations EDCA has fallen. If implementation of the agreement continues at this rate, the national interests of both the Philippines and the United States will suffer. Without a fully implemented EDCA, the Philippines will likely lose its maritime rights in the South China Sea, either by force or the threat of force from China, and the United States will be seen as a paper tiger unable to protect its allies or defend freedom of the seas.

The Reasons for EDCA

Manila and Washington signed EDCA in 2014 as a vehicle to modernize the U.S.-Philippine alliance to better meet shared challenges In particular, the agreement was meant to help address growing Chinese aggression in the South China Sea and natural disasters in the Philippines, which are projected to become more frequent and more destructive with a changing climate. Less than two years before, China had seized control of Scarborough Shoal from the Philippines, prompting Manila to file its landmark case against Beijing’s claims before a tribunal at The Hague. In late 2013, the Philippines was hit by Typhoon Yolanda, or Haiyan—the strongest storm on record to make landfall in the country. The U.S. military’s rapid response proved critical in delivering supplies and evacuating the injured from affected areas, and reminded both sides of the public goods that the alliance could offer.

In case there was any doubt about its aims, Article 1 of EDCA says the agreement is meant to ensure that both sides can meet their obligations under the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty to “maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.” The only state actor threatening armed attack against the Philippines or Filipino forces is China in the disputed waters of the South China Sea. The shared perception of a Chinese threat to Philippine, and ultimately international, interests in the South China Sea is clearly at the core of the agreement. Article 1 goes on to say that EDCA will focus on

improving interoperability…and for the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) addressing short-term capabilities gaps, promoting long-term modernization, and helping maintain and develop additional maritime security, maritime domain awareness, and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief capabilities. [emphasis added]

To accomplish these goals, EDCA negotiators agreed that the Philippines would allow U.S. troops and military platforms to access and preposition equipment in certain “agreed locations.” In 2016, Manila and Washington settled on five initial Philippine military bases on which the United States would construct facilities, position equipment, and rotate forces . These were Basa Air Base and Fort Magsaysay, both in Luzon; Antonio Bautista Air Base in Puerto Princesa, Palawan; Mactan-Benito Ebuen Air Base in Cebu, Visayas; and Lumbia Air Base in Cagayan de Oro, Mindanao. The United States would undertake construction of necessary facilities at those locations, to be eventually handed over to the Philippine military. This would allow for more joint training and boost America’s ability to assist with maritime domain awareness, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, and other missions in the short and medium-term, while contributing directly to the Armed Forces of the Philippines’ long-term modernization and capacity-building efforts.

Four of the five EDCA sites are on Philippine Air Force bases, reflecting the agreement’s focus on maritime domain awareness and security, as well as humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, both of which rely heavily on air capabilities that the Philippines is sorely lacking. The fifth, Fort Magsaysay, is the largest military base in the country and the hub for the annual U.S.-Philippines Balikatan joint exercises. The ability to preposition military equipment and rotate more troops there could boost joint training and help modernize the Philippine military.

While each of the five initial locations has certain advantages, Basa and Antonio Bautista Air Bases are most important for accomplishing EDCA’s stated goals (though Mactan and Lumbia could prove important for disaster relief and counter-terror operations, respectively). Most U.S. military aircraft that currently rotate through the country for training or other missions, such as maritime patrol (e.g. P-8 Poseidons that regularly patrol the Spratly Islands) operate from Clark Air Base north of Manila. Basa would provide a much-needed alternative nearby, especially as future U.S. access to Clark is uncertain because of ambitious plans to develop Clark International Airport into an alternative civilian hub for Manila. U.S. combat aircraft rotating through Basa would also be well-placed to respond quickly to any incidents threatening Filipino assets at Scarborough Shoal.

Puerto Princesa, meanwhile, is the home of AFP Western Command and its air component, the Tactical Operations Wing West, whose area of responsibility includes the Spratly Islands. Building up the capacity of this air wing with U.S. assistance is critical if the Philippines hopes to monitor, patrol, and eventually establish a minimum credible defense posture within its exclusive economic zone and disputed land features in the South China Sea. Finally, in the short and medium term, having U.S. combat aircraft rotate through Antonio Bautista would allow rapid response to, and create a deterrent against, attacks on Filipino ships or soldiers in the Spratlys.

Delays, Downgrades, and Diminished Hopes

More than two years later, plans for all five military bases face considerable hurdles, and it is unclear whether two will see any EDCA activity at all. During a recent Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Assistant Secretary of Defense Randy Schriver insisted that the delays were merely bureaucratic, but the problems are much deeper than that and will require serious political effort on both sides to correct.

EDCA’s future became uncertain almost as soon as President Rodrigo Duterte entered office in July 2016. Duterte is famously anti-American and has repeatedly said that the United States cannot be trusted to fulfill its treaty commitments to the Philippines. As evidence, he has cited Washington’s refusal to confirm that the Mutual Defense Treaty applies to the South China Sea—which President Barack Obama did for the U.S.-Japan Mutual Security Treaty and the disputed Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea. Most Filipinos remain supportive of the alliance, but America’s failure to confirm that it will step up in the only region where the Philippines is likely to face an external threat raises doubts. And it provides ammunition for Duterte and his allies to chip away at the security relationship, including EDCA.

Throughout his first six months in office, Duterte repeatedly threatened to scrap the agreement, while Lorenzana and the military brass urged its continuation. Eventually, the military’s arguments carried the day, likely bolstered by the important security assistance the United States provided during the May to October 2017 siege of Marawi city. In November, Duterte reaffirmed Manila’s commitment to the deal in a joint statement with President Donald Trump. But in the first year and a half of the Duterte administration, plans for the agreed locations were delayed and, in important ways, downgraded.

In January 2017, Lorenzana said that the United States would prioritize work at Basa, followed by Antonio Bautista and Lumbia Air Bases, with construction at all three expected to start later that year. The first two made perfect sense given EDCA’s original stated goals, which focused on modernization of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, joint training, maritime security and domain awareness, and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. Lumbia, the only EDCA site in restive Mindanao, could also boost counterterror cooperation –increasingly relevant after the Marawi siege and one of Manila’s primary objectives, according to Lorenzana – through the agreement. The secretary confirmed that the United States would undertake runway improvements, construct housing for troops, and build storage facilities for equipment, all of which would eventually be transferred to the Philippine military.

But a few days later, Duterte decried rumors that the United States was “unloading arms” at those three bases and insisted he would not allow it. The Philippine defense establishment moved quickly to reassure the president no weaponry was being unloaded, and highlighting EDCA’s focus on humanitarian assistance and disaster relief while downplaying other aspects of the agreement. Military spokesperson Brig. Gen. Restituto Padilla insisted that storage facilities built by the United States would be used to preposition disaster relief supplies like generators, rubber boats, tents and water purifiers. Lorenzana followed this by assuring the president, “There will be no stockpiling of weapons or anything that could be used for war games,” and said Duterte had made that a precondition for continuing with the agreement. The only indication that EDCA sites would still be allowed to contain more than humanitarian assistance and disaster relief warehouses was Padilla’s concession that the United States would be permitted to construct fuel storage facilities that U.S. planes would need during disaster relief operations.

In March 2017, the Philippines suddenly called off plans for EDCA construction at Antonio Bautista. No reason was given, but the decision fit with the Duterte government’s broader effort to deprioritize its maritime disputes with China and reject U.S. security assistance focused on the South China Sea. Lorenzana said at the time that construction would still begin at Basa and Lumbia Air Bases later in 2017.That timeline again proved unrealistic, though planning and survey work for facilities at Basa and Lumbia, along with Fort Magsaysay, slowly moved forward.

Adm. Phil Davidson, nominee to head U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM), provided further details on the agreement’s implementation in written responses to the Senate Armed Services Committee last month. The admiral said PACOM would be pursuing construction projects at Basa, Lumbia, and Magsaysay in FY18 and FY19. These include the humanitarian assistance and disaster relief warehouse as well as a Command and Control Fusion Center at Basa. Construction at Lumbia and Magsaysay will likely follow the same footprint, focused on humanitarian assistance and disaster relief storage. Fuel storage facilities should also be expected at the two air bases, as Padilla said last year. But there is no indication so far that barracks, hangars, storage for other defense equipment and materiel, or any of the other infrastructure to support a robust U.S. rotational presence will be allowed at the three locations.

The situations at Antonio Bautista and Mactan Air Bases are even more worrying. Under the Duterte administration, it appears that plans to expand Philippine armed forces facilities and build EDCA locations at those sites have been deprioritized in favor of more ambitious upgrades to the adjoining civilian airports (which share runways with the military bases) under the government’s push to boost tourism. It is unclear whether EDCA plans at either site will, or can, be reworked to accommodate these civilian initiatives, or whether the Duterte government will be open to such plans. But even if those sites are still being considered, the delays at the other three locations suggest they are unlikely to see construction anytime soon.

Dangers of Delay

Changes to the regional security environment in the four years since EDCA was signed have made Article 1 of the agreement more prescient than negotiators intended. Without robust implementation, both sides will find it increasingly difficult to “maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack,” at least within the South China Sea. China has constructed three large air and naval bases in the contested Spratly Islands, which are now primed for deployments of combat aircraft and have reportedly been equipped with surface-to-air and anti-ship cruise missiles. Every ship or plane near the Spratly Islands is now operating inside Chinese missile range, and will soon be within the combat radius of Chinese fighter jets.

Should there be any violent incident, unless there happens to be a U.S. carrier sailing through the South China Sea, the United States has no combat aircraft nearer than Okinawa and Guam—at distances of about 1,200 and 1,700 nautical miles. Rotational deployments under EDCA could resolve that dilemma. But without fully implementing the defense cooperation agreement, the United States will be incapable of rapidly responding to threats against Filipino troops and vessels in the South China Sea. This could have the perverse effect of making a violent incident between China and the Philippines more likely. The threat of a U.S. response under the Mutual Defense Treaty has been the strongest deterrent against a Chinese use of force. The treaty has allowed Manila to push back against certain Chinese actions, such as the 2014 blockade of the Sierra Madre, because Philippine leaders could be reasonably confident that Beijing would not employ direct military force.

The immediate fault lies with the Duterte administration, but American policymakers have had a role to play as well. By failing to publicly affirm that an attack on Philippine troops or vessels in the South China Sea would fall within the scope of the Mutual Defense Treaty (as the text of the treaty indicates it should), the United States has repeatedly called into question its willingness to live up to its commitment to an ally. Proponents of that ambiguity privately argue that keeping the treaty’s scope vague avoids provoking Beijing and could be quickly remedied with high-level public statements in case of a crisis. But in the meantime, it breeds concerns about U.S. reliability, makes it difficult for defenders of the alliance in Manila to make their case, and reduces the likelihood that EDCA will be implemented as originally envisioned. And without EDCA, the credibility of the U.S. treaty commitment to the Philippines, along with broader U.S. goals in the South China Sea, will be undermined by simple distance. China will be present; the United States will not.

Gregory B. Poling is director of the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative and a fellow with the Southeast Asia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC. He oversees research on U.S. foreign policy in the Asia Pacific, with a particular focus on the South China Sea disputes, democratization in Southeast Asia, and Asian multilateralism.

Conor Cronin is a research associate with the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative and was previously a research associate with the Southeast Asia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC. He conducts research on the maritime disputes of the Asia Pacific and U.S. foreign policy in Southeast Asia.

Housecarl · May 19, 2018

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://warontherocks.com/2018/05/t...eda-responds-to-mohammed-bin-salmans-reforms/

THE CROWN PRINCE OF RIYADH VS. THE CROWN PRINCE OF JIHAD: AL-QAEDA RESPONDS TO MOHAMMED BIN SALMAN’S REFORMS

JESSE MORTON AND AMARNATH AMARASINGAM
MAY 17, 2018
UNCATEGORIZED

Mohammed bin Salman, the 32-year-old crown prince of Saudi Arabia, recently wrapped up a highly touted and well-choreographed tour of the West, during which he appeared with prime-time television journalists, celebrities, business leaders, and presidents. Major media outlets seemed to unquestionably portray the royal descendant as a forward-looking reformer on a courageous crusade to “transform the Middle East.”

There was dissent, of course. MBS, as he has come to be called, was met by pockets of protestors from Washington, D.C., to London, Paris, and Madrid. Human rights activists and organizations expressed concern over issues such as the prince’s role in the Yemen conflict, which has been dubbed the “world’s worst humanitarian crisis,” and his repression of dissidence.

Yet a more dangerous reaction to Salman’s charm offensive has come from someone with a comparable pedigree. Al-Qaeda has been seeking to exploit domestic skepticism of the prince’s modernization efforts, which are aimed at changing the way the country engages with gender, culture, religion, and the economy. The jihadi organization hopes to foment a backlash that helps it to better position Hamza bin Laden, son of Osama, as heir to his father’s throne and to continue a longstanding feud between al-Qaeda and the House of Saud. These efforts, if successful, will pit the reformist ambitions of the crown prince of Riyadh against the revolutionary Salafi-jihadism promoted by the crown prince of jihad. This war of two princely visions may shape the future of the Middle East.

Al-Qaeda is positioning itself to reclaim the mantle of jihad from ISIL and to reassert itself through a more population-focused and long-term strategy. If Salman’s reforms fall short or fail, al-Qaeda will seek to fill the void with a jihadist alternative that will have greater resonance, just as it did after the failure of the Arab Spring. The United States should not be fooled by the cosmetic reforms that MBS is promoting. The roots of extremism in Saudi Arabia run deeper, and HBL and his associates in al-Qaeda have been able to target these points of weakness through their own counter-propaganda offensive. To ensure that history does not repeat itself, the United States must help to ensure that Salman’s reforms are substantive and address the economic and cultural grievances within Saudi Arabia that al-Qaeda may strive to exploit.

Paths to Princedom

MBS has been set for the kingship from the time his father took the throne in 2015. In April 2016, he announced his Vision 2030, aimed at diversifying and developing Saudi Arabia’s economy. After his coronation the following year, the prince delivered a speech on his economic vision, but added that, to fulfill it, he would have to transition Saudi society “back” to a “moderate, open Islam.” Soon thereafter, he arrested several of his fellow princes for corruption, earning the applause of figures from President Donald Trump to Thomas Friedman, who wrote in the New York Times that he found Salman’s “passion for reform authentic, his support from the youth in his country significant and his case for making radical change in Saudi Arabia compelling.”

The crown prince of jihad’s ascent has proven more complicated. After 9/11, Hamza bin Laden fled with other family members to Iran. There, he was eventually put under house arrest, but al-Qaeda operatives schooled him in religion and geopolitics at the request of his father. In HBL’s first speech after his 2014 release from Iran, he emphasized that his father’s request had been fulfilled.

The prince’s lineage is even more intriguing. Hamza is the son of Osama’s third wife, Khairah Sabar, a Saudi whose ancestry dates back to the Prophet Muhammad. This places Hamza in the same category of hereditary esteem held by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, ISIL’s so-called caliph, granting him the ancestral qualifications a caliph requires under fundamentalist interpretations of Islamic law.

Al-Qaeda’s Response

While MBS is an appealing figure, his proposed religious reforms risk creating a divide between the ruling family and the clergy, something that has held the Kingdom together from its inception. A large segment of Saudi society adheres faithfully to the strict interpretation of Saudi Salafism still endorsed by the clerical elite, but support for such fundamentalism breeds susceptibility to Salafi-jihadi interpretations. Zogby polling documents that 28 percent of millennials in Saudi Arabia claim that groups like ISIL and al-Qaeda are “mostly wrong, but sometimes raise issues I agree with,” while 10 percent do not feel that ISIL and al-Qaeda are perversions at all. These statistics are alarming, particularly in light of al-Qaeda’s efforts to capitalize on these latent sympathies.

Al-Qaeda and HBL have been running a counterpropaganda campaign parallel to Salman’s ascent and reform efforts. In August 2015, Ayman al-Zawahiri reintroduced Osama bin Laden’s son as a “lion of the den.” Speaking with his face covered, HBL signaled his long-term commitment to jihad in this first speech, stressing that followers should “declare it this time loud and clear, that there is no rule except that of Allah and no way to free al-Aqsa except jihad in the way of Allah.” It was an emulation of and homage to his father’s consistent utilization of conflict between Israelis and Palestinians as a tool for recruitment. After a few video releases vowing to avenge the death of his father and appealing to Palestine, the prince shifted focus with the first of what are now six releases that specifically target and call for revolt in Saudi Arabia. In the first video, HBL proclaimed Saudi society to be “in dire need of change,” classified the House of Saud as “agents of the Americans,” called on “honest, glorious scholars” and “preachers” to “participate in promoting change with their tongues, their pens, their media, and their tweets,” and instructed the “youth and those capable of fighting” to join the “mujahideen in Yemen.”

As MBS mingled with Western leaders, HBL released the sixth episode of his anti-Saudi series. He reiterated that Saudi Arabia would lead to a “return of the Islamic Ummah to its glory” and that it was “incumbent” on the youth to prepare for war against the Iranian Shia and confront the Saudi establishment. The video then elaborated on Abdulaziz ibn Saud’s relationship with Franklin Delano Roosevelt, highlighting that the first Saudi monarch and ancestor of MBS considered Roosevelt “a twin brother and good friend,” while “his sons and grandchildren still walk on the same path as their father.” It was a move intended to discredit MBS and portray his efforts as similar to those of previous Saudi rulers who consorted with the West.

