WAR 05-28-2016-to-06-03-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

[Housecarl]

(217) 05-07-2016-to-05-13-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...13-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(218) 05-14-2016-to-05-20-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...20-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(219) 05-21-2016-to-05-27-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...27-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

---

Well this is going to stir things up.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-europe-shield-idUSKCN0YI2ER

Business | Fri May 27, 2016 4:55pm EDT
Related: World, Russia, Aerospace & Defense

Putin says Romania, Poland may now be in Russia's cross-hairs

ATHENS | By Denis Dyomkin

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday warned Romania and Poland they could find themselves in the sights of Russian rockets because they are hosting elements of a U.S. missile shield that Moscow considers a threat to its security.

Putin issued his starkest warning yet over the missile shield, saying that Moscow had stated repeatedly that it would have to take retaliatory steps but that Washington and its allies had ignored the warnings.

Earlier this month the U.S. military -- which says the shield is needed to protect from Iran, not threaten Russia -- switched on the Romanian part of the shield. Work is going ahead on another part of the shield, in Poland.

"If yesterday in those areas of Romania people simply did not know what it means to be in the cross-hairs, then today we will be forced to carry out certain measures to ensure our security," Putin told a joint news conference in Athens with Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras.

"It will be the same case with Poland," he said.

Putin did not specify what actions Russia would take, but he insisted that it was not making the first step, only responding to moves by Washington. "We won't take any action until we see rockets in areas that neighbor us."

He said the argument that the project was needed to defend against Iran made no sense because an international deal had been reached to curb Tehran's nuclear program. The missiles that will form the shield can easily reach Russian cities, he said.

Related Coverage
› Putin says Crimea's status as part of Russia not up for discussion

"How can that not create a threat for us?" Putin asked.

He voiced frustration that Russia's complaints about the missile shield had not been heeded.

"We've been repeating like a mantra that we will be forced to respond... Nobody wants to hear us. Nobody wants to conduct negotiations with us."


CRIMEA ISSUE CLOSED

Putin sounded a defiant note over Crimea, the Ukrainian region which Russia annexed in 2014. Moscow said it was acting on the will of the Crimean people, who voted to join Russia, but Western governments say it was an illegal land grab.

"As far as Crimea is concerned, we consider this question is closed forever," Putin said. "Russia will not conduct any discussions with anyone on this subject."

The Russian leader also touched on relations with Turkey, which have been toxic since the Turkish military shot down a Russian fighter jet near the Syrian-Turkish border last November. Ankara said the plane strayed into Turkish airspace, an allegation Moscow denies.

Putin said he was ready to consider restoring relations with Ankara, but that would require a first step from Turkey, and so far there was no sign of that.

Putin was asked about the South Stream project, a planned gas pipeline from Russia that would have gone under the Black Sea to Bulgaria and onwards to southern Europe. Russia shelved the project after Bulgaria backed out.

He blamed the U.S. government and the European Commission, saying they had pressured Sofia to withdraw. But he said Russia was going ahead with an extension of its Nordstream pipeline in the Baltic, and he hoped no one would try to hinder that project.


(Reporting by Denis Dyomkin; Writing by Christian Lowe; Editing by Mark Trevelyan)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-malaysia-politics-idUSKCN0YJ04N

World | Sat May 28, 2016 1:32am EDT
Related: World

Outrage in multi-ethnic Malaysia as government backs Islamic law

KUALA LUMPUR | By Praveen Menon

Prime Minister Najib Razak's government threw its support in parliament this week behind an Islamic penal code that includes amputations and stoning, shocking some of his allies and stoking fears of further strains in the multi-ethnic country.

Critics believe the scandal-tainted prime minister is using 'hudud', the Islamic law, to shore up the backing of Muslim Malay voters and fend off attacks on his leadership ahead of critical by-elections next month and a general election in 2018.

The government on Thursday unexpectedly submitted to parliament a hudud bill that had been proposed by the Islamist group Parti Islam se-Malaysia's (PAS).