Soon after, al-Qaeda’s bulletin Al-Nafir published an edition that included an image of MBS sitting with Jared Kushner in front of a portrait of FDR’s meeting with Abdul Aziz ibn Saud. The bulletin cited interviews from the prince’s trip, stressed that MBS had failed to defeat a Shiite revolution in Yemen, called his religious reforms heretical, and concluded by calling for clerics to stand up to Salman’s “moderate, open Islam, which all onlookers know is American Islam.”

History Repeats Itself?

It is important to acknowledge that Salman’s supposedly pathbreaking reforms and Saudi Arabia’s Madison Avenue-style P.R. campaign are not altogether new – and neither is the idea of extremists exploiting those reforms to boost recruitment. A similar pattern helped Osama bin Laden rise to prominence in the 1990s, when he declared then-King Fahd a traitor for traveling with profligate wealth to the United Kingdom, wearing a cross around his neck while in the Queen’s palace, and advocating for reforms – such as women’s schooling and the addition of an elected consultative council (shura) – that never went through.

Al-Qaeda’s war with Saudi Arabia dates back to this time period. In 1991, Fahd authorized the presence of American troops on Saudi soil and introduced what was known as the “Sahwa,” a reformist Salafist movement that led to dissent from young Saudi Islamists, and one that still lies dormant in the underbelly of Saudi society. Apparently fearful of inducing a similar wave of opposition, MBS has arrested several prominent and popular Sahwa clerics since he announced his reforms.

In the midst of the “Sahwa,” the elder bin Laden declared, “Our country has become an American colony.” He scolded the Grand Mufti Bin Baaz for authorizing the presence of American troops and permitting trade with Israel, and then craftily succeeded in extracting a fatwa from a senior scholar saying that training and readiness was a religious duty. As a result, over 4,000 Saudis traveled to join bin Laden in the Afghan mountains. In 1995, bin Laden issued an open letter to Fahd, scolding him for failing to implement proposed economic reforms and declaring him an apostate. Soon thereafter, he declared war against America. This mirrors his son’s current calls for mobilization in Yemen and, more generally, his efforts to turn people against the House of Saud after the failure of proposed reforms.

MBS has promoted an overhaul of Islam, saying, “We will not waste 30 years of our lives dealing with extremist ideas, we will destroy them today,” and responding incredulously to a question about the “Wahhabi” interpretation of Islam that has undergirded Saudi Arabia since its founding. When asked, he stated, “No one can define Wahhabism. There is no Wahhabism.”

Totally cognizant of this, al-Qaeda issued a bulletin during MBS’ tour of the West that declared “Muhammad bin Salman was working in every way on behalf of and in dependence of the Crusader West,” and that surprisingly expressed support for Saudi clerics, calling for them to stand up and “speak the truth to the tyrannical oppressor.” Additionally, the most recent edition of al-Nafir, released as MBS’ tour drew to a close, called on “true scholars” to stand up to the Saudi crown prince’s “moderate, open Islam, which all onlookers know is American Islam.” Al-Qaeda knows it will not gain the clerics’ outright support, but it nonetheless seeks to pressure them. In the event they remain passive, HBL and al-Zawahiri will criticize them, much as Osama did to bin Baaz. Al-Qaeda believes that if they can persuade even a few younger radical clerics to accept the call, a break between the clergy and the House of Saud could pave the way for the regime’s collapse.

What’s Next

The key question, of course, is whether al-Qaeda’s calls are resonating – which is impossible to determine at this time. Measuring the effectiveness of al-Qaeda’s propaganda campaign will be especially difficult because the group calls for clandestine, rather than open, contestation. In contrast to ISIL’s more overt approach, HBL calls for patience and the formulation of clandestine cells in Saudi Arabia, with the option of emigration to safe haven in Yemen. However, there is reason to believe the group is enjoying some initial success: In March, al-Qaeda operatives killed four Saudi security forces when stopped at a checkpoint, thus indicating the existence of such underground cells. On a recent trip to Saudi Arabia, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo explained that the “security vacuum” and “deteriorating humanitarian conditions” in Yemen have helped boost al-Qaeda’s numbers and relationship with the tribes it fights alongside there. Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which was nearly decimated during the Arab Spring, now numbers over 4,000 fighters – despite a five-fold increase in airstrikes against them in 2017. The organization remains well funded and is one of the leading threats to U.S. homeland security.

The United States and its allies will not assist Saudi reform with mere carte blanche support for monarchy and top-down social transformation. If the effects of the proposed reforms do not reach the general citizenry, al-Qaeda’s propaganda will have a greater impact. HBL and other al-Qaeda ideologues may cite the alterations of textbooks, women’s driving, mixed gender classrooms, and the insertion of cinema as evidence that MBS is an American agent, while highlighting that the promises of structural alterations at an economic and political level were guises to keep the populace complacent.

The global Salafi-jihadi threat cannot be defeated militarily, nor by simply arguing against its message. As Katherine Zimmerman at the American Enterprise Institute stresses, “To win, the United States must also focus on the people in order to break the existing ties between the Sunni populations and the Salafi-jihadi base.” Thus, the United States should work to guarantee that MBS’ proposed reforms are carried forward in a meaningful way and that they truly help the Saudi citizenry.

There are already indications that the government’s austerity policies and privatization scheme are not working as planned. This, coupled with the prince’s aggressive push to curb Saudi’s austere religious leanings, creates conditions that al-Qaeda will be all too happy to exploit. If even a small number of popular preachers turn against MBS, ties between the Salafi-jihadi base and conservative Saudi society will strengthen. Thus, MBS and HBL seem poised for a proper princely war – not unlike the period when Osama bin Laden criticized King Fahd, eventually placing ultimate blame on the United States and becoming the godfather of Jihad.

For now, it seems time, resources, and momentum are on the crown prince of Riyadh’s side. As Norah O’Donnell told Salman during his primetime interview on 60 Minutes, “You’re 32 years old. You could rule this country for the next 50 years…Can anything stop you?” In the immediate term it seems that the answer is “no.” But if al-Qaeda has anything to say about it, its own 30-something crown prince will try to stand in the way.

Jesse Morton is CEO and founder of Parallel Networks, a non-profit organization dedicated to combating hate and extremism. Follow him on Twitter @_JesseMorton. Amarnath Amarasingam is a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue and Co-Director of a study of Western foreign fighters based at the University of Waterloo. Follow him on Twitter @AmarAmarasingam

Housecarl · May 19, 2018

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://warontherocks.com/2018/05/playing-the-long-game-in-iraq/

PLAYING THE LONG GAME IN IRAQ

PERRY CAMMACK AND DANIEL BENAIM
MAY 18, 2018
COMMENTARY

Perhaps no other country faces a greater exposure to competition between Iran and the United States than Iraq. So far, inside Iraq, the Trump administration has sensibly prioritized counterterrorism partnership against ISIL over its broader policy of competition with Iran. But a pair of recent developments may test that approach.

First, President Donald Trump has taken an increasingly belligerent stance toward Iran. He pulled out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. He seeks to cripple Iran’s economy and signaled a willingness to confront Tehran across the Middle East. As U.S. focus shifts from anti-ISIL to countering Iran, and America’s Gulf and Israeli partners strike at Iranian forces in Syria and Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen, Iraqis and others are wondering whether Washington will begin to treat Iraq as another front in their region-wide anti-Iranian pressure campaign. But forcing Iraqis to choose between their partners, as they compete elsewhere, would likely backfire and play into Iran’s hands.

Second, anti-American coalitions outperformed the Victory alliance led by Iraq’s technocratic prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, in last week’s elections. Rather than wade into the complex realities of Iraqi politics, the Trump administration might be tempted to declare mission accomplished against ISIL, pack up and go home. But this too would play into Iran’s hands.

Between these bad options — confronting Iran inside Iraq and walking away — lies a third: the long game. It requires accepting that Iraq will continue to uncomfortably straddle America and Iran. Since the 2003 invasion, American policy has whiplashed between surging troops in and pulling troops out. It is time to construct a more durable bilateral relationship that sees Iraq as a partner, rather than a client. That demands constructive engagement in support of Iraq’s fragile but stabilizing sovereignty. It entails support for compromise and pragmatism during Iraq’s difficult government formation process and promotion of Iraq’s continued regional integration. It means defining a sustainable, more restrained security cooperation paradigm in the wake of the defeat of ISIL. Such an approach is more carrot than stick. But it will also require articulation of viable redlines, for example if U.S.-supplied advanced weaponry leaks to militias or sectarianism once again goes off the rails. A more confident, more stable Iraq will be more resilient against both home-grown Sunni extremism and Iranian interference, and could yet play a productive role in a region riven with conflict.

***

Media coverage is understandably focused on the performance of two Shia-led blocs critical of the United States. But the government formation process is just beginning, and it promises to be contentious and lengthy. Scratch beneath the surface and Iraqi politics is far more dynamic than the easy veneer of a country divided neatly, like Caesar’s Gaul, into three parts: Shia, Sunni, and Kurds. Abadi’s coalition performed better in Sunni-majority Mosul than among his traditional Shia base in Baghdad. Iraq’s intra-Shia political rivalries can be as contentious as its sectarian ones. There may well be surprises ahead.

The leader of the top vote-getting list, Shia populist Moqtada al-Sadr, is no friend of America and has fought its troops in the past, but neither is he a friend of Iran. He ran as an Iraqi nationalist, condemned Iranian influence, and warned against gangsterism. Sadr, who seems to aspire to be a kingmaker rather than the prime minister, has shown a willingness in recent years to work across ideological and sectarian lines. No issues have been as important to the Iraqi public — and perhaps the election results — as Sadr’s core issues of anti-corruption and basic service provision.

Meanwhile, Trump’s decision to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal puts the United States on a collision course with Tehran across the Middle East. Iran, too, might decide intensify its own competition inside Iraq in the face of U.S.-led regional pressure. But prioritizing a zero-sum anti-Iranian framework within Iraq is unlikely to benefit either Iraqis or Americans. Iraqis worry, as one politician warned one us of in Baghdad after Trump’s hawkish anti-Iran speech last fall, “when the elephants fight, the grass gets trampled.” It is easy to imagine Trump offering the new government an impossible “my way or the highway” choice or becoming disinterested amid myriad domestic and international crises.

Iran’s regional gains have tended to come where Shia populations combine with acute institutional grievances. Since Saddam’s removal in 2003, Iranian influence has ebbed and flowed in roughly inverse proportion to the level of stability. It surged during the horrific sectarian violence between 2005 and 2007, and again after the fall of Mosul in June 2014, when the Iraqi government, fearful that Baghdad might be overrun, mobilized Iranian-backed militias and young Iraqi volunteers to form what became the officially-sanctioned Popular Mobilization Forces. But it ebbed again in both cases after a degree of stability returned, most recently after Abadi began to look to the United States as its primary military partner against ISIL.

Today, ISIL has lost its caliphate, and life across Iraq has begun to normalize. Iraq enjoys a level of democratic competition absent elsewhere in the Arab world except in Tunisia. Four parliamentary elections since 2005 have resulted in multiple turnovers of government. Outsized Iranian influence inside Iraq remains problematic for a host of reasons. But Iraqi nationalism has emerged as an important and credible counterweight, from religious clerics in Najaf who reject Iranian-style fundamentalism to Shia politicians in Baghdad who chafe at Tehran’s dictates.

So how should Washington more productively navigate this difficult policy terrain?

First, the Trump administration needs to show up to engage with Iraq’s political leaders as they form the new government. The days of American tutelage, when U.S. interventions could be decisive in government formation, in Baghdad are long gone, with decidedly mixed results. Washington should resist the urge to pick winners or dictate outcomes. But refraining from direct interference does not mean idly standing by. Qassem Soleimani, the Iranian Quds Force commander, has already begun high-handedly holding audiences with Iraqi politicians in Baghdad. The most effective American response may be to highlight and reject this brazen interference and clientelism and offer a more constructive alternative. Washington should remain engaged with Iraqis supporting political compromise and pluralism. This includes working with deeply divided Kurdish leaders to form a united front in favor of moderate leadership in Baghdad so they cannot be coopted individually by Shia hardliners with offers of the keys to the Iraqi presidency. The United States has interests it should make clear to Iraqis. These include maintaining counterterrorism partnership, promoting an inclusive leadership, stabilizing liberated areas, and supporting Iraqi sovereignty from various threats, any coming from the direction of Iran. America should also make clear that the scope for future cooperation will depend on the extent to which the next Iraqi government fulfills those goals.

America can play a respectful but influential role. But this requires Washington to back its diplomatic representatives in the field with a level of consistent, coherent support that has been largely absent over the past year. Amid the unprecedented turnover of White House and cabinet officials, the Trump administration has not designated a senior official to manage its Iraq policy as the last administration did in the form of Vice President Joe Biden.

Second, the best way to fight Iranian influence in Iraq is by promoting Iraq’s independence, reflecting Iraqis’ own preferences. The growing sense of Iraqi nationalism, at least outside the Kurdish areas, creates diplomatic opportunities. The United States should continue to support Iraq’s development of relations with its Arab neighbors, particularly Saudi Arabia. This is a promising shift for which the Trump team deserves credit. But it is one that needs sustained U.S. support if it is to be translated into tangible results. If these efforts succeed, Iraq might accelerate its evolution from a subject of regional competition to a more productive regional actor in its own right.

Third, the United States needs to articulate and pursue a more sustainable security cooperation paradigm with the new government in Baghdad. As Iraq consolidates its battlefield gains against ISIL, the role of American troops is already diminishing. The next Iraqi government could demand the full withdrawal of American troops. But as campaign rhetoric subsides, the next Iraqi government may well prove itself eager to counterbalance Iranian domination, willing to respect U.S. concerns, and interested in an ongoing security partnership with the United States. Over time, this could create an opening to work with Baghdad to incorporate the militias mobilized to fight ISIL into its regular military or disband them.

Memories of occupation linger in the popular imagination. To be sustainable, any follow-on American military presence must be discreet and limited in scope and numbers. This presence needs to both respect Iraqi sovereignty and provide legal protections for American forces to remain in advisory roles. It also needs to reflect Iraqi priorities, as well as American ones. This will require patience, persistence, and flexibility, but offers the prospect of significant security and political benefits to America and Iraq alike.

***

There will be moments of opportunity and necessity to work with Iraqis to constrain and even push back against Iranian overreach into Iraq. But the slow normalization of Iraqi politics will ultimately do far more to support bilateral relations than a foolhardy “with us or against us” lurch. After 15 years of being either all in or all out, now is the time for Washington to seek a more sustainable medium.

The good news is that a modest American investment in Iraq can go a long way. Iraq’s politics can be dizzying and dysfunctional, but they break the authoritarian mold. Iraq remains on the frontlines of three key fights: the fight against ISIL and its successors, the fight against Iranian regional expansionism, and the fight for the notion that peaceful and even democratic coexistence is still possible in the heart of the Middle East. America has a stake in all three.

Iraq is developing its own distinct politics, which at times will prove mystifying and complicated. Publics everywhere are defying their elites, and Iraq seems to be no exception. For Iraq’s long-term development, that may not be a bad thing. What matters most is what happens next. After an extraordinarily difficult 15-year period, Washington should stick around to find out.

Perry Cammack (@perrycammack) is a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a former member of the Policy Planning Staff at the U.S. Department of State. Prior to that, he worked for nearly ten years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for then Senators Joe Biden and John Kerry.

Daniel Benaim (@danielbenaim) is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and a Visiting Assistant Professor at New York University’s Program on International Relations. He previously served as a Middle East advisor and foreign policy speechwriter to Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and then-Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry.

Housecarl · May 20, 2018

Hummm....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/erdogan-stages-islamic-summit-back-palestinians-111611414.html

Istanbul summit urges international force to protect Palestinians

Fulya OZERKAN, Ezzedine SAID, AFP • May 18, 2018

Istanbul (AFP) - A summit in Istanbul of Muslim heads of state on Friday called for the creation of an international peacekeeping force to protect the Palestinians, as host Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan accused Israel of "brutality" comparable to the Nazis.

The 57-member Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) -- seeking to bridge severe differences within the Muslim world -- said in a final communique that Israel had carried out the "wilful murder" of some 60 Palestinians on the Gaza border Monday.

It called "for the international protection of the Palestinian population, including through dispatching of international protection force".

Erdogan said the sending of such an "international peacekeeping force" was essential to help the Palestinians and stop the international community being a "spectator to massacres".

He compared such a force to the UN forces sent to deal with the aftermath of the Balkan wars in Bosnia and Kosovo.

The statement also angrily lashed out at the United States, saying that Washington was complicit in the "crimes" of Israel and "emboldened" its government by moving its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

- 'No difference with Nazis' -
The summit had been called at a few days notice by Erdogan, who had earlier addressed thousands at an open air rally in Istanbul to express solidarity with the Palestinians.

Speaking at the opening of the summit, Erdogan compared Israel's actions against the Palestinians in Gaza to the Nazi persecution of the Jews in the Holocaust during World War II.