Although debate on the law was deferred to October by PAS leader Abdul Hadi Awang, its submission to parliament brought criticism from leaders across the political spectrum, including allies of the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition, who represent the ethnic Chinese and Indian communities.

Najib sought to ease tensions with his allies on Friday, saying the bill was "misunderstood".

"It's not hudud, but what we refer to as enhanced punishment," he told a news conference after meeting leaders of his ruling United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) party.

"It applies only to certain offences and this comes under the jurisdiction of the Syariah court and is only applicable to the Muslims. It has nothing to do with non-Muslims."

He added that the punishments would be limited and canings meted out under the law would not injure or draw blood.

Earlier in the day, the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA), a key party in the BN coalition, called the submission of the hudud bill to parliament "unconstitutional".

"As we repeatedly pointed out, the implementation of Hudud law is against the spirit of the Federal Constitution, and would ruin the inter-ethnic relationship in the country," MCA President Liow Tiong Lai said.

Arguments for and against the introduction of hudud have divided Malaysia for years. Most of the Southeast Asian country's states implement sharia, the Islamic legal system, but its reach is restricted by federal law.

Still, the hudud bill appears doomed as the UMNO-led coalition lacks the two-thirds majority needed to pass it into law.

The Islamist party PAS is pushing for a constitutional amendment that would allow hudud to be implemented in Kelantan, a northern state where nightclubs are banned and there are separate public benches for men and women.

Many fear such a move would open doors for other states to bring in the Islamic penal code. Hudud stipulates ancient religious punishments for Muslims who violate the law.


EYEING POLLS

Critics say that Najib, with an eye on by-elections for two parliamentary seats on June 18, is seeking to appease the majority Muslim votebank with his stand on hudud and to deflect attention from a multi-billion-dollar scandal at the state fund 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB).

They allege Najib was a beneficiary of 1MDB's funds, after about $680 million was deposited in his bank account before a 2013 election. Najib has denied any wrongdoing.

Some political heavyweights in Najib's party have questioned whether he can lead them to victory in the 2018 general election. However, he has consolidated power by sacking dissenters within UMNO, which has ruled Malaysia since 1957, and using a controversial and repressive colonial-era sedition law to silence other critics.

Najib seized on the resounding victory of a coalition partner in a Borneo state election earlier month as evidence that he and his government remain popular. The by-elections in peninsula Malaysia are likely to be a closer contest.

"Najib did not want the 1MDB global scandal to become the issue in both by-elections," said Lim Kit Siang, parliamentary leader of the Democratic Action Party, adding that Najib has ensured the focus will now be on hudud.


(Additional reporting by Rozanna Latiff; Editing by John Chalmers & Shri Navaratnam)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://abcnews.go.com/International...eatens-souths-ships-sea-border-chase-39443642

North Korea Threatens South's Ships After Sea Border Chase

By Kim Tong-Hyung, Associated Press · SEOUL, South Korea — May 28, 2016, 12:30 AM ET

North Korea on Saturday threatened to fire at South Korean warships if they cross into its waters, a day after the South's navy fired warning shots to chase away two North Korean ships that briefly crossed a disputed western sea boundary.

In a statement released through state media, the General Staff of North Korea's Korean People's Army called the South's action a "reckless military provocation" meant to kill the chances for dialogue between the countries.

The KPA said that the North Korean ships were unarmed and within the North's sea territory when "many armed ships" from the South approached them and fired without warning.

The South had said one navy ship issued an audible warning before firing five rounds of warning shots to repel a North Korean military vessel and a fishing boat that briefly crossed into South Korea-controlled waters Friday morning.

The KPA said it will directly fire without warning at South Korean warships if they intrude into the North's waters by "even 0.001 millimeters."

"This reckless military provocation was evidently prompted by a premeditated sinister plot to bedevil the North-South relations and further aggravate the tension on the Korean Peninsula," the KPA said about Friday's incident.

Minor incidents are not unusual on the western sea boundary, which was drawn unilaterally by the American-led U.N. command at the end of the 1950-53 Korean War and which the North does not recognize. However, the Koreas have also fought three bloody naval skirmishes in the area since 1999.

The South had also fired warning shots after a North Korean patrol boat moved south of the boundary in February.

South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff released a statement saying that the country's military followed proper procedures to chase away the North Korean ships and called the KPA's claim of the response being a military provocation "ridiculous."

Since North Korea held a rare ruling party congress earlier this month, it has been demanding the South accept its calls to resume talks after months of animosities touched off by Pyongyang's nuclear test in January and long-range rocket launch in February. South Korea has rejected the overture, saying the North must show tangible commitment to nuclear disarmament first.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russia-flight-tests-anti-satellite-missile/
(fair use applies)


Russia Flight Tests Anti-Satellite Missile
Launch took place as Air Force held space war game
BY: Bill Gertz
May 27, 2016 4:57 am

Russia conducted a successful flight test of a developmental anti-satellite missile on Wednesday that is capable of destroying satellites in orbit, American defense officials said.

The Nudol direct ascent anti-satellite missile was launched from the Plesetsk test launch facility, located 500 miles north of Moscow, said officials familiar with the situation.

The missile was monitored by U.S. intelligence satellites and the test appeared to be successful.

The launch marks another major milestone for Moscow’s efforts to develop weapons capable of destroying U.S. navigation, communications, and intelligence satellites, a key strategic advantage.

No additional details were available, and it could not be learned if the Nudol missile was fired against a satellite or was test launched in a suborbital trajectory without hitting a target.

It was the second successful test of the Nudol, following a Nov. 18 launch, and shows Russia is advancing its anti-satellite weaponry.

Pentagon spokeswoman Lt. Col. Michelle Baldanza declined to comment.

Under Russian President Vladimir Putin, Moscow is modernizing its entire strategic arsenal and developing new weapons like anti-satellite missiles.

Air Force Lt. Gen. David J. Buck, commander of the Joint Functional Component Command for Space, told a House hearing in March that the Russians are developing space weapons, known as “counter-space capabilities.”

“Russia views U.S. dependency on space as an exploitable vulnerability, and they are taking deliberate actions to strengthen their counter-space capabilities,” Buck told the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee.

Gen. John Hyten, the commander of Air Force Space Command, also has said both Russia and China are building space weapons. “They are developing capabilities that concern us,” Hyten has said in press reports.

Russia’s Nudol program has been couched in secrecy, but it appears linked to Moscow’s missile defense systems. State-run press reports in the past have mentioned the Nudol experimental development project as a “a new Russian long-range missile defense and space defense intercept complex.”

Former Pentagon official Mark Schneider said senior U.S. military leaders have been warning about Russian anti-satellite threats for years and regard it as serious.

“GPS guidance has been widely adopted for many of our weapons because it was cheap, all weather, and works well in low and medium intensity conventional conflict,” he said. “The loss of GPS guidance due to [anti-satellite] attack would take out a substantial part of our precision weapons delivery capability and essentially all of our standoff capability.”

Geneva-based Russian military analyst Pavel Podvig speculated whether Russia may have conducted a simulated intercept in the latest test.

How the Nudol program fits within Russia’s military doctrine is difficult to assess, he said.

“My take is that it is not necessarily part of a well thought out strategic plan,” Podvig said.

Soviet-era and current Russian weapons developments were often developed without a clear idea on how they would be employed.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if the [Nudol] system is being developed just because it can be developed—they will think about its role later, assuming that it works,” he noted.

Podvig said the apparent missile manufacturer, Almaz-Antey, “is making an argument that an [anti-satellite] system might be useful to hold U.S. [low-earth orbit] assets at risk.”

“But if it gets to a real conflict scenario it is very difficult to see how this capability might be militarily useful,” he added.

A Defense Intelligence Agency report to Congress in February 2015 warned that, “Russia’s military doctrine emphasizes space defense as a vital component of its national defense. Russian leaders openly assert that the Russian armed forces have anti-satellite weapons and conduct anti-satellite research.”