"There is no difference between the atrocity faced by the Jewish people in Europe 75 years ago and the brutality that our Gaza brothers are subjected to," he said, accusing Israel of using methods "similar to the Nazis".

Around six million Jews were killed by the Nazis during World War II in the Holocaust.

Addressing the earlier rally, Prime Minister Binali Yildirim used similar language, saying Israel was "imitating Hitler and Mussolini" by occupying Palestinian territory and disregarding international law.

Palestinian prime minister Rami Hamdallah -- stepping in for president Mahmud Abbas who this week had surgery on his ear -- told the rally that the US was "trying to provoke a religious conflict in the region" by moving its embassy to Jerusalem.

- 'Test for Islamic world' -
Erdogan complained that Muslims had too often given a "shy and cowardly" image to their foes and failed to sort out internal disagreements.

Describing the issue of Jerusalem as a "test", he said: "If we need to speak clearly, the Islamic world failed in the Jerusalem test."

This is the second emergency OIC meeting Erdogan has hosted in the space of half a year after the December 2017 summit, also in Istanbul, that denounced US President Donald Trump's decision to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Disputes between the OIC's key players -- notably between Sunni kingpin Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran -- always complicate the adoption of any measures going beyond harsh rhetoric.

Riyadh -- which appears to have softened its stance on Israel as the influence of powerful Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has grown -- and its allies fear alienating the United States with tough measures against Tel Aviv.

Saudi Arabia's chief foreign policy preoccupation, shared with Israel, is ensuring US backing to contain Iran which both Riyadh and the Jewish state see as the main threat to the region.

In his speech, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani pointedly criticised "the silence of certain countries" without which "the Zionists would have never attempted such a brutality"

Both Cairo and Riyadh are wary of Turkey's support for the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, as well as its close alliance with Qatar which is currently under a Saudi-led blockade. the Egyptian and Saudi foreign ministers came but not the heads of state.

- 'Called to account' -
Erdogan has long craved a role as a Muslim leader within the entire Islamic world, rarely holding back with tirades against Israel even though Ankara has diplomatic relations with the Jewish state.

Tensions with Israel and hosting such a meeting also does Erdogan no harm with his core supporters as Turkey heads to presidential and parliamentary polls on June 24.

And he has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of Israel after Monday's bloodshed, earlier this week even accusing the Jewish state of genocide.

He called for an international investigation into the "crimes" Israel has committed. "It will be called to account sooner or later," he said.

Housecarl · May 20, 2018

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/reports-islamic-state-surrendering-syrias-capital-092155432.html

Reports: IS fighters vacating outskirts of Syria's capital

Associated Press • May 20, 2018

BEIRUT (AP) — A cease-fire between Syrian government forces and Islamic State militants in the southern neighborhoods of Damascus has held for 24 hours amid reports that some of the fighters were permitted to leave, a Syrian war monitoring group said Sunday.

Syria's official state news agency and government officials denied reaching a deal to allow the militants to evacuate Yarmouk and adjacent areas. State-run al-Ikhbariya TV said government forces plan to drive the militants from their remaining strongholds in the area.

The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said buses carrying IS fighters left the Palestinian refugee camp of Yarmouk and the adjacent al-Tadamon neighborhood overnight. A video circulating online showed lines of buses waiting in the camp with their engines running. It was not clear who filmed the video or where the busses were set to go.

Damascus residents said the situation was calm, with no warplanes flying overhead Sunday. Al-Watan, a pro-government newspaper, said the militants are believed to have surrendered. The Observatory said IS militants began burning their posts in Yarmouk and adjacent areas. Residents said that smoke was billowing over the area.

Al-Ikhbariya TV said a new plan is underway to storm IS-held areas in Hajar al-Aswad, near Yarmouk. The channel's area correspondent said the coming hours would be "decisive" for restoring government control in Hajar al-Aswad, but didn't mention Yarmouk.

President Bashar Assad's forces launched an offensive against the militants in southern Damascus a month ago. The offensive has brought more than 70 percent of the camp under government control. The capture of these southern neighborhoods would bring the entire capital under government control for the first time since the war began in 2011.

Yarmouk began as a refugee camp for Palestinians who fled or were expelled from what is now Israel during the 1948 war. Before Syria's civil war began, it was a built-up residential area home to tens of thousands of Palestinians and Syrians.

IS has been driven from virtually all the territory it once controlled in Syria and neighboring Iraq, but is still present in remote areas along the border in Deir el-Zour province.

On Sunday, activists reported that the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces, backed by artillery from the U.S.-led coalition, have shelled Hajin, the main IS stronghold in the province on the eastern banks of the Euphrates river. In recent days, the SDF and the coalition, in cooperation with Iraqi forces across the border, have stepped up their offensive against the IS in the area, besieging the militants in Hajin and smaller villages around it.

7 reactions

Housecarl · May 20, 2018

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/syrian-o...fighters-leaving-last-damascus-073423399.html

Syria seeks to crush insurgent pocket, denies evacuation deal

Reuters • May 20, 2018

BEIRUT (Reuters) - Syrian troops fought on Sunday to crush the last pockets of resistance by Islamic State militants trapped in an enclave south of Damascus, state media said, denying a report that insurgents had begun leaving in a withdrawal agreement.

The recovery of the enclave south of Damascus would mark another milestone in President Bashar al-Assad's war effort, crushing the last besieged rebel enclave in western Syria.

Swathes of territory at the borders with Iraq, Turkey and Jordan, however, remain outside state control.

Syrian government forces and their allies have been battling to recover the enclave south of Damascus since defeating rebels in eastern Ghouta, also near the capital, in April.

The area is centered around the al-Hajar al-Aswad district and the adjoining Palestinian refugee camp of Yarmouk, the largest in Syria.

The month-long battles have been the toughest fought by the Syrian army and its allied forces this year against opposition forces in pockets around the capital, defense experts say.

Despite extensive use of air power that has left many parts of the area leveled to the ground, troops and allied militias have sustained heavy losses as they encounter tough resistance from diehard militants waging a battle to the end.

In a live broadcast, a reporter with Syrian state TV said the Syrian army operations in the Hajar al-Aswad area were nearing their end and insurgent lines were collapsing as columns of smoke rose from the area behind him.

Syrian state news agency SANA said troops were about to close in on militants holed up in a small area of high density buildings north of Hajar al Aswad.

"The fighting skills of the army are foiling all the efforts by the terrorists to prevent the army from completing the liberation of the area," SANA said.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights earlier said buses had entered the enclave after midnight to take out fighters and their families. They had left toward the Syrian Badia, a sparsely populated expanse of territory east of the capital that extends to the border with Jordan and Iraq, it said.

OFFICES TORCHED

Islamic State militants had torched their offices in the Yarmouk enclave, the Observatory said.

Negotiated withdrawals have been a common feature of the Syrian war in recent years as the government, aided by the Russian military and Iran-backed forces, has steadily clawed back territory.

The rebels have mostly been given safe passage to northwestern Syria. In the last two months alone, the United Nations says 110,000 people have been evacuated to northwestern Syria and rebel-held areas north of Aleppo.

The opposition has called it a policy of forced displacement amounting to demographic change to drive out Assad's opponents. The Syrian government has said nobody is forced to leave and those who stay must accept state rule.

While Assad has vowed to win back "every inch" of Syria, the map of the conflict suggests a more complicated time ahead from now on. [nL5N1QQ62D]

The U.S. military is in much of the east and northeast, which is controlled by Kurdish groups that want autonomy from Damascus. It has used force to defend the territory from pro-Assad forces.

Turkey has sent forces into the northwest to counter those same Kurdish groups, carving out a buffer zone where anti-Assad rebels have regrouped.

In the southwest, where rebels hold territory at the Israeli and Jordanian border, Assad faces the risk of conflict with Israel, which wants his Iranian-backed allies kept well away from the frontier and has mounted air strikes in Syria.

(Writing by Tom Perry; Editing by Mark Potter)

23 reactions

Housecarl · May 20, 2018

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/iraqs-al-sadr-promising-reform-constrained-iran-071020960.html

Iraq's al-Sadr, promising reform, is constrained by Iran

QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA and PHILIP ISSA, Associated Press • May 20, 2018

BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraq's Muqtada al-Sadr, the maverick Shiite cleric whose political coalition beat out Iran's favored candidates to come in first in national elections, says he wants to form a government that puts Iraqis first.

The electoral commission announced early Saturday that the militant-turned-populist preacher, who has long spoken out against both Iranian and U.S. influence in Iraq, had defeated his establishment rivals.

Al-Sadr — who is remembered for leading an insurgency against U.S. forces after the 2003 invasion — did not run for a seat himself and is unlikely to become prime minister, but will command a significant number of seats and has already begun informal talks about government formation.

Salah al-Obeidi, a spokesman for al-Sadr's Sa'eroun political bloc, told The Associated Press that Iraq's sovereignty was going to be the new government's "guiding principle."

"We warn any other country that wants to involve itself in Iraqi politics not to cross the Iraqi people," he said.

However, even as al-Sadr is in position to nominate a prime minister and set the political agenda for the next four years, he will find his choices limited by Iran.

The Middle East's pre-eminent Shiite power has a direct line with some of Iraq's most powerful politicians, and it is trying to rally them as a bloc to undercut al-Sadr.

Al-Sadr's rise threatens Iran's claim to speak on behalf of Iraq's Shiite majority, a precedent that could fuel independent Shiite movements elsewhere. Also at stake are top ministerial posts — political appointments that are a source of patronage and police and military power.

Al-Sadr himself has kept a relatively low public profile. But in a public relations move that appeared to be directed at Iran, he appeared on Thursday with rival cleric Ammar al-Hakim, who has drifted away from Iran's orbit in recent years, to say the two men share similar visions for the next government.

Tehran has dispatched its top regional military commander, Gen. Qassem Soleimani, to pull together a coalition to counterbalance al-Sadr, according to an Iraqi Shiite militia commander who is familiar with the meetings.

"Iran won't accept the creation of a Shiite bloc that is a threat to its interests. It's a red line," said the commander, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the discussions.

Al-Sadr's relationship with Iran is a complicated one. Though he has maintained close ties with Iran's political and religious leadership, in recent years he has denounced the flow of Iranian munitions to Shiite militias in Iraq, all the while maintaining his own so-called Peace Brigades in the holy city of Samarra, north of Baghdad.

Al-Sadr's former Mehdi Army militia, which spearheaded an insurgency against the U.S., clashed violently with the Iran-backed Badr Organization last decade.

The militias plugged the gaps left by Iraq's army as soldiers deserted their posts in the face of the Islamic State group's lightning campaign in the summer of 2014. With direction from Iran's Revolutionary Guard, they turned the tide against the initial advance. In the years that followed, the militias — coordinating with U.S.-backed Iraqi ground forces — slowly pushed IS fighters back. Iraq declared victory over the group last year.

Al-Sadr has said he wants the militias absorbed into the national security forces, a move Iran would find difficult to accept.

Iran is also rankled by al-Sadr's recent overtures to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which are locked in proxy wars with Tehran in Syria and Yemen. Al-Sadr met with the crown princes of Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi in August, leading Iran's hard-line Keyhan newspaper to accuse al-Sadr of "selling himself" to the house of Saud.

It is unlikely al-Sadr can pull together a governing coalition without Iran-aligned political groups, which have the votes to form their own alliance that could challenge al-Sadr's right to name a prime minister.

An electoral alliance of the militias called Fatah, headed by Hadi al-Amiri, the commander of the Badr Organization, won just seven seats fewer than al-Sadr's bloc. Sa'eroun won 54 seats in Iraq's 329-seat national assembly, a far cry from the 165 required to claim a majority.

The militias control the powerful Interior Ministry in the outgoing government and will expect a similar position of influence in the new one.

Al-Sadr seems inclined to woo incumbent Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, who is seen as a centrist when it comes to Iranian and U.S. interests, and who appears to be wavering between al-Sadr and al-Amiri.

But Tehran still holds considerable sway with al-Abadi's al-Nasr bloc, which includes several Iran-aligned figures, including one newly minted deputy who has come under U.S. sanctions for allegedly financing Iran's Revolutionary Guard.

Iran's political allies in Iraq will try to pressure those figures into deserting al-Abadi and collapsing an al-Sadr alliance if the formulation is not to Tehran's liking, said a Western diplomat who has been speaking to the sides involved. The diplomat spoke on the condition of anonymity because of media regulations.

That gives Iran — and al-Abadi — leverage over al-Sadr to moderate his positions on the militias and Iran.

Hanging above the talks is the implied threat by all sides to mobilize their followers — and militias — if they feel they are being shortchanged. The collective effect could be to push al-Sadr's bloc toward a broader governing coalition that would dilute his reform agenda.

His top showing at the ballot box means the next prime minister will have to introduce a civil service law that al-Sadr has championed as an antidote to Iraq's endemic corruption, said Kirk Sowell, the publisher of Inside Iraqi Politics, a political and security newsletter. But that doesn't mean the Cabinet or parliament will sign off on it.

"There's not going to be a functioning majority," said Sowell. "It'll be a hodge-podge, coalition government, and it's not going to be any more stable than the last one."

___

Associated Press writer Susannah George contributed to this report.

29 reactions

Housecarl · May 20, 2018

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/maoist-rebels-detonate-bomb-east-india-5-police-083443641.html

Maoist rebels detonate bomb in east India; 6 police killed

Associated Press • May 20, 2018

PATNA, India (AP) — At least six police officials were killed and another was critically injured on Sunday when Maoist rebels targeted their vehicle with a bomb in eastern India, police said.

The rebels detonated a land mine as the police vehicle ran over it in Dantewada district of Chhattisgarh state, said D.M. Awasthi, the chief of counterinsurgency operations in the state. The explosion extensively damaged the vehicle.

Awasthi said the police were escorting a truck carrying material to a road construction site in a forested area when the rebels triggered the blast.

Five police officials died at the scene of the blast. Two others were critically injured and sent to a hospital, where one of them later died, police said.

Reinforcements of police and paramilitary soldiers rushed to the scene and launched a hunt to track down the attackers.

The Maoist rebels, inspired by Chinese revolutionary leader Mao Zedong, have been fighting the Indian government for more than four decades, demanding land and jobs for tenant farmers, the poor and indigenous communities.

The government has called the rebels India's biggest internal security threat. With thousands of fighters, the rebels control vast swaths of area in the country.

The rebels, also known as Naxalites, have ambushed police, destroyed government offices and abducted government officials for more than four decades. The insurgency began in 1967 as a network of left-wing ideologues and young recruits in the village of Naxalbari outside Kolkata, the capital of West Bengal state.

They have blown up train tracks, attacked prisons to free their comrades and stolen weapons from police and paramilitary warehouses to arm themselves.

Last month, authorities said troops killed at least 44 suspected rebels in multiple raids in western India.

3 reactions

Housecarl · May 20, 2018

Merde...

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/sri-lanka-warns-tamil-separatist-resurgence-152823873.html

Sri Lanka warns of Tamil separatist resurgence

AFP • May 19, 2018

Colombo (AFP) - Sri Lanka's president Saturday warned that Tamil extremists were regrouping abroad to revive their demand to divide the island nation nine years after the end of its decades-long ethnic war.

Maithripala Sirisena said government forces had failed to quash the Tamil rebels' separatism, although they were militarily conquered by May 2009 following a no-holds-barred offensive.

"We have defeated terrorism of the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam), but we have not been able to defeat their ideology," Sirisena said.

At a ceremony to mark the ninth anniversary of the end of the war, Sirisena said Tamil extremists abroad were still hoping to establish an independent homeland in Sri Lanka.

"They are very active abroad. They protested when I visited London last month," Sirisena said, referring to his participation at the Commonwealth summit.

There has been no violence blamed on Tamil rebels since their top leader Velupillai Prabhakaran was shot dead on May 18, 2009, but pro-rebel activists abroad are known to have staged frequent anti-Sri Lankan protests.

Sirisena came to power in January 2015 on the back of strong support from the minority Tamil community after pledging reparations for war victims and accountability for rights abuses.

International rights groups have said that at least 40,000 Tamil civilians were killed by government forces under the command of former president Mahinda Rajapakse in the final months of the war.

Sirisena said there were no reliable figures for civilian casualties, but said the total number of Sri Lankans killed could be about 100,000. Official records showed that 28,708 security personnel were killed while another 40,107 were wounded, he said.

Sirisena has relaxed restrictions on the former war zones in the island's north and east, and released much of the military-occupied land back to Tamil owners.

However, he is yet to deliver on a promise to grant greater political autonomy to Tamils and set up a mechanism to probe what the UN has said were credible allegations of war crimes.

His latest remarks came a week after Sri Lanka's army chief announced forming a special unit to defend itself against allegations of grave rights abuses during the final stages of the ethnic war.

Army chief Lieutenant General Mahesh Senanayake has distanced the military from the previous government's claim that no civilians died, and acknowledged there may have been individual excesses, but there have been no prosecutions.

11 reactions

Housecarl · May 20, 2018

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...mit-after-pyongyangs-about-face-idUSKCN1IL06B

WORLD NEWSMAY 19, 2018 / 11:30 PM / UPDATED 10 HOURS AGO

South Korea, U.S. to work closely on summit after Pyongyang's about-face

Jeongmin Kim
3 MIN READ

SEOUL (Reuters) - South Korean President Moon Jae-in and U.S. President Donald Trump held discussions on Sunday to ensure that the North Korea-U.S. summit remains on track after North Korea threatened to pull out of the high-level talks.

Moon and Trump spoke over the phone for about 20 minutes, and exchanged their views on North Korea’s recent reactions, South Korea’s presidential office said without elaborating.

“The two leaders will work closely and unwaveringly for the successful hosting of the North Korea- U.S. summit set on June 12, including the upcoming South Korea-U.S. summit,” the presidential official said.

Moon and Trump are set to meet on Tuesday in Washington before North Korean leader Kim Jong Un meets with Trump on June 12 in Singapore.

The White House said Trump and Moon discussed recent developments in North Korea and continued “their close coordination ahead of President Trump’s June 12 meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.”

Although a historic inter-Korean summit in late April raised hopes of reconciliation, North Korea showed a dramatic change in tone in recent days.

North Korea’s chief negotiator Ri Son Gwon said on Thursday it would not hold talks with South Korea unless their demands were met, taking issue with the U.S.-South Korean air combat drills known as Max Thunder. It came a day after it threatened to pull out of the summit with the United States.

Further dampening the mood, a spokesman for North Korea’s Red Cross Society demanded on Saturday that South Korea’s government should send North Korean female restaurant workers back to their home “without delay” to show the will to improve the inter-Korean ties, the North’s Korea Central News agency said.

A dozen North Korean restaurant workers came to South Korea in 2016 from China, and North Korea had urged to send them back claiming they were abducted by the South, even though the South has said the 12 workers decided to defect of their own free will.

Lee Dong-bok, a researcher at New Asia Research Institution, said part of the reason for the North’s demands of the repatriation is to divide South Korea’s public opinion over the 12 workers.

“It is also to pressure the Moon government to agree to its demand so that South Korea can keep up the momentum for the North Korea-U.S. summit meeting,” Lee said.

Reporting by Jeongmin Kim; Additional reporting by Christine Kim; Writing by Jane Chung; Editing by Jacqueline Wong and Andrea Ricci

Housecarl · May 20, 2018

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.militarytimes.com/flash...promise-to-target-only-us-forces-from-now-on/

Flashpoints

Report: After failed assault, Taliban pledge amnesty to Afghan forces who leave ranks, promise the focus is on US, foreign forces

By: Kyle Rempfer
2 days ago

Correction: An earlier version of this article stated that the Taliban had offered amnesty to all Afghan government forces. This was incorrect. The amnesty was offered to those who abandon Afghanistan’s NATO-backed government.

The Taliban announced Friday that they intend to focus their attacks on Americans and their foreign allies, rather than Afghan government forces — so long as they abandon their ranks — according to an Al Jazeera report.

The statement comes on the heels of an unsuccessful bid by the insurgent group to take the city of Farah in the western part of the country.

Due to the high number of casualties allegedly suffered by Afghan security forces across the war-torn country, the Taliban say they are offering “a general amnesty to all military formations, national army, national police, local police and all employees of the regime to safeguard their lives and wealth.”

The statement has not been independently verified by Military Times.

On Tuesday, Taliban fighters launched an offensive against the western Afghan city of Farah. Despite claiming the assault was a success, the insurgents were repelled by Afghan security forces, backed by a mix of U.S. and Afghan Air Force airstrikes.

“The Afghan government remains in control of Farah city, which remains quiet,” Army Lt. Col. Martin O’Donnell, a U.S. forces in Afghanistan spokesman, told Military Times.

After being repelled, Taliban spokesman Zabihulla Mujahid claimed over social media that their forces took over most regime compounds inside the city and intentionally withdrew after achieving all their objectives.

--

Air Force A-10s called in to hold off Taliban attack on major Afghan city

Air Force A-10 Warthogs are over Farah city, Afghanistan, in an attempt to prevent the city’s fall to Taliban forces during the first major assault against a provincial capital since the Taliban began their annual fighting season.

By: Kyle Rempfer

--

O’Donnell said that U.S. advisers were present at the corps-level for Afghan forces, as well as advising the elite Afghan commandos.

Additionally, “an Expeditionary Advisory Package arrived yesterday [Thursday] and Security Force Assistance Brigade [SFAB] advisers arrived Tuesday,” O’Donnell said.

The SFAB is a new Army unit that advises partner forces at the brigade, and, if necessary, battalion levels.

Another emerging capability of the Afghan forces displayed during the defense of Farah city were Afghan tactical air controllers, or ATACs, which are a partner force version of American joint terminal attack controllers, or JTACs.

Over the past few days, the ATACs called in airstrikes from Afghan Air Force A-29 Super Tucano aircraft, as well as Mi-17 helicopters.

“Of note, A-29s conducted 20 hours of support to the Afghan-led offensive,” O’Donnell said. “In addition, this was the first time A-29s, flying from both Kabul and Mazar-e Sharif, conducted strikes, returned to those locations, rearmed and refueled [by Afghan Air Force maintainers], and then returned to Farah city to strike again.”

Video
USForces Afghanistan
✔
@USFOR_A
Taliban fighters on the run following Afghan-led offensive in #Farah province, #Afghanistan. Video shows U.S. airpower (MQ-9s) in support. #AFGStrong #ForAFG @ResoluteSupport @MoDAfghanistan @DeptofDefense @usairforce

6:23 AM - May 16, 2018
192
118 people are talking about this

That sort of continuous mission planning “speaks to the growing capabilities of the Afghan Air Force, who are working us out of a job,” he added.

While American JTACs were also in the area to coordinate U.S. aircraft, the Afghan Air Force conducted the majority of the strikes, according to the U.S. forces spokesman.

Despite the failure, the Taliban maintained that their recently announced spring offensive will go on, but will focus on the Americans and their allies — likely meaning NATO forces. The Taliban said that when Afghan forces do come under fire, it’s because they are “protecting the foreign invaders and the corrupt regime which they have installed.”

"These security forces, however, are our own countrymen who have joined the ranks of America due to misguidance or other reasons," the statement said. "In case you do leave the enemy ranks ... the mujahideen of Islamic Emirate shall use every means at their disposal to try and ease your life."

--

A bold Afghan peace offer, but are the Taliban interested?

Afghanistan’s President Ashraf Ghani has put a peace offer on the table, and analysts say the ball is now in the Taliban’s court. But so far the militants are showing no sign of being interested.

By: Kathy Gannon, The Associated Press

--

brudog · May 21, 2018

Thanks for the updates!

Housecarl · May 21, 2018

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-pompeo-lays-out-next-steps-on-iran-1526909126

U.S. Lays Out Demands for New Iran Deal

Mike Pompeo calls on Iran to stop enriching all uranium, halt support for militant groups

By Michael R. Gordon
Updated May 21, 2018 12:29 p.m. ET
338 Comments

WASHINGTON—The Trump administration escalated its demands on Iran, putting Tehran on notice that any new nuclear deal would require it to stop enriching all uranium and halt its support for militant groups in the region.

The administration’s demands were outlined in a speech on Monday by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, which for the first time spelled out all of the administration’s requirements for a new agreement.

They mark a fundamental change from the 2015 agreement between Iran and six world powers that President Donald Trump abandoned this month but which European leaders have sought to preserve. That agreement allowed Iran to enrich uranium under detailed arrangements in return for sanctions relief.

In his speech at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, the secretary of state said the administration wouldn’t try to renegotiate the old Iran deal. Instead, he outlined 12 basic requirements for a new deal, which toughened the nuclear demands and call for a wholesale change to Iran’s military posture in the region.

Among the demands, Mr. Pompeo said that Iran must withdraw all of its forces from Syria, end its support for militant groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon, stop sending arms to the Houthi militia in Yemen, release all U.S. citizens, and cease its threats to destroy Israel.

“Relief from sanctions will come only when we see tangible, demonstrated, and sustained shifts in Tehran’s policies,” Mr. Pompeo said in prepared remarks. “We acknowledge Iran’s right to defend its people. But not its actions which jeopardize the world’s citizens.”

Mr. Pompeo said the demands were needed because of the broad nature of what he called Iran’s malign behavior. The U.S., he said, didn’t create the need for the demands, Iran did.

Critics say the new approach is non-negotiable and won’t garner strong support in Moscow, Beijing or European capitals.

“It’s a pipe dream to believe the administration could achieve its wish-list of unrealistically ambitious negotiating objectives,” said Robert J. Einhorn, a former State Department official who was involved in Iran negotiations during the Obama administration.

Mr. Einhorn said the Trump administration’s new sanctions wouldn’t be as effective as the ones that the Obama administration was able to put in place with the support of U.S. allies and other nations.

Write to Michael R. Gordon at michael.gordon@wsj.com

Housecarl · May 22, 2018

‘Everyone has duty to defend Sweden’: 4.8mn homes to get war prepper manual
Started by Millwright, Yesterday 11:22 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...Sweden’-4.8mn-homes-to-get-war-prepper-manual

==

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...ssia-fears/ar-AAxCk61?ocid=spartanntp&ffid=gz

Sweden puts out emergency war pamphlet amid Russia fears

Ilgin KARLIDAG, Gaël BRANCHEREAU, AFP
3 hrs ago

The Swedish government on Monday presented an emergency pamphlet to prepare millions of citizens in the event of a war, natural disaster or cyber attack amid soaring tensions between Russia and the Western allies.

Entitled "If Crisis or War Comes", the brochure is published in 13 languages at the request of the government and gives advice on how to take shelter, what foods to store and what information to trust. It will be sent to 4.8 million Swedes between May 28 and June 3.

The 20-page document outlines with simple illustrations the threats which the Nordic nation is facing such as military conflict, natural disasters, cyber and terror attacks.

"Even if Sweden is safer than many other countries...threats do exist," said Dan Eliasson, head of the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency, which prepared the booklet.

"It's important that everyone has knowledge of what can threaten us so we can prepare in case something serious occurs," he told a news conference in Stockholm.
"Sweden will be affected if there is a military conflict close to us. It might affect our import of goods like food and so on...even though the military conflict is not in Sweden itself we can get affected," Christina Andersson, the brochure's project manager, told AFP.

The last time such a brochure was printed was in 1961 during the Cold War. While the latest booklet does not point to any country, its release comes amid fears of an open conflict between NATO and Russia over Moscow's military activities along its borders.

Sweden, which is not a NATO member, does not share a border with Russia, but the two nations are connected across the Baltic Sea, where Moscow has a naval base in Baltiysk, located in the Kaliningrad region east of the Stockholm coastline.

The sight of an unidentified submarine in the Stockholm archipelago in the autumn of 2014 heightened Russian worries and was followed by several violations of Swedish airspace by Russian aircraft.

- 'Military muscles'-
In December, a defence commission representing all parties in the Swedish parliament published a report entitled "Resilience" which presented military proposals between 2021 and 2025.

"The military situation has deteriorated in Europe in recent years and Russian military capabilities are increasing and will continue to increase," the commission chairman Bjorn von Sydow, a former Social Democrats defence minister, said at the time.

The commission recommended investing 400 million euros per year to modernise the military and civilian defence systems, allowing people to store water and food for a week so the nation could stand a blockade for three months.

Sweden is not a member of NATO, but joined its Partnership for Peace launched in 1994 to develop military cooperation between the allies and non-member countries.

The nation has not experienced an armed conflict on its territory for more than two centuries, and to some Swedes, the risk of that happening is unlikely.

"I don't think the risk is higher today than it was yesterday," said Svante Rosing, a retired lawyer in his mid-70s who said he remembers the Cold War pamphlet looking "quite threatening".

Sweden slashed military spending at the end of the Cold War, but Moscow's annexation of Crimea changed the situation.

Stockholm announced in March last year that it would reintroduce compulsory military service as early as this summer, seven years after it was abolished. The nation also resumed military activities on Gotland, an island in the Baltic Sea.

On Monday, Prime Minister Stefan Lofven and Sweden's King Carl XVI Gustaf announced the first creation of a Swedish regiment since World War II, located on the island in "a clear signal" of Stockholm's priorities.

"We're showing that we have military muscles," Lofven was quoted as saying by the daily Aftonbladet.

Housecarl · May 22, 2018

Hummm…..

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/arc...and-maybe-the-end-of-the-nuclear-testing-era/

North Korea, the CTBT, and (maybe?) the end of the nuclear-testing era

by Joshua Pollack | May 21, 2018 | No Comments

Ears pricked up across the nonproliferation world last week when North Korea’s representative to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva stated that Pyongyang “will join international disarmament efforts for a total ban on nuclear tests.”

Does this development mean that North Korea may be prepared to join the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty?

The ambassador’s remarks, offered in connection with the upcoming closure of the underground test site at Punggye-ri, were not exactly new. They echoed a much-discussed April 20 resolution of the Central Committee of the Korean Workers’ Party that decided to “discontinue” both nuclear testing and flight-testing of ICBMs. To quote the awkward official translation,

the discontinuance of the nuclear test is an important process for the worldwide disarmament, and the DPRK will join the international desire and efforts for the total halt to the nuclear test.

This is an important announcement in its own right, since it’s an essential precursor to concluding the era of nuclear testing that began in New Mexico on the morning of July 16, 1945. Besides North Korea, no other state has tested a nuclear device since 1998.

The declaration also may sound like a hint of openness to joining the CTBT, but caution is warranted. The news report communicating the Party resolution was unmistakably, pointedly modeled on an earlier document: the Statement of the Government of the People’s Republic of China of July 29, 1996. The Chinese government statement declared a moratorium on nuclear testing, just like the recent North Korean resolution. But it also announced China’s commitment to concluding the CTBT and bringing it into force. The absence of any parallel commitment in the North Korean document resounds loudly.

Why the CTBT question matters
Whether North Korea joins the CTBT matters in part because of the Treaty’s unusually stringent conditions for entry into force, which remain unsatisfied more than two decades after the negotiation of the Treaty. Of the long list of “Annex 2” states that must join to fulfill its terms, three (India, North Korea, and Pakistan) have not yet signed, and another five (China, Egypt, Iran, Israel, and the United States) have signed but not yet ratified.

(Here’s the current list of CTBT signatures and ratifications. For those of you with access to academic journals, Jenifer Mackby described the origins of the baroque entry-into-force provision in the Nonproliferation Review.)

The CTBT Organization to be established under the Treaty already functions in the guise of a “Preparatory Commission,” overseeing a global network of monitoring stations. This International Monitoring System has independently detected all six nuclear tests declared by the North Koreans.

But especially now that the North Koreans say they won’t be testing anymore, entry-into-force matters. Until that milestone is reached, the CTBTO will lack the authority to conduct on-site inspections to verify the absence of a suspected nuclear test. This is the sort of independent verification that won’t be taking place later this week at Punggye-ri, where foreign journalists have been invited to observe a “ceremony for dismantling the nuclear test ground.” That’s all well and good, but until the CTBT enters into force, North Korea will be under no obligation to have anyone back to investigate if the ground should shake a seventh time.

What’s more, it’s simply unclear how long the global test moratorium will hold without entry-into-force.

North Korea’s sensitivities
Why didn’t the North Koreans take the opportunity of the April 20 Party resolution to endorse the CTBT? The most likely reason appears to be their reluctance to join treaties with just the sort of intrusive verification measures described above. North Korea has joined a short list of treaties, mostly in the 1980s, usually without much fanfare. These include the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which forbids the use of chemical or biological weapons; and the Biological Weapons Convention, which forbids the production and possession of biological weapons. But with the exception of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which North Korea joined on December 12, 1985, none of these treaties requires a state to open its territory to outsiders.

The DPRK joined the NPT half-heartedly, apparently as a condition of a nuclear reactor supply agreement with the USSR. As described in David Fischer’s brief history, the North Koreans long resisted following through on their NPT obligations to declare their nuclear facilities and conclude a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. When they finally complied, in 1992, the IAEA quickly became suspicious of what it saw. In 1993, the Agency invoked its authority under the safeguards agreement to conduct a “special inspection” at two undeclared sites. The North Koreans balked, threatening to exit the NPT. (They eventually did so a decade later.)

Past was prologue; in 2008, North Korea refused an American demand for untrammeled access to its territory, ending the Bush Administration’s efforts at consummating “the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.”

In the meantime, North Korea has made no move to join the Chemical Weapons Convention, which opened for signature in January 1993. CWC parties can invoke “challenge inspections,” to be carried out at any time or place on the territory of another party. Perhaps fearing that this provision might be abused, no state has invoked it since the treaty entered into force in 1997. (For those with access, see Tatsuya Abe’s article on the non-use of CWC challenge inspections in the Nonproliferation Review.) Nonetheless, North Korea now stands almost alone as an abstainer from the CWC. Among UN member states, only Egypt, North Korea, and the new nation of South Sudan still have yet to sign. Israel has signed but not ratified.

North Korea has been known to open particular sites to foreigners at the times and circumstances of its own choosing. But if concerns about inspectors running amok have indeed caused Pyongyang to look askance at the CTBT, then it’s possible that the CTBTO didn’t entirely do itself a favor by proposing an ad hoc inspection to verify the closure of Punggye-ri. So far, it’s not clear whether they’ve received any reply.