Schneider said the threat to U.S. satellites is compounded by a lack of kinetic U.S. counter-space capabilities that could hold Russian Glonass satellites at risk.

China also is developing anti-satellite missiles and in 2007 conducted a test of a missile that destroyed a weather satellite, resulting in tens of thousands of pieces of dangerous orbiting debris.

The blog Planet4589.org, which monitors space launches, lists three earlier Nudol tests, including an April 22, 2015, test that failed. The two other tests were the successful launch on Nov. 18 and an Aug. 12, 2014 launch.

The blog identified the Russian designation for the Nudol missile as “14Ts033.”

Coincidentally, the Nudol test took place a day before the Air Force Space Command concluded a major annual war game involving a notional Russian adversary armed with both direct ascent anti-satellite missiles and orbiting anti-satellite robots, command officials told reporters.

Air Force Col. Mike Angle, Space Command’s chief of training, weapons, and tactics, said the exercise involved European allies and U.S. forces facing off against a “peer competitor” in 2026 that appeared to be Russia.

The annual exercise is called Schriever Wargame 2016 and was held this year at Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery, Ala.

The exercise included simulated activities by missiles, cyber attacks, and orbiting satellite-killing robots. Scenarios also included cyber attacks against GPS satellites that provided false data to military GPS receivers that are widely used for navigating precision-guided weapons.

“We’ve got to, and we feel we need to, prepare for a crisis or conflict that might extend in the space domain,” Angle said.

Jason Altchek, a Space Command official who directed the war game, would not say if the notional adversary was Russia. “I can tell you it was a global scenario that focused on the European Command,” he said, noting that the scenarios were split evenly among space and cyber crisis and conflict simulations and responses.

Pressed on whether Russia was the adversary, Altchek said such details remain classified. “But I can tell you that the Schriever Wargame has gone from looking at a near-peer competitor, to a peer competitor,” he said.

The seven allied nations that took part in the war games were not immediately identified by the Air Force. However, Angle said one lesson was that “were not all on the same sheet of music” in dealing with space and cyber threats.

Past Air Force exercises had been limited to mainly launching and controlling satellites in a relatively peaceful space domain. “We had never trained to perform in the face of a thinking adversary,” Angle said.

In recent years and including the recent war game, the military has begun training to deal with space threats such as “what happens when you have a direct ascent [missile] launched against a satellite,” Angle said.

Missiles are easier to identify than unidentified, small maneuvering satellites that might either be a killer anti-satellite robot or a benign maintenance satellite.

The goal of the exercise was to simulate coalition warfare that extends into space and cyber space.

The scenarios took place in the European Command area and included “a full spectrum of threats across diverse operating environments to challenge civilian and military leaders, planners and space system operators, as well as the capabilities they employ.”

About 200 military personnel and civilians from 27 commands and agencies took part.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2016/05/will-vietnam-buy-f-16-fighter-jets-and-us-sub-hunting-planes/

Asia Defense

Will Vietnam Buy F-16 Fighter Jets and US Sub Hunting Planes?

With the lifting of the arms embargo, Vietnam is purportedly mulling the purchase of U.S. military aircraft.

By Franz-Stefan Gady
May 27, 2016

Vietnam is considering the purchase of F-16 fighter jets and refurbished P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft armed with torpedoes, an unnamed U.S. defense industry source told Defense News this week. Hanoi also expressed interest in unarmed U.S. drones for monitoring its territorial waters and the wider South China Sea.

The sale would occur under the Department of Defense’s Excess Defense Articles program, which provides used U.S. military equipment to partner nations at a reduced price. Vietnam seeks deals similar to ones the United States gave to Taiwan and Indonesia, according to the the source. Under the program Taiwan has procured 12 P-3C maritime patrol aircraft and Indonesia 12 F-16 A/B fighter jets.