You won’t know if you don’t ask
Since the DPRK Vice Foreign Minister’s May 16 press statement, U.S.-North Korean diplomacy, never on a particularly firm footing, is looking wobbly. (These were the remarks that questioned the value of holding a summit as long as the White House insists on unilateral, up-front, “Libya-style” disarmament—blunt comments, but fully consistent with the Party’s April 20 resolution.) Even so, the “ceremony” at Punggye-ri remains on track. That shouldn’t come as a surprise; the test moratorium was declared unilaterally and unconditionally, and not as part of any diplomatic quid pro quo—at least not overtly.

If serious negotiations with Washington do take place, it would only make sense for the United States to seek North Korea’s accession to the CTBT, for the reasons described above. Unfortunately, the Trump Administration is very unlikely to do so. Republicans just don’t believe in the CTBT. (See Mac Destler’s 2001 case study on the ratification debacle.) It will be left to other interested parties such as China, and ultimately also the CTBTO itself, to make the case to Pyongyang that accession to the Treaty will enhance the credibility of its moratorium, and that the on-site inspection provision will not be subject to abuse when the Treaty finally enters into force. Sooner, one hopes, rather than later.

Zagdid · May 22, 2018

US troops and combat vehicles arrive in Belgium to be deployed in Eastern Europe

http://www.armyrecognition.com/may_...belgium_to_be_deployed_in_eastern_europe.html (fair use)

POSTED ON TUESDAY, 22 MAY 2018 07:47

U.S. main battle tanks, armored, trucks and mobile artillery rolled off the first of three ships to arrive at the port of Anvers in Belgium, May 20, 2018 as a new U.S. Army armored brigade took up the mission to provide a continuous presence in Eastern Europe to support of Atlantic Resolve. About 2,500 pieces of equipment will come through the port including 87 M1A2 Abrams tanks, Bradley M2A3 IFV Infantry Fighting Vehicles, 18 M109A6 Paladin self-propelled howitzers, and more than a thousand other military vehicles.

US_troops_and_combat_vehicles_arrive_in_Belgium_to_be_deployed_in_Eastern_Europe_925_001.jpg

Troops and equipment from 1st Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, out of Fort Hood, Texas, will replace 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, out of Fort Riley, Kansas, which has been in Europe for nine months in support of Atlantic Resolve.

This is the third iteration of continuing “heel-to-toe” rotations to maintain a U.S. armored brigade in Europe. While the unit will be stationed primarily in Poland, Romania and other Eastern European countries, the equipment arrived through Antwerp to exercise the ability to move equipment across Europe quickly and efficiently using multiple methods of transportation. Antwerp hasn’t been used for a major U.S. military movement of this nature for the last 10 to 20 years.

Operation Atlantic Resolve are ongoing efforts in response to Russia's actions in Ukraine, mainly the War in Donbass. It is funded under the European Reassurance Initiative. All U.S. efforts in support of NATO fall under the umbrella of Operation Atlantic Resolve.

US_troops_and_combat_vehicles_arrive_in_Belgium_to_be_deployed_in_Eastern_Europe_925_002.jpg

Operation Atlantic Resolve aims to ensure peace and stability in the Eastern European NATO countries. Since April 2014, U.S. Army Europe has led land forces efforts on behalf of the U.S. military, by conducting continuous, enhanced multinational training and security cooperation activities with allies and partners in Eastern Europe. The multinational training and security cooperation activities are taking place in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary. The training events improve interoperability, strengthen relationships and trust among allied armies, contribute to regional stability, and demonstrate U.S. commitment to NATO.

As part of Host Nation Support, the German Armed Forces is providing assistance to Operation Atlantic Resolve through the Joint Service Support Command (JSCC). They coordinate assistance to allied and partner armed forces during their stay in Germany. The JSCC provided infrastructure and capabilities include: storage areas and facilities, supplies, food and lodging, repair, transport, and handling.

Housecarl · May 23, 2018

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.realcleardefense.com/ar...low_yield_nuclear_trident_missile_113476.html

In Defense of the Low Yield Nuclear Trident Missile

By Matthew R. Costlow
May 23, 2018

Why do states go to war? Obviously there is no mechanical formula where if factors x, y, and z are present – then war is certain. Individual leadership personalities, the anarchic international system, the structure of political incentives, and multiple other theories are plausible answers to the question; but one misconception remains popular today: weapons cause war.

As strategist Colin Gray (who according to Secretary of Defense Mattis is “the most near-faultless strategist alive today”) has expounded upon at length, the amount and sophistication of a state’s arms are properly categorized as the effect, not the primary cause of war. “States do not fight because they are heavily armed; rather they are heavily armed because they judge war to be a serious possibility.”

In the debate about how many and what type of weapons the United States should maintain, failure to understand and correctly adjust U.S. strategy to the real causes of war can have catastrophic effects. One such weapon in the critics’ crosshairs is the proposed modification of a “small number” of nuclear warheads on submarine-launched ballistic missiles. This modification would reportedly change a small number of the high yield nuclear warheads to low yield nuclear warheads.

Despite broad bipartisan support of the proposed change, including from the past two Secretaries of Defense who served under President Obama, critics have labeled it as “more usable,” a “gateway to nuclear catastrophe,” and the igniter of a “global nuclear arms race.”

Are critics right that a potentially less-destructive, but still massively-powerful, nuclear weapon is “easier” to use, thus making nuclear war and arms races more likely? The available evidence suggests otherwise.

First, the claim that low-yield nuclear weapons can make a President’s trigger finger itchier is simply unsupported by history. Despite reportedly having thousands of low-yield sea, air, and land-based nuclear weapons throughout the 1960s and 1970s, U.S. Presidents did not seem any more inclined to begin a nuclear war or escalate a nuclear crisis. The United States and the Soviet Union, and now Russia, have reportedly had low-yield nuclear weapons for over half a century, so if they were such destabilizing weapons, it seems we should have evidence for it by now. The nuclear crises of the Cold War were caused by differences in political preferences, not because of the yields of nuclear weapons.

Again, if the total number of non-strategic nuclear weapons was linked to the possibility of war, the United States and Russia should be having the most peaceful political relations in decades, since the number of U.S. and Russian non-strategic nuclear weapons is likely at its lowest since the 1960s. The current antagonistic relationship then must be caused by something other than non-strategic nuclear weapons themselves. Even less so considering the NPR proposal calls for a “small number” of nuclear warheads to be modified, hardly the thousands from the Cold War.

Understand that the weapons by themselves are not unnerving, our adversaries’ political and military intentions for utilizing them are. The British reportedly have low-yield options on their submarine-launched nuclear missiles, but they are not a revisionist power, so we do not fear them. Russia, on the other hand, retains and is modernizing about 2,000 of these “battlefield” nuclear weapons, has revisionist intentions, and regularly threatens their use against U.S. allies and partners; thus the United States views it as a threat.

Second, the claim that modifying a few U.S. nuclear warheads will cause a “global nuclear arms race” is absurd on its face; timelines since the Cold War, in fact, show otherwise. Partially declassified CIA documents show that as early as 1999 the intelligence community suspected Russia was developing low and very low yield nuclear weapons, yet the United States went in the opposite direction by moving to consolidate and retire four reportedly variable-yield warheads with low options.
And at a total cost of about $65 million over five years for the low-yield modification program, the problem is not money.

Fundamentally, it is the fear of causing a nuclear war that has critics so concerned – a legitimate fear that should not be brushed aside casually. Again, however, weapons don’t make war, political intentions do. Military strategist Carl von Clausewitz said “war is the continuation of politics by other means,” and weapons are only the end result, not the cause.

At the end of the Cold War, Russia likely maintained more strategic and non-strategic nuclear weapons than it does today; but by 1994 the U.S. Department of Defense could speak about “partnership with Russia” and a new era of improved political relations. Again, the weapons themselves did not cause the Cold War, opposing political and ideological goals caused the Cold War.

Thus, U.S. political considerations should be the lens through which we view nuclear weapons. The primary purpose of the low-yield nuclear missile is to credibly communicate to Russia or any other competitor that there will be no advantage in striking the United States or its allies, even with a low-yield nuclear weapon. This is not a nuclear “war-fighting” weapon, it is primarily a political weapon aimed at dissuading any adversary’s misguided dark fantasy of possibly fighting and winning a nuclear war.

Existing U.S. low-yield options are air-delivered, but as U.S. STRATCOM Commander General John Hyten testified recently, they “may not be the right response in terms of timeliness and survivability to get to where the threat is.” This point is where critics of the low-yield option, like former Secretary of Defense William Perry, are led astray. The bipartisan 1983 Scowcroft Commission, on which Secretary Perry served as a member, stated: “Deterrence…requires military effectiveness.” The purpose of the low-yield weapon is not to fight a limited nuclear war, it is to deter such a fight; and one of the characteristics required for that mission is “military effectiveness,” i.e., range, speed, and survivability.

The real source of nuclear danger today is not the replacement of the aging U.S. nuclear arsenal, nor the modification of a few U.S. warheads. Rather, the nuclear threat radiates from the heart of Moscow in the forms of serial violation of arms control agreements, nuclear targeting threats, and a revisionist state policy which respects no boundaries.

State and non-state actors, including disarmament activists, would do well to concentrate their efforts on the Russian political problem, not the U.S. military response.

Matthew R. Costlow is a defense analyst at the National Institute for Public Policy and a Ph.D. student at George Mason University

Housecarl · May 23, 2018

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2018/05/22/democrats-fight-pentagon-push-for-battlefield-nukes/

Congress

Democrats fight Pentagon’s push for battlefield nukes

By: Joe Gould
17 hours ago

WASHINGTON — House Democrats are fighting on multiple fronts to block the Trump administration from developing a new tactical nuclear weapon, and the debate threatens to turn into a partisan fight on the House floor.

House Armed Services Committee Democrats broadly backed a failed amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act earlier this month that would have stripped the bill’s proposed sea-launched, low-yield nuclear warhead.

Democrats have not given up and since proposed multiple NDAA amendments that are hostile to the weapons. The bill is set to be considered on the House floor this week, and on Tuesday, the panel’s top Democrat, Rep. Adam Smith, of Washington, said the fight isn’t over.

“I wouldn’t even describe it as unease. We are inalterably opposed to it,” Smith told reporters, adding that low-yield nukes are “a mistake.”

“It makes people start calculating: ’Well, it’s a small nuclear weapon, maybe we’ll have a small nuclear exchange and that will be OK,” Smith said. “Our deterrence policy has to be: no nukes under any circumstances.”

Smith’s stance tracks with his previous positions on nuclear weapons. He’s balked at the long-term costs of nuclear weapons modernization, proposed the country adopt a policy of not using nuclear weapons first and attempted to cut funding for the air-launched cruise missile replacement.

Smith’s call to arms ¯ or dis-arms ¯ Tuesday came hours before the top Democrat on the Senate Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Sen. Diane Feinstein, voiced her opposition to the $65 million allocated in her subcommittee’s appropriations bill.

“I cannot support a new nuclear weapon,” Feinstein, of California, said during the subpanel’s markup of the bill. “Quite frankly, I don’t believe there’s anything such as a limited nuclear war. I don’t see any reason to develop new low-yield weapons. Once a nuclear weapon is used, by any country against any target, I believe it’s Armageddon, and it’s the end of us.”

The weapon exceeds past nuclear modernization efforts, she said before signaling support for the appropriations bill overall.

A day earlier, the House Rules Committee cleared an NDAA amendment that would fence half the 2019 funding for the weapon — a modified W76, dubbed the W76-2 — until the defense secretary submits an assessment of its impact on strategic stability and options to reduce the risk of miscalculation.

That amendment, by Reps. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., and Jim Garamendi, D-Calif., was among 103 that House Rules cleared Monday for floor consideration. Among the 560 others pending Tuesday, one from Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., would kill the W76-2 by shifting its $65 million budget line to deficit reduction.

These amendments have a long, dim path procedurally and politically. All but a few Republicans, who hold the majority in both chambers, are unlikely to vote for measures that tie the president’s hands or contradict his defense strategy.

--

As Trump seeks new nuke options, weapons agency head warns of capacity overload

In an exclusive exit interview, Frank Klotz, who retired on Jan. 19 as the head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, warns that his agency is stretched to the limit.
By: Aaron Mehta

--

The Trump administration’s Nuclear Posture Review laid out the thinking behind the weapons. Russia is investing in its own, assuming it can use them on the battlefield to back down any enemy who lacks proportional response, the thinking goes.

The House Armed Services Committee earlier this month voted along party lines to include an endorsement of the Nuclear Posture Review in the NDAA and to reject a series of Democratic amendments aimed at limiting the Trump administration’s pursuit of low-yield nuclear weapons.

In the debate, HASC Republicans echoed Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and other Pentagon leaders to favor a robust nuclear program that poses a credible deterrent and keeps pace with Russia’s and China’s modernization efforts. Plus, it provides the United States with more flexibility in war, it’s argued.

HASC Democrats, generally speaking, echoed disarmament advocates, warning against a new arms race, a lower threshold for the use of nuclear weapons and a heightened risk of miscalculation.

“We understand they are inalterably opposed, but we have to understand Russia has this capability,” House Strategic Forces Subcommittee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Ala., said Tuesday of Democrats.

“I think one of the reasons they don’t believe we wouldn’t respond is we don’t have the capability to do it without all-out nuclear war,” Rogers said of Russia. “They have to understand that we can, with precision, do exactly what they would do to us.”

--

Lawmakers move to limit Trump authority to launch nuke after ‘nuclear button’ size tweet

Two Democratic lawmakers are sponsoring legislation that would require the president to receive congressional approval before initiating a first-use nuclear strike from the United States.
By: Joe Gould

--

The debate likely to spill onto the House floor has already spread beyond the House Armed Services Committee to debate on the House’s energy and water appropriations bill, on May 16.

“At a time when we should be reducing the threat of nuclear war — indeed at a time when we are asking other nations to [reduce] this threat, we are doing just the opposite,” said Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif. Lee proposed and withdrew an amendment to the appropriations bill to move $65 million for the W76-2 to nuclear nonproliferation accounts.

On Tuesday, Smith declined to say whether Democrats would continue to target appropriations bills.

“I can’t say. It seems like the Republicans are all in for this,” he said. “But yeah, we’re going to keep fighting this, through this administration and beyond.”

Comments 3

danielboon · May 23, 2018

Saudi-led coalition destroys Houthi boats targeting tanker in Red Sea

Reuters|Published: 05.23.18 , 14:01
DUBAI – The Saudi-led coalition has destroyed two Houthi boats threatening an oil tanker in the Red Sea, Al Arabiya television reported on Wednesday.

Separately, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) news agency WAM said UAE coalition forces destroyed two boats described as being deployed by the Iran-aligned Houthi movement to target the tanker, while another two escaped.

Neither report gave specifics about the tanker or mentioned whether it had been damaged. https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5268728,00.html

danielboon · May 23, 2018

Syrian official rejects US demand for Iranian withdrawal

AP|Published: 05.23.18 , 14:04
MOSCOW – Syria on Wednesday dismissed American calls for the withdrawal of Iranian troops and Lebanese Hezbollah militants from the war-torn country.

Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mikdad told Russia's Sputnik news agency "this topic is not even on the agenda of discussion, since it concerns the sovereignty of Syria."

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued a list of demands this week for a new nuclear deal with Iran, including the pullout of its forces from Syria, where they have provided crucial support to President Bashar Assad's government. Russia is also a key ally of Assad, and has been waging an air campaign in Syria since 2015.

Mikdad said in Wednesday's remarks that Syria "highly appreciates" Russia's military support as well as "advisers" from Iran and Hezbollah. He added that "we cannot let anyone even raise this issue" of the Iranian withdrawal. https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5268731,00.html

danielboon · May 23, 2018

Lebanon parliament elects Hezbollah ally Ferzli deputy speaker

Reuters|Published: 05.23.18 , 14:08
BEIRUT – Hezbollah ally Elie Ferzli won at least half the votes in Lebanon's parliament on Wednesday, securing his election as deputy speaker.

The post is reserved for a Greek Orthodox under the country's sectarian power-sharing system. It has been held by an opponent of the Iran-backed Shiite Hezbollah movement since 2005, the year Syrian troops withdrew from Lebanon.

Ferzli is one of a number of pro-Damascus politicians whom the May 6 election returned to public office for the first time since then. https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5268734,00.html

Housecarl · May 23, 2018

Hummm....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://slate.com/news-and-politics...tions-in-europe-what-is-he-talking-about.html

THE SLATEST
Mike Pompeo Says Iran Is Carrying Out “Assassination Operations” in Europe. What Is He Talking About?

By JOSHUA KEATING
MAY 22, 20184:04 PM

WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 21: U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo concludes his remarks at the Heritage Foundation May 21, 2018 in Washington, DC. Pompeo spoke on the topic of 'After the Deal: A New Iran Strategy.' (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo concludes his remarks at the Heritage Foundation May 21, 2018 in Washington, DC.
Win McNamee/Getty Images

In his speech Monday outlining the Trump administration’s new Iran strategy at the Heritage Foundation, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo rattled off the now-familiar litany of Iranian misbehavior in recent years, from its ballistic missile testing to its support for Hezbollah, that he argued proved the folly of the 2015 nuclear deal. But for those listening closely, one charge stood out. “Today, the Iranian Quds Force conducts covert assassination operations in the heart of Europe,” Pompeo said, referring to the foreign special operations unit of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. He didn’t elaborate, and it’s not clear what operations he was talking about. A State Department spokesperson told Slate he had nothing to add to the secretary’s remarks.

Iran was widely accused of carrying out assassinations in Europe during the 1980s, and 1990s. Most notably, in 1997, a German court concluded that Tehran had ordered the killing of four Iranian Kurdish dissidents in Berlin five years earlier. The U.S. also accused the Quds force of involvement in a botched 2011 plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to the United States with the help of a Mexican drug cartel member (who was actually a Drug Enforcement Administration agent).

But there have been no widely reported Quds assassination plots in Europe in recent years, and several Iran watchers told Slate on background that they could not recall any. The Guardian similarly reports that security experts and Iranian exiles are baffled by Pompeo’s accusation.

One possible basis of the claim is the 2017 killing of activist Ahmad Mola Nissi in Amsterdam. Mola Nissa was the exiled founder of a nationalist group seeking an independent state for the Ahwazi Arab minority within Iran. Mola Nissi’s daughter compared his killing to the assassinations in the ’90s, telling Reuters, “The conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran is not confined to the Middle East. It is spreading into Europe.” (Iran’s rival Saudi Arabia has supported the Ahwazi cause.) The Guardian notes that the Dutch investigation into the killing “has not publicly blamed the IRGC.”

Last November, opposition news site Amadnews, which is run by a Paris-based exile and was controversially kicked off the messaging app Telegram during the recent anti-government protests, quoted an anonymous source within the IRGC claiming that Mola Nissi was killed by the Quds force to undermine Saudi policy against Iran. The Clarion Project, a controversial far-right think tank devoted to “challenging radical Islam,” picked up Amadnews’ item, publishing it under the headline, “Quds Force Assassinates Iranian Dissident in Europe.”

Pompeo may also have been talking about January’s raids on the homes of 10 suspected Iranian spies in Germany. The German-language magazine FOCUS reported that the men had been members of the Quds force and had been spying on Israeli and German targets. According to Israel’s Kan public broadcaster, they had been working to recruit a cell to carry out attacks in Europe. The German Federal Prosecutor’s office acknowledged that authorities suspected the men of spying “on behalf of an entity associated with Iran” but did not comment on media reports that they were targeting Jews. No arrests were made.

The assassination claim wasn’t the only quesitonable charge in Pompeo’s speech. He also noted Iran’s “firing of missiles into Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates,” presumably referring to missiles fired by the Iranian-supported Houthi rebels in Yemen. The Houthis have launched dozens of missiles into Saudi Arabia, causing little damage, but what about the UAE? Twice last year, the Houthis claimed to have fired missiles toward the UAE, most recently toward a nuclear power plant in December. But the Houthis presented no evidence of a strike, no missiles were reported entering UAE territory, and the Emiratis denied it.

It appears that the secretary, who was CIA director until a month ago, was either revealing some classified information or relying on some fairly sketchy reports in his charges against Iran. Given the stakes of this conflict, he should reveal what evidence he’s relying on.

Housecarl · May 23, 2018

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...hindus-amnesty-says-they-were-all-slaughtered

INTERNATIONAL

'They Were All Slaughtered': Amnesty Says Rohingya Militants Massacred Hindus

May 23, 20184:25 PM ET
Colin Dwyer

Last September, military officials in Myanmar told international journalists that they had found a mass grave of Hindus in Rakhine state, a month after the country began a bloody crackdown on the minority Rohingya Muslim population.

There, in the center of a region already submerged in widespread violence, troops gathered local Hindus in a field to identify dozens of bodies, many of whom were the residents' friends and family.

The Myanmar military blamed the massacre on a Rohingya insurgent group, Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army, based in the area which had launched a series of attacks on security outposts the month before. But the military's announcement made little impression at the time. Myanmar was already allegedly carrying out atrocities of its own in response to the attacks, opening a brutal operation described by the United Nations and others as ethnic cleansing against the Rohingya.

Now, however, Amnesty International says it has confirmed that the Rohingya armed group "is responsible for at least one, and potentially a second, massacre of up to 99 Hindu women, men, and children as well as additional unlawful killings and abductions of Hindu villagers in August 2017."

After a months-long investigation, involving dozens of witness interviews and photographic evidence, the human rights watchdog released a report Tuesday detailing ARSA's assault on the village of Ah Nauk Kha Maung Seik. The attack allegedly occurred on Aug. 25, the same date that ARSA launched its short-lived offensive against national military outposts.

"Armed men dressed in black and local Rohingya villagers in plain clothes rounded up dozens of Hindu women, men and children. They robbed, bound, and blindfolded them before marching them to the outskirts of the village, where they separated the men from the women and young children," Amnesty explains. "A few hours later, the ARSA fighters killed 53 of the Hindus, execution-style, starting with the men."

Eight women and their children were abducted and allowed to live on the condition that the women convert to Islam, Amnesty reports. The survivors were then forced to flee to Bangladesh with their captors, eventually gaining their freedom with the help of fellow Hindu community members and Bangladeshi security forces.

"They had knives. They also had some spades and iron rods. ... We hid ourselves in the shrubs there and were able to see a little," an 18-year-old survivor told the rights group. "My uncle, my father, my brother — they were all slaughtered."

Amnesty says the victims included nearly two dozen children, 14 of whom were under the age of 8 years old. All told, 45 bodies have been excavated, and dozens of other people who disappeared from a neighboring village "are presumed to have been killed by the same perpetrators."

As NPR reported in the months that followed, the Myanmar military embarked on a broad campaign of violent reprisal. To date, some 700,000 Rohingya refugees have fled across the border into Bangladesh, where most still live in dilapidated, disease-haunted camps and tell harrowing stories of the military's systematic murder, rape and torture of Rohingya Muslims.

U.N. representatives and other international officials have described Myanmar's actions as crimes against humanity.

"I am becoming more convinced that the crimes committed following 9 October 2016 and 25 August 2017 bear the hallmarks of genocide," Yanghee Lee, U.N. special rapporteur to Myanmar, said in a statement. Her remarks came following an independent fact-finding mission released its report on the situation in Myanmar.

As The Washington Post points out, the grim results of that violence are set to become increasingly apparent — in a way that's expected to give rise to even more health dangers for the refugees who are packed into the already overcrowded refugee camps. Roughly 13,500 Rohingya women endured sexual violence at the hands of Myanmar troops, according to the U.N. Population Fund. The international aid group Save the Children anticipates that this year at least 48,000 Rohingya babies will be born in the makeshift settlements set up in Bangladesh.

"The peak of rape was August, so we're expecting to see a surge of women delivering this month," Daniella Cassio, a midwife with Doctors Without Borders told the Post.

Amnesty International, for its part, asserts that the atrocities committed by Rohingya militants by no means mitigate the extreme violence with which Myanmar responded.

"Both must be condemned – human rights violations or abuses by one side never justify abuses or violations by the other," Tirana Hassan, the group's crisis response director, said in a statement. "All the survivors and victims' families have the right to justice, truth, and reparation for the immense harm they have suffered."

Housecarl · May 23, 2018

Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.defensenews.com/air/201...rm=Editorial - Air Force - Daily News Roundup

Unmanned

Why are US drones being based in Greece for the first time?

By: Aaron Mehta
5 hours ago

WASHINGTON – For the first time, American military drones are operating from a Greek airfield. But don’t expect a permanent stay.

The U.S. Air Force has begun using MQ-9 Reaper drones out of Larisa Air Force Base, located halfway down Greece’s eastern side, near the Aegean Sea.

In response to an inquiry from Defense News, Pentagon spokesman Eric Pahon said the aircraft are being temporarily stationed at Larisa while their usual base in Africa undergoes repairs. The news was first reported locally by the To Vima newspaper in Greece.

“These aircraft are unarmed and are only used for reconnaissance. Due to operational security considerations, however, we do not release details on specific missions,” Pahon said. “Its support on this mission and others is critical to achieving our joint foreign policy security objectives in the region, specifically to address threats emanating from the south.”

https://www.armytimes.com/resizer/c...aws.com/public/5E6WLDSBU5HLFE6S43KWDE76Y4.jpg
America's footprint in Africa is growing, with ah emphasis on drone use. (Devan Feeney/Staff)

The drones are being stationed at Larisa under the aegis of an existing joint training order between the two nations. Staff handling the take-off and landing of the Reapers will be stationed at Larisa, with operators in the continental U.S. handling normal flight operations via satellite — a common set-up for the MQ-9.

The aircraft only fly through Greek airspace ”on routes that have been approved by the Greece government and while operating in Greek airspace are in contact with Greek Air Traffic Control authorities at all times,” said Auburn Davis, chief of media operations for USAF Air Forces Africa.

Pahon declined to say what base the drones usually operate from, but there are a few options in Africa. Notably, the U.S. is currently expanding the Agadez Air Base in Niger to prepare for greater use of the MQ-9.

While the mission of the MQ-9s stationed at Greece will be focused southward, the move has potential to upset America’s NATO ally Turkey. The U.S. has long relied on the Incirlik military base to launch operations in the region, but the relationship between Washington and Ankara has been strained ever since a 2016 coup attempt by members of the Turkish military.

Greece would certainly like to capitalize on that tensions. Notably, the initial To Vima report also claims that U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Wes Mitchell discussed moving a “significant portion” of the military presence from Incirlik to Greece during a recent visit to Athens.

Even if that is unlikely to happen, showing that the U.S. can indeed use Greek facilities for this mission is will be noted by Ankara.

About Aaron Mehta
Aaron Mehta is the Senior Pentagon Correspondent and Associate Editor for Defense News, covering policy, strategy and acquisition at the highest levels of the Department of Defense and its international partners.

Housecarl · May 23, 2018

State Department issues warning after US employee in China suffers possible sonic attack
Started by Pinecone‎, Today 12:04 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ployee-in-China-suffers-possible-sonic-attack

SYRIA ATTACK UNDERWAY! "RED ALERT" Sirens Sounding In Northern Israel Golan Region 5/8/2018
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...-Northern-Israel-Golan-Region-5-8-2018/page75

The Four Horsemen - 05/21 to 05/28
Started by Ragnarok‎, 05-21-2018 02:14 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?536586-The-Four-Horsemen-05-21-to-05-28

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman (hasn’t been seen lately)
Started by NCGirl‎, Today 05:51 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ohammed-Bin-Salman-(hasn%92t-been-seen-lately)

The US is running out of bombs (and missiles) — and it may soon struggle to make more
Started by 1911user‎, Yesterday 11:52 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...es)-%97-and-it-may-soon-struggle-to-make-more

Pentagon Spends $1 Billion To Acquire More War Robots
Started by Blacknarwhal‎, Today 06:41 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...n-Spends-1-Billion-To-Acquire-More-War-Robots

T Minus Two Years for War With China.
Started by Troke‎, Today 07:59 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?536678-T-Minus-Two-Years-for-War-With-China.

The US is running out of bombs — and it may soon struggle to make more
Started by JF&P‎, Yesterday 05:01 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...mbs-%97-and-it-may-soon-struggle-to-make-more

Israel Says First to Use F-35 Stealth Fighter Jets in Combat
Started by Millwright‎, Yesterday 07:14 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...st-to-Use-F-35-Stealth-Fighter-Jets-in-Combat

TURKEY'S ERDOGAN INVADES NORTHERN SYRIA PART TWO 4-8-2018
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...NVADES-NORTHERN-SYRIA-PART-TWO-4-8-2018/page2

Housecarl · May 23, 2018

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.c4isrnet.com/unmanned/2..._term=Editorial - Military - Early Bird Brief

The Army has worried about small drones. Now Homeland Security is worried too.

By: Kelsey Atherton
1 day ago

At the dawn of the Department of Homeland Security, no one was thinking about how to manage flying robots. In the almost 16 years since its founding, air travel passengers adjusted to the swath of security changes put in place with the aim of lessening the likelihood of airline hijackings. It is the low sky, then, the space where airliners don’t travel except during landings and takeoffs, that a different sort of concern has emerged: what to do about cheap, easy to pilot drones, should they ever become a threat?

Last week, the Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen asked Congress for the authority to “identify, track, and mitigate drones that could pose a danger to the public and to DHS operations,” reports Reuters. Nielsen cited the specific example of ISIS using armed drones, though the technique is hardly limited to ISIS; irregular forces fighting in Ukraine also adapted quadcopters into miniature bombers. The Army is already investing heavily in solving this problem.

As fits the DHS mandate, Nielsen’s concern was focused not on the dangers posed by quadcopters to servicemembers fighting abroad, but that America’s enemies (specifically alluding to ISIS) will use drones as weapons stateside. This is a fear that has yet to materialize, though the technology to make it happen is certainly available, should a nefarious actor decide to pursue it. Additionally, Nielsen wants tools to protect against drones doing surveillance or smuggling drugs, which are at least things people have actually done with drones inside the United States. (Notably absent from the list of threats is the drone swarm that the FBI says interfered with a hostage rescue operation, perhaps the most novel use of drones for illicit behavior so far observed.)

Here’s how the “Preventing Emerging Threats Act of 2018” aims to, well, prevent the emerging threats of 2018. The act, in essence, let DHS and the Department of Justice authorize a range of actions to counter drones, including everything from tracking drones to jamming them to even use force against the uninhabited aircraft. The range of powers, as enumerated in the text:

(A) Detect, identify, monitor, and track the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft, without prior consent, including by means of intercept or other access of a wire communication, an oral communication, or an electronic communication used to control the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft. (B) Warn the operator of the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft, including by passive or active, and direct or indirect physical, electronic, radio, and electromagnetic means.(C) Disrupt control of the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft, without prior consent, including by disabling the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft by intercepting, interfering, or causing interference with wire, oral, electronic, or radio communications used to control the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft.(D) Seize or exercise control of the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft.(E) Seize or otherwise confiscate the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft.(F) Use reasonable force to disable, damage, or destroy the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft.

That’s a dense set of powers, but it mostly covers the full range of counter-drone technologies available today. Notably, it includes use of force at the end, though as written the bill prioritizes non-kinetic means to stop the drone at every turn, including warning the humans operating the machines in question.

As for acquiring figuring out how to do that, DHS is in luck: the counter-drone market already features over 200 systems with some range of these capabilities, and unlike some other specialized technological needs, DHS can simply buy models off the shelf and evaluate them as needed.

Present FAA rules, which regulates things large and small in the sky, are already designed to ensure zones of safety around airports, people in public, and other areas deemed sensitive or risky for flying robots to roam. To get pilots on board with these rules, the FAA pushed education campaigns to teach people what the rules are and how to operate safely. Notably, though, these rules have lacked an enforcement mechanism beyond the vigilance of local law enforcement; years ago, when the FAA was asked how they planned to secure the special event airspace around the 50th Super Bowl, the FAA directed reporters to NORAD, which politely declined to comment. These new provisions would expand the ability of law enforcement and national security agencies to respond to drones within the United States, providing a more concrete answer than fanciful notions of jet-fighter interception of rogue quadcopters.

Still, the presence of a commercial technology adapted into a threat abroad does not guarantee that the threat will manifest in the same way domestically. In the meantime, should the bill pass into law, it could greatly expand the ways in which federal agents interfere with the lives and hobbies of hundreds of thousands of law-abiding drone operators.

Buick Electra · May 23, 2018

Saeed Ghasseminejad
✔
@SGhasseminejad

Iranian truck drivers are on strike across the country. There are reports confirmed by Iranian officials that the widespread strike has caused fuel shortage in some parts of the country.

حسن سجواني &#55356;&#56806;&#55356;&#56810;
✔
@HSajwanization

As I predicted earlier, the future of #Iran’s mullahs doesn’t look bright! #IranRegimeChange is inevitable https://twitter.com/sghasseminejad/status/999342916307898368 …
3:00 PM - May 23, 2018

Buick Electra · May 23, 2018

Breaking News
✔
@BreakingNews

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warns that Iran will resume its enrichment of uranium if European powers do not meet a series of conditions for Iran to remain in nuclear deal. https://reut.rs/2LmUX9I - @Reuters
3:46 PM - May 23, 2018

Housecarl · May 23, 2018

And from our southern neighbor....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-still-2-months-away/?utm_term=.e179ac622204

World Views Analysis

36 local candidates have been assassinated in Mexico. And the election is still 2 months away.

By Kevin Sieff
May 20

MEXICO CITY — This election season has been the most violent in Mexico’s recent history, with 36 candidates killed since September, and dozens of other politicians and campaign officials slaughtered.

That macabre statistic has created a fresh challenge for the country’s political parties: They are now trying to fill dozens of candidacies left open by the assassinations.

“There are some positions that no one wants to contest right now,” said Eduardo Guerrero, a security expert at Lantia Consultores in Mexico City. “It’s something that we’re seeing in several states in the country.”