Vietnam’s interest in Western military hardware is nothing new. However, given the recent announcement that the United States will lift a decades-old embargo on the sale of lethal military equipment to Vietnam, Hanoi’s deliberations deserve renewed attention from the U.S. defense industry.

In the past, Vietnam has also expressed interest in the Eurofighter Typhoon, the Saab JAS-39E/F Gripen NG, South Korea’s F/A-50 lightweight fighter and the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. The Vietnam People’s Air Force is allegedly also interested in procuring a squadron of Sukhoi Su-35S multirole fighter jets.

Defense News also obtained an unclassified briefing prepared by U.S. Pacific Command outlining that Vietnam seeks to bolster its presence in the South China Sea with upgrades for submarine warfare, maritime air-ground interdiction, anti-surface warfare, anti-submarine warfare, maritime domain awareness (MDA), early warning, and command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.

Vietnam’s military modernization efforts potentially offer a huge opportunity for the U.S. defense industry. However, as I reported previously (See: “For Russia, US Lifting Vietnam Arms Embargo Will not Affect Military Exports”) there are a number of factors that may slow down the introduction of U.S. military hardware:

Russia, however, remains the country’s most important long-time partner in the field of bilateral military-technical cooperation, although the relationship is not entirely frictionless. Still, the majority of Vietnamese military hardware is Russian and Russia continues to provide military training to all of Vietnam’s military services.

Furthermore, Vietnam will simply not have the funds for large ticket items given its spiraling public debt, which will make the acquisition of a new fleet of modern aircraft very unlikely. Vietnam is also in the process of expanding its naval forces, including adding six Russian-made 4,000-ton Type 636 Kilo-class diesel-electric submarines (five of which have been delivered so far)—an acquisition that has drained the Vietnamese defense budget.

Also, future weapons sales will likely depend on improving the human rights and strengthening civil liberties in Vietnam, given that any sale is subject to congressional approval. The power in the country continues to lie firmly with the ruling Communist Party and human rights activists and opposition members are still harassed and subject to arbitrary detention. There is also still no independent media allowed in Vietnam.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/fundamental-changes-in-warfare

Fundamental Changes in Warfare

by Dylan Farley
Journal Article | May 26, 2016 - 1:59pm

This paper was developed through the TRADOC G-2 Mad Scientist E-Intern Pilot in 2016. The objective is to educate the students on emerging concepts that will impact the future of the Army, as well as to leverage the E Intern thoughts and approaches to addressing these challenges. As a part of the program, students were given monthly assignments where they were encouraged to apply their specific interests and talents toward a Mad Scientist focus area, in this instance, Dense Urban Areas and Megacities of the Future. TRADOC G-2 Mad Scientist team is exploring the possibility of expanding the E-Intern effort in order to develop a global cultural knowledge network of cross-disciplinary scientists for the future force and employ the E-Interns to refine our approach to providing socio-cultural intelligence products.

Fundamental changes in the character of war and warfighting technologies necessitate that the United States Army focus on developing its personnel and continuing to advance technology innovations. As we move into an increasing complex world and unprecedentedly intertwined international system, our adversaries can acquire new technologies much quicker than ever before. In addition, our enemies are improving themselves in a diverse array of capabilities, including some large overarching structural changes. These adaptations are being made with the express purpose of challenging American military preeminence in the international system. The strategic environment will be engaged at a variety of angles as we see an increase in hybrid warriors as well as highly skilled cyber forces in even middle-tier states. If the United States wants to be prepared to engage each threat, whether individually or simultaneously, it must make significant training and strategic changes in order to effectively address each threat.

Enemy Adaptations

The Department of Defense 2015 National Military Strategy explicitly lists strategies directed towards Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and what is termed “violent extremist organizations”, which specifically mentions ISIS and al Qaeda (National Military Strategy 3). These states and state-actors have a variety of ways they have been trying to militarily compete with the United States, with increasing reliance on training and technology, instead of prior reliance on quantity of forces and terrorist warfare. State adversaries are conducting structural overhauls in an effort to compensate for their comparative weaknesses that they have already identified.