Earlier this month, the body of Abel Montufar, a candidate for congress from the state of Guerrero, was found in his truck. He had been shot several times. After Montufar’s funeral, members of his party, the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), began what has become a familiar search.

“We are looking for someone to take over his candidacy,” said Heriberto Vazquez, the president of the PRI’s steering committee in Guerrero, in an interview. “We are looking for someone without fear.”

Vazquez explained the precautions the party is taking as it attempts to recruit replacements. Party officials have drawn up a map of towns and cities so dangerous that candidates are advised to not to campaign there. But because parts of Guerrero are so violent, it’s impossible to tell which of the candidates who became victims were targeted, and which were simply caught up in random crime.

So far, roughly 8,000 people have been killed in Mexico this year, a continuation of the horrific violence of 2017, when about 23,000 people were slain, a record. With presidential, parliamentary and local elections scheduled for July 1, the violence has crept into the country’s political class.

Mexican newspapers have begun publishing lists of the candidates slain across the country. Political killings have tripled from the 2015 elections, according to research from Lantia Consultores.

Criminal groups are using violence to try to influence candidates, analysts say, and establish their power over local and state politics. In some cases, they might be targeting politicians who have refused to show them deference or pay them off. In other cases, candidates might have formed alliances with one criminal group, and later been targeted by a rival group.

“The old model was that criminal organizations had to pay rent to politicians for protection from government authorities,” said Chris Kyle, an anthropologist and expert on Guerrero at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “Now, the relationship is the other way around. If you want to occupy office, you have to pay the criminal organizations.”

In the case of Montufar, the former congressional candidate, local newspapers are reporting that he was killed for not paying a “cuota” or “share” to a local drug cartel.

His assassination underscored the danger facing politicians in Guerrero. The day after he was killed, Ramiro Gómez Pineda, a candidate for president of the nearby municipality of Coyuca de Catalan and a former member of Montufar’s staff, pulled out of his own race. That left yet another candidacy for the party to fill.

Speaking publicly, representatives of the PRI have tried to reassure voters that they will find replacements for such candidates.

"The party is working. It is having the corresponding meetings and consulting to find the best person to replace Abel Montufar and thus have a competitive possibility," Manuel Saavedra Chavez, the party’s representative in the electoral institute, told Milenio newspaper.

In Chihuahua state, where several candidates and local officials have been killed since September, the electoral institute announced this month that 80 candidates had resigned. About half of those were replaced.

In Guerrero, more candidates are dropping out every week. In the past few days, two candidates for mayor of the municipality of Pedro Ascencio de Alquisiras withdrew from the race.

One of them was Norma Sanchez Alvarez, the candidate for the Democratic Revolutionary Party (PRD).

Not long after her withdrawal, the secretary general of the PRD in Guerrero, Antonio Orozco Guadarrama, explained what had happened.

"The criminals threatened our candidate and the other members of the team that if they participated in the [electoral] fight something was going to happen to them," he told Reforma newspaper.

10 Comments

Kevin Sieff has been The Washington Post’s Africa bureau chief since 2014. He served previously as the bureau chief in Kabul and had covered the U.S.-Mexico border. Follow @ksieff

Housecarl · May 23, 2018

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://news.trust.org/item/20180523110256-pgzaz

Pirate attacks grow in South America and Caribbean - report

by Reuters
Wednesday, 23 May 2018 11:02 GMT

By Jonathan Saul

LONDON, May 23 (Reuters) - Pirate attacks around South American and Caribbean waters are growing, and violence is increasingly used during robberies committed on vessels at anchor, a report showed on Wednesday.

The Oceans Beyond Piracy (OBP) non-profit group recorded 71 incidents in Latin America and the Caribbean in 2017, a 163 percent increase over 2016.

OBP said the majority of the attacks occurred in territorial waters, with around 59 percent of incidents involving robbery on yachts. Anchorages in Venezuela, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Colombia and St. Lucia were the regional hot spots during 2017, it said.

"We have observed a significant increase in violent incidents and anchorage crime, particularly in the anchorages of Venezuela and the recent violent incidents off Suriname in the first part of this year," said the report's lead author Maisie Pigeon.

In late April a pirate attack off the coast of Suriname left at least a dozen fishermen from neighbouring Guyana missing and feared dead with three separate bodies found in what was described by Guyana's President David Granger as a "massacre".

In a separate incident in May a fishing boat captain was shot dead after his vessel was attacked off Suriname while the rest of the crew survived.

OBP could not give a total economic cost for attacks in Latin America and the Caribbean, but said ship stores and crew belongings reported stolen were estimated to have totaled nearly $1 million in 2017.

The cost of piracy in East Africa reached $1.4 billion in 2017, down from $1.7 billion in 2016 and $7 billion in 2010 during the peak of attacks by Somali gangs.

Since then, the presence of international naval forces, the deployment of private armed guards on board vessels and defensive measures by ship captains has curbed activity.

OBP said there were 54 incidents in 2017 versus 27 in 2016 after a surge of attacks in the first quarter of 2017.

"There are now a wide range of threats to shipping near the Horn of Africa that have been complicated by the conflict and instability in Yemen," said Phil Belcher, marine director with association INTERTANKO, which represents the majority of the world's tanker fleet.

Piracy risks remained elevated in West African waters, with 97 incidents recorded in 2017 versus 95 in 2016, with the total cost estimated at $818.1 million in 2017 versus $793.7 million, OBP said.

"Kidnap-for-ransom continues to plague the region, which is a trend that has unfortunately continued from 2016," OBP's Pigeon said. (Editing by William Maclean)

Housecarl · May 23, 2018

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://news.usni.org/2018/05/23/china-disinvited-participating-2018-rimpac-exercise

China Disinvited from Participating in 2018 RIMPAC Exercise

By: Megan Eckstein
May 23, 2018 11:58 AM • Updated: May 23, 2018 3:28 PM

The U.S. military has disinvited China from participating in the upcoming Rim of the Pacific exercise in Hawaii, a Defense Department spokesman announced.

Citing actions in the South China Sea that run counter to international norms and a pursuit of free and open seas, Department of Defense spokesman Marine Lt. Col. Christopher Logan said the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) would not be participating in the exercise despite its participation in submarine safety and other non-warfighting components of the exercise in previous years.

“The United States is committed to a free and open Indo-Pacific. China’s continued militarization of disputed features in the South China Sea only serve to raise tensions and destabilize the region. As an initial response to China’s continued militarization of the South China Sea we have disinvited the PLA Navy from the 2018 Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) Exercise. China’s behavior is inconsistent with the principles and purposes of the RIMPAC exercise,” Logan said.

“We have strong evidence that China has deployed anti-ship missiles, surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems, and electronic jammers to contested features in the Spratly Islands region of the South China Sea. China’s landing of bomber aircraft at Woody Island has also raised tensions,” he continued.

“We believe these recent deployments and the continued militarization of these features is a violation of the promise that President Xi made to the United States and the World not to militarize the Spratly Islands.”

U.S. 3rd Fleet spokeswoman Lt. Cmdr. Julie Holland told USNI News that China had been scheduled to be part of the Combined Task Force (CTF) 175, led by U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Bertholf (WMSL-750) and joined by ships from several nations’ navies, as well as in CTF 171, led by U.S. naval expeditionary dive and salvage forces. PLAN would have brought four ships total, including its hospital ship Peace Ark, as well as a salvage diving team.

China participated in the 2016 exercise despite tensions at the time. Then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter said in April 2016, “Our approach to security in the region, as I indicated there, has always been to try to include everyone, so that’s our basic approach. So even as we stand strong and improve all of our systems and stand strong with our allies – and develop new partnerships with countries like India and Vietnam that we don’t have decades of experience with, like the Philippines; they’re all coming to us, in part because they’re concerned about China – but we’re still taking the approach of, everybody ought to work together here. So if the Chinese want to participate, I think it’s the right place for us to be. Come on, and instead of standing apart from everybody and isolating yourself and excluding yourself, try to be part of the system of cooperative nations that have made, as I said, the Asian miracle possible.”

In 2012 China was invited to participate in the 2014 exercise – where the PLAN sent four invited ships and one uninvited spy ship – and soon afterwards the U.S. invited China to rejoin them again in 2016. Despite South China Sea tensions and other friction between the two countries, naval leaders have long spoke of the importance of rehearsing humanitarian assistance and disaster relief drills together, communicating at sea to avoid collisions, and practicing safe ship handling and rescue drills in case of an emergency.

Russia, however, was not allowed to participate in 2016 due to its annexation of Crimea and aggression in Eastern Ukraine. Still, the Russian Navy sent a destroyer to follow USS America (LHA-6) and a spy ship to monitor the exercise.

The following is the complete statement by Defense Department spokesman Lt. Col. Christopher Logan:

“The United States is committed to a free and open Indo-Pacific. China’s continued militarization of disputed features in the South China Sea only serve to raise tensions and destabilize the region. As an initial response to China’s continued militarization of the South China Sea we have disinvited the PLA Navy from the 2018 Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) Exercise. China’s behavior is inconsistent with the principles and purposes of the RIMPAC exercise.”

“We have strong evidence that China has deployed anti-ship missiles, surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems, and electronic jammers to contested features in the Spratly Islands region of the South China Sea. China’s landing of bomber aircraft at Woody Island has also raised tensions.”

“While China has maintained that the construction of the islands is to ensure safety at sea, navigation assistance, search and rescue, fisheries protection, and other non-military functions the placement of these weapon systems is only for military use.”

“We have called on China to remove the military systems immediately and to reverse course on the militarization of disputed South China Sea features.”

“We believe these recent deployments and the continued militarization of these features is a violation of the promise that President Xi made to the United States and the World not to militarize the Spratly Islands.”

Housecarl · May 24, 2018

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump...or-sabotaging-the-kim-jong-un-summit?ref=home

CHINESE CHECKS

Trump Blames China’s Xi Jinping for Sabotaging the Kim Jong Un Summit

After that surprise second meeting with Xi this month, the North Korean leader suddenly moved back to the dark side in his dealings with the United States.

GORDON G. CHANG
05.23.18 5:52 AM ET

President Donald Trump met his South Korean counterpart in the White House on Tuesday, publicly acknowledged his planned summit with Kim Jong Un may never take place, and called out China’s ruler for sabotaging the denuclearization process.

It was about time the American leader recognized his North Korea policy was hitting roadblocks.

Just past noon, Trump faced the press with Moon Jae-in, the South Korean president, who flew in from Asia for a meeting that initially was scheduled for only two hours. “This time last week, Moon was coming here with the intention of trying to heavily script what Trump would do in his meeting with Kim,” Victor Cha, senior Asia director for George W. Bush’s National Security Council, told The Washington Post. “Now, he’s coming here just to try to save the summit. The mission has really changed.”

Last week, the North Koreans, who this year gave the impression they had turned over a new leaf, began acting like North Koreans again. They abruptly canceled high-level talks with Seoul, scheduled for last Wednesday, and cast doubt on their willingness to meet with Trump in Singapore on June 12. They cited their displeasure with long-scheduled joint military exercises and with John Bolton, Trump’s new national security adviser.

Moon has since tried to alleviate Kim Jong Un’s concerns, withdrawing, for instance, from the Blue Lightning air-training exercise with the United States and Japan this month. Seoul’s tactics have not worked to mollify the Kim regime, however.

Now, analysts want to know what caused the North’s return to the dark side, which took senior Trump officials by complete surprise. But the new hostility should have been anticipated. It was evident that Xi Jinping, whom Trump called a “friend” yesterday, put the North Koreans up to their new bristling posture.

Trump, in his wide-ranging comments made in the Oval Office with Moon at his side, picked on the Chinese for mischief-making. “I will say I’m a little disappointed, because when Kim Jong Un had the meeting with President Xi, in China, the second meeting—the first meeting we knew about—the second meeting—I think there was a little change in attitude from Kim Jong Un,” Trump said. “So I don’t like that. I don’t like that.”

Nor should he. Xi obviously has been up to no good. In addition to openly violating U.N. sanctions in recent months, Xi has undoubtedly been schooling Kim in the art of defiance of the international community, especially the United States. That second Xi-Kim meeting—held May 7 and 8 in the Chinese city of Dalian—preceded North Korea’s return to bad behavior.

It took some time for Trump to recognize what was going on, but he evidently lost patience with the Chinese at the beginning of this week. On Monday morning, Trump took to Twitter to criticize Beijing. “China must continue to be strong & tight on the Border of North Korea until a deal is made,” the president warned. “The word is that recently the Border has become much more porous and more has been filtering in.”

The “porous” comment is an understatement. Over the last two months, China’s sanctions enforcement has markedly deteriorated. Moreover, Beijing has ramped up support for the North Korean economy. In the last few weeks, for instance, gas and diesel prices in the northern part of North Korea have fallen dramatically, which could not have happened unless China had been pumping substantially more oil into the North through its pipeline.

Beijing says it wants North Korea to denuclearize, and that may be true, but most of all it does not want to be left out of decision-making affecting the region. “China’s biggest nightmare is North Korea having a closer relationship with the United States and South Korea than it does with China,” prominent China-watcher Bonnie Glaser of the Center for Strategic and International Studies told The Washington Post.

Yes, Xi Jinping has been trying to convince Trump—and Moon—that every plan to denuclearize North Korea runs through the Chinese capital. Xi apparently got Kim to act up to create a need to consult Beijing—how else to explain the sequence of events this month?—but this cynical plan can blow up in Xi’s face.

Trump has, for a year, been publicly saying he is willing to go easy on trade issues with China if Beijing is helpful on North Korea. He repeated this theme Tuesday in his chat with the press.

“When I think of trade with China, I’m also thinking about what they’re doing to help us with peace with North Korea,” Trump said. “That’s a very important element.”

But what happens to Trump’s treatment of Chinese trade issues when he thinks Beijing is not helping? Many have commented that what Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin terms the “very comprehensive framework” for a China trade deal looks unsatisfactory. In short, the framework rewards America with little to which it was not already entitled and grants China large rewards, among them sanctions relief for ZTE Corp., the embattled Chinese telecom-equipment maker, and a decision not to impose tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 for stealing American intellectual property. Many analysts say, based on the 2017 update to the IP Commission Report (PDF), that China’s theft amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars annually.

Some may think the generous Trump position on trade is the price for Beijing’s help to defang the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. If Trump, however, thinks the Chinese are standing in the way of a NoKo settlement, he could take an especially tough attitude on trade.

Two China crises—one on North Korea and the other on trade—are intersecting, and feeding off each other. They both could escalate fast.

Housecarl · May 25, 2018

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/0...iran-is-seeking-foothold-in-north-africa.html

Iran 2 days ago

Morocco's foreign minister warns Iran is seeking foothold in North Africa

By Ben Evansky | Fox News

During Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s first major policy speech on Iran Monday, he warned Tehran that the U.S. would work closely with regional allies to deter its meddling.

One country that has recently experienced such Iranian interference is Morocco, and Nasser Bourita the minister for foreign affairs, spoke to Fox News about the problem last week.

Bourita said that his country’s intelligence service discovered that Iranian proxy Hezbollah was supplying the Polisario Front rebel group with arms. The Polisario has been fighting Morocco for independence since Spain left the Western Sahara in the 70s. Morocco annexed the Western Sahara during that time and the Polisario Front launched a bloody guerilla war before both sides agreed upon a UN-brokered truce in 1991. That truce has largely held in place.

Bourita said Morocco witnessed a change last year following the arrest of a Hezbollah financier. He described the moneyman as, “being at the heart of the financing system of Hezbollah in Africa in laundering money.” He said Hezbollah threatened Morocco to release him. But, he said, “we gave him to the United States and from that date there was a change.”

That change, he said, “now threatens our own security.”

“In April this year a new level was reached - which is providing military equipment,” he said. He said that included the SAM-11, SAM-9 and Strela surface to air missile system.

Bourita cited newly released evidence showing recent visits of senior Hezbollah leaders meetings with senior Polisario military leaders, including the men responsible for Hezbollah’s external relations for military training and logistics.

Bourita seemed to confirm reports that the Iranian embassy in Algeria was used to fund the Polisario. He said the embassy’s cultural attaché; Amir Mousavi, is believed to be the person running the operation. He said it’s “our understanding that he’s more powerful than the ambassador himself and his connection(s) are the strategic advisors to the Supreme Guide to the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

He warned that such interference is unlikely to stop.

“I think it is clear that the interference of Iran in the internal affairs of the Arab and Muslim countries won’t stop in (the) Middle-East and in the Gulf Countries,” he said. The Iranians, he said, are in part trying to destabilize the area due to Morocco’s good relations with the U.S. and Europe.

“Morocco is known to be a moderate country, a country that uses soft power in Africa and in the Arab world and I think that is one of the elements which is disturbing Iran,” he said.

Bourita said the new evidence coincided with recent threats by the Polisario, “to establish some military presence east of the Moroccan Sahara defense system.”

Benny Avni a foreign affairs analyst and columnist for the New York Post who has written about the issue, said the Polisario was nurtured by the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War as part of a global attempt to undermine U.S. allies.

“Then it was abandoned by its supporters, except for Algeria,” he said. “In comes Iran, which would export the Islamic revolution everywhere there is mayhem. In the Polisario, Tehran saw an opportunity, so it stepped in.”

Behnam Ben Taleblu a senior Iran analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, or FDD, in Washington D.C, told Fox News that although Tehran has not articulated a specific policy vision for North Africa, relations remained strained.

“Historically, under the Islamic Republic, Iran and Morocco’s relationship has been turbulent, experiencing periods of friendship and enmity,” Taleblu said. “That being said, Morocco’s close ties to Saudi Arabia earn it deep suspicion in Iran’s eyes given the escalating Saudi-Iranian cold-war in the Middle East.”

He said it remains to be seen if “such activities constitute a one-off by Iran and its Lebanese proxy or search for a strategic foothold in North Africa.”

“The Islamic Republic,” he said, “has a history of co-opting local conflicts to make them spiral out of control.”

According to the Associated Press, while Iran has denied the charges against it, Hezbollah said that Morocco was being pressured by the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Israel to act. Bourita made clear that his country’s decision was taken for national security reasons and not outside pressure.

“Our position,” he said, “was based on our own assessments, (our) own intelligence and with regard to our national security. So it was purely a bilateral decision.”

Ben Evansky reports for Fox News on the United Nations and international affairs.

He can be followed @BenEvansky

danielboon · May 25, 2018

Taiwan air force scrambles as Chinese bombers fly round island
REUTERSMay 25, 2018 at 17:00 JST

TAIPEI--Taiwan's air force scrambled aircraft on Friday as Chinese bombers flew around the self-ruled island, just a few hours after Taiwan vowed not to be cowed having lost another diplomatic ally amid growing Chinese pressure.

Taiwan is China's most sensitive territorial issue and a potential dangerous military flashpoint. China claims the island as its sacred territory and has vowed not to allow any attempts at what it views as Taiwan separatism.

Tension between democratic Taiwan and its big neighbor has increased in recent months, with China suspicious the administration of President Tsai Ing-wen wants to push for the island's formal independence.

Tsai, who took offer in 2016, says she wants to maintain the status quo, but will protect Taiwan's security and not be bullied by Beijing.

In the latest flight by Chinese aircraft around Taiwan, two H-6 bombers passed through the Bashi Channel, which separates Taiwan from the Philippines, in the early hours of Friday and then rounded Taiwan via Japan's Miyako Strait, to Taiwan's northeast, the island's defense ministry said.

Taiwan aircraft accompanied and monitored the Chinese bombers throughout, the ministry said, describing the Chinese aircraft as being on a long-range training mission.

The people of Taiwan should not be alarmed as the air force was well able to monitor the Chinese aircraft as they approach and during their missions and can ensure Taiwan's security, the ministry added.

There was no immediate word from China. It has said these missions, which have become increasingly frequent, are to send a warning to Taiwan not to engage in separatist activity.

On Thursday, Taiwan lost its second diplomatic ally in less than a month when Burkina Faso said it had cut ties with the island, following intense Chinese pressure on African countries to break with what it regards as a wayward province.

Tsai said Taiwan would not engage in "dollar diplomacy" and denounced Beijing's methods, saying Taiwan and its partners in the international community would not cower to China's pressure.

Taiwan has only one diplomatic ally left in Africa--the tiny kingdom of Swaziland--and formal relations with just 18 countries worldwide, many of them poor countries in Central America and the Pacific like Nauru. http://www.asahi.com/sp/ajw/articles...805250049.html

danielboon · May 25, 2018

Taiwanese aircraft tail Chinese bombers on flight around island
Long-range mission comes a day after Taipei loses another diplomatic ally

PUBLISHED : Friday, 25 May, 2018, 1:20pm
UPDATED : Friday, 25 May, 2018, 1:26pm
Taiwan’s air force scrambled aircraft on Friday as mainland Chinese bombers flew around the self-ruled island, just a few hours after Taiwan vowed not to be cowed having lost another diplomatic ally amid growing pressure from Beijing.

Taiwan is China’s most sensitive territorial issue and a potential dangerous military flashpoint. Beijing claims the island as its territory and has vowed not to allow any attempts at what it views as Taiwanese separatism.

Tension between democratic Taiwan and its big neighbour has increased in recent months, with Beijing suspicious that the administration of President Tsai Ing-wen wants to push for the island’s formal independence.

Tsai, who took office in 2016, says she wants to maintain the status quo, but will protect Taiwan’s security and not be bullied by Beijing.

Taiwan president says we will no longer tolerate Beijing’s actions after Burkina Faso becomes latest ally to cut ties with island

In the latest flight by People’s Liberation Army aircraft around Taiwan, two H-6 bombers passed through the Bashi Channel which separates Taiwan from the Philippines in the early hours of Friday and then rounded Taiwan via Japan’s Miyako Strait, to Taiwan’s northeast, the island’s defence ministry said.

Taiwanese aircraft accompanied and monitored the mainland’s bombers throughout, the ministry said, describing the PLA aircraft as being on a long-range training mission.

The people of Taiwan should not be alarmed as the air force was well able to monitor the PLA aircraft as they approached and during their missions and could ensure Taiwan’s security, the ministry added.

There was no immediate word from Beijing. It has said these missions, which have become increasingly frequent, are to send a warning to Taiwan not to engage in separatist activity.

Airlines switching to ‘Taiwan, China’ despite White House’s rejection of ‘Orwellian nonsense’ – but US carriers hold out

On Thursday, Taiwan lost its second diplomatic ally in less than a month when Burkina Faso said it had cut ties with the island, after intense efforts from Beijing to encourage African countries to break with the island.

Tsai said Taiwan would not engage in “dollar diplomacy” and denounced Beijing’s methods, saying Taiwan and its partners in the international community would not cower to China’s pressure.

Taiwan has only one diplomatic ally left in Africa – the tiny kingdom of Swaziland – and formal relations with just 18 countries worldwide, many of them poor countries in Central America and the Pacific like Belize and Nauru.http://www.scmp.com/news/china/poli...e-aircraft-tail-chinese-bombers-flight-around

Housecarl · May 25, 2018

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/23/...lights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront

The Interpreter

Deep in the Desert, Iran Quietly Advances Missile Technology

By Max Fisher
May 23, 2018
136 Comments

When an explosion nearly razed Iran’s long-range missile research facility in 2011 — and killed the military scientist who ran it — many Western intelligence analysts viewed it as devastating to Tehran’s technological ambitions.

Since then, there has been little indication of Iranian work on a missile that could reach significantly beyond the Middle East, and Iranian leaders have said they do not intend to build one.

So, this spring, when a team of California-based weapons researchers reviewed new Iranian state TV programs glorifying the military scientist, they expected a history lesson with, at most, new details on a long-dormant program.

Instead, they stumbled on a series of clues that led them to a startling conclusion: Shortly before his death, the scientist, Gen. Hassan Tehrani Moghaddam, oversaw the development of a secret, second facility in the remote Iranian desert that, they say, is operating to this day.

For weeks, the researchers picked through satellite photos of the facility. They found, they say, that work on the site now appears to focus on advanced rocket engines and rocket fuel, and is often conducted under cover of night.

It is possible that the facility is developing only medium-range missiles, which Iran already possesses, or perhaps an unusually sophisticated space program.

But an analysis of structures and ground markings at the facility strongly suggests, though does not prove, that it is developing the technology for long-range missiles, the researchers say.

Such a program would not violate the international deal intended to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, or any other formal agreement. Still, if completed, it could threaten Europe and potentially the United States. And if Iran is found to be conducting long-range missile work, that would increase tensions between Tehran and the United States.

Five outside experts who independently reviewed the findings agreed that there was compelling evidence that Iran is developing long-range missile technology.

“The investigation highlights some potentially disturbing developments,” said Michael Elleman, a missile expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies who reviewed the material. The evidence was circumstantial, he said, but it could show preliminary steps “for developing an ICBM five to 10 years down the road, should Tehran wish to do so.”

Asked about the conclusions drawn by the weapons researchers, Alireza Miryousefi, the press officer at Iran’s United Nations mission, said in emailed statement that “we do not comment on military matters.”

The Shahrud Facility
The researchers, based at the nonpartisan Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, Calif., came across the Iranian facility shortly after a young research fellow, Fabian Hinz, proposed studying a flurry of recent Iranian state media material on General Moghaddam. He wanted to see if it contained clues as to how far Iran’s missile program had progressed before the general’s death.

But offhand comments from General Moghaddam’s colleagues and family members in the Iranian media seemed to imply that his work had quietly continued, the researchers say.

Mr. Hinz also found a big hint as to where the work was taking place. In a 2017 post by an Iranian journalists association, he saw an undated photo of General Moghaddam alongside a top lieutenant and a box marked “Shahrud.”

That name caught Mr. Hinz’s attention.

Shahrud, named for a town 40 kilometers away, was the site of a single missile test-launch in 2013. It had been considered dormant ever since and, when viewed by satellite, appeared disused.

Was there more than met the eye?

Poring over years of satellite imagery, the researchers noticed something: The number of buildings, they say, had slowly increased over time.

They also spotted a detail that would stand out only to an obsessive follower of General Moghaddam’s career: The buildings were painted a striking aquamarine.

General Moghaddam, known as eccentric and strong willed, had ordered his first facility, the one that was destroyed, painted that color. Now the same color appeared 300 miles away on a cluster of nondescript buildings in the desert.

On its own, this proved little, but it led the researchers to look more closely. Once they did, they saw more than just suspicious paint.

Ground Scars
Many military technologies can be developed, at least in early stages, indoors.
Ballistics labs, wind tunnels and enrichment facilities can be hidden in buildings or underground.

Missiles are an exception. Their engines must be fitted into stands and test-fired — hazardous work that is typically done outdoors. And engine tests, when conducted in desert landscapes like those around Shahrud, can burn ground scars, shaped like candle flames, into the terrain.

The researchers, piecing through satellite photos of the area around Shahrud, found, in a crater a few kilometers away, what they say were two telltale ground scars. They were larger than those at General Moghaddam’s publicly known facility.
The scars were recent. One appeared in 2016, the other in June 2017.

The researchers scrutinized the test stands. Such structures typically weigh between four and six times the thrust of the engine being tested. And they are concrete, allowing their weight to be inferred from their dimensions.

The researchers say Shahrud’s 2017 test used a stand estimated to be 370 tons, suggesting the engine powered between 62 and 93 tons of thrust — enough for an intercontinental ballistic missile. Two as-yet-unused test stands are even larger.

Hidden Activity
There were other hints. Shahrud appears to house three pits of the sort used for casting or curing rocket components, the researchers say. One pit, at 5.5 meters in diameter, is far larger than those used for Iran’s medium-range missiles.

The researchers confirmed that the facility remains active by using a new type of satellite imagery known as synthetic-aperture radar. By firing radio waves and measuring their echo, the satellite reveals greater detail than a photograph. Because of how it stores data, it can track minute changes between two sets of images, such as dirt kicked up by someone walking between buildings.

“We can see human traffic, human activity that isn’t visible on your traditional satellite,” said David Schmerler, one of the California-based researchers. “They’ve been driving all over the crater where the engine tests are done.”

And there appeared to be heavy vehicle traffic in and out of a tunnel leading underground, suggesting that Shahrud sits atop a large subterranean structure, the researchers say, though they could not say what it is for.

The researchers were especially struck by the fuel — or, more precisely, they say, the fact that there was none to be seen. No storage tanks, fuel trucks or fueling stations. This underscored suspicions that Shahrud is building engines that burn solid fuel, they say.

Solid fuel is far more difficult and dangerous to develop than the liquid kind. While it is also used in civilian programs like spaceflight, its military applications are considerable.

Liquid-fueled missiles must be fueled right before launch, which requires time and access to special fueling facilities, making them easier for enemy forces to find and destroy. But solid-fueled missiles can be hidden in remote locations and fired at a moment’s notice.

Unanswered Questions
“We’ve stumbled onto this program that was much closer to being done than we’d realized,” said Jeffrey Lewis, who leads the California-based team that uncovered the facility.

But closer to completing what, precisely?

Perhaps only a more advanced version of Iran’s existing medium-range missiles. Still, this would not explain why the structures appear sized for larger missiles or why the work is conducted in such secrecy.

Another explanation could be rockets designed to fire into space — though this is not necessarily benign. Countries will often develop space-launch rockets as a kind of test model for intercontinental ballistic missiles. North Korea and India both started their ICBM programs this way.

Mr. Lewis estimated that Shahrud’s casting or curing pits could produce three rockets per year — not enough for an arsenal, but the right amount for a space-launch program. This could develop the technical know-how for an ICBM without one actually being built.

A Revolutionary Guards officer named Majid Musavi, who is thought to be Mr. Moghaddam’s successor, seemed to suggest as much in his only known interview. A space program, Mr. Musavi said in 2014, allowed the scientists to continue their work while complying with orders from Iranian leaders not to produce missiles over 2,000 kilometers in range.

Still, Shahrud’s focus on solid-fuel engines suggests that any space program there is intended for missile technology, said David Wright, a missile expert at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

“If the goal is to launch satellites, it makes more sense to use liquid-fuel rockets,” he said. Solid fuel brings few upsides for civilian use, he said, but is “a convenient way to also develop the technology for a solid ICBM.”

It is difficult to assess whether Iran would develop this technology as a precaution in case tensions spike with the United States, as leverage for future negotiations or as experimental testing for missiles that are still years away.

Hedging Bets
Work at the facility is most likely intended as “a hedge” should the nuclear agreement collapse, said Dina Esfandiary, an Iran expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The country does not appear to be sprinting toward a long-range missile, but preparing the ground in case Iranian leaders should one day deem that necessary.

“It keeps the option open,” Ms. Esfandiary said.

Mr. Lewis concluded that the program is holding deliberately short of a functional long-range missile. But if President Trump succeeds in tearing up the agreement, or if Tehran feels threatened, Mr. Lewis warned, Shahrud suggests that Iran could acquire a long-range missile more quickly than has been previously known.

“Like we did with North Korea, we are underestimating how capable they are,” he said, referring to North Korea’s surprisingly rapid development of an ICBM.

“The Iranians are choosing to restrain themselves for political reasons,” Mr. Lewis said, “and if we tell them to go to hell, we’re not going to like what they do.”

‘For How Long’?
In July 2017, a Revolutionary Guards officer named Amir Ali Hajizadeh, in comments to military families, complained that “certain gentlemen” in the government were holding back work on a space-launch rocket that, though “ready for launch,” was being “put into storage because of fear of America.”

“This is unacceptable for us,” Mr. Hajizadeh said. “For how long do we have to humiliate ourselves?”

With Mr. Trump’s exit from the nuclear agreement, hard-liners like Mr. Hajizadeh may be better positioned to push for resuming this work, Ms. Esfandiary said. “The situation has changed, because there’s no cap on their missile work and they have proof that the West doesn’t uphold its commitments,” she said.

The Interpreter is a column by Max Fisher and Amanda Taub exploring the ideas and context behind major world events. Follow them on Twitter @Max_Fisher and @amandataub.

Analysis by Fabian Hinz, Jeffrey Lewis and David Schmerler of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. The analysis was reviewed by James Acton of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Michael Elleman of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Dina Esfandiary of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Steve Fetter of the University of Maryland and David Wright of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Housecarl · May 25, 2018

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.voanews.com/a/pakistani-mob-destroys-ahmadi-mosque/4407754.html

Asia

Islamist Mob Destroys Minority Worship Place in Pakistan

Last Updated: May 24, 2018 7:24 AM
Ayaz Gul

ISLAMABAD — Islamic fundamentalists in Pakistan have demolished a century-old place of worship and adjacent residential area belonging to the country’s long persecuted minority Ahmadi community.

An Ahmadi spokesman denounced Wednesday night’s attack in the eastern city of Sialkot, saying a mob of over 600 men from the majority Sunni Muslim community took part in the destruction of the century-old compound.

A mobile phone video of the attack was also circulating on social media.

There were no casualties because the buildings were empty at the time of the attack due to ongoing renovation work, the spokesman told VOA.

He also noted the importance of the property, saying Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, who founded the faith in British-ruled India in 1889, had briefly lived and worshiped there.

Plans were in place, he added, to reopen the sacred compound for visitors and Ahmadi worshipers.

Just days before the destructive attack, alleged the spokesman, local police had raided and illegally sealed the buildings under pressure from Islamists to stop the renovation work, citing sectarian tensions.

But police officials insisted the worship place had been shut years ago to avoid sectarian violence.

Ahmadis consider themselves to be Muslims but their belief that the founder of the sect was a “subordinate prophet” runs counter to the belief of the country’s Sunni majority that the Prophet Mohammad was God’s last direct messenger.

The sectarian tensions prompted Pakistan in 1974 to declare Ahmadis non-Muslims, though critics say vested political interests were behind the move to please Islamists.

Targeted killings of members and leaders of the minority sect in Pakistan are common and the community regularly complains of social discrimination over accusations of blasphemy.

WAR 05-19-2018-to-05-25-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

Veteran Member

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

Veteran Member

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

TB Fanatic

TB Fanatic

TB Fanatic

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

TB2K Girls with Guns

TB2K Girls with Guns

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

TB Fanatic

TB Fanatic

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

WAR 05-19-2018-to-05-25-2018___THEWINDSofWAR