The first broad category that our adversaries have been addressing is increasing various programs within their own militaries that closely mirror American and European military norms. For example, China and Russia are designing and executing new training programs equivalent to those used by Western militaries. A new style of training exercise in these two vying powers is combined arms maneuver, where they seek to integrate a wide variety of capabilities into more combat effective operations. (Chinese Strategy White Paper through US Naval Institute) This is a direct copy of modern American and European exercises. Although there previously were large-scale maneuvers, especially within the Warsaw Pact, these are a new and significantly more advanced version previously unseen by the states in questions. This plan has a clear three-step progression of:


“First, increasing professionalism by overhauling the education of personnel and cutting the number of conscripts; second, improving combat-readiness with a streamlined command structure and additional training exercises; and third, rearming and updating equipment.” (Gressel)

These increasingly dynamic military exercises are also part of a process where specifically Russia is introducing “high-readiness combat-brigades” as primary fighting formations instead of the divisions of the past. Again, this is a copy of American Brigade Combat Team system, which uses self-sustaining brigades as the basic modular unit that goes on deployments. Formerly, Russia had a series of understaffed divisions that prior to any engagement would have to be surge filled with conscripts and personnel pieced together from other units. These were not reserve mobilizations units, but poorly staffed line units. Now Russia has eliminated these reduced formations in favor of readiness brigades, which makes it easier for them to fight a peer-style conflict with Western states. (Gressel)

Russia and China have also been designing and implementing new professional development programs for their personnel. Just as the American military stresses continued education for its officers and noncommissioned officers, these two states are now infusing more development into their NCO and officer cohorts. Russia for example has condensed its large and unorganized system of schools into a few extremely proficient schools, including an NCO academy. China has started taking similar measures. In addition to educating the higher ranks, both states have started to better educate its conscripted forces in order to make them an effective fighting force against professional militaries, such as the Western states. (McDermott; Chinese Strategy White Paper through US Naval Institute)

The Russian conscription system is notorious for using inexperienced and untrained recruits to staff troop formations. As a result these soldiers are definitively weaker in combat against trained, professional forces. Russia noticed this especially in the 2008 Georgia War, where the much smaller yet professional Georgian Army put up a stiff resistance against the Russian counterattack toward Tbilisi. Additional issues were that the conscripts never were trained on heavy equipment, and also were unprofessional in their media relations, oftentimes compromising operational security due to loose lips. From there the Russians decided to develop a more substantial fighting force by either ending conscription or even just training the conscripts better. By professionalizing the military, the Russian armed forces will be much more adept in any conflict against American forces. (RT; Pifer)

Another way that these major militaries are mirroring American military successes is by increasing the size and capabilities of their special operations forces. Although the Soviet Union was famous for its spetznaz, there had been little use of Russian special forces until the Ukraine Crisis. During the crisis Russia effectively used its special forces - the ‘Little Green Men’ - to quietly, quickly, and efficiently seize control of the Crimean peninsula. These troops moved quickly to various regional and local nodes and took over the entire region without a fight. Similar to American Special Forces state-building capabilities, the Russian special forces integrated well with the local population and easily established rapport. In a turn unlike American policy however, these Russian special forces orchestrated the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. Such a move to asymmetric warfare and remarkably successful employment of special operation forces marks a turning point in modern warfare where again American forces will have to be cognizant of peer special operations and strongly employed use of hybrid warfare. (Pifer)

The other significant program underway in Russia and China are respective equipment modernization programs. Both of these programs are intended to close the gap between their individual militaries and the American predominance in equipment technology. This includes main battle tanks, ships, and many other examples. Both of these programs have a specified end date of 2020, in order to completely rearm and refit the military. With the completion of these equipment modernization programs, there will only be a very small technology gap between the American military and the Russian and Chinese militaries. (Gressel; Harress)

An interesting adaptation that the Chinese are making is more civil-military integration. Before, the Chinese military was an authoritarian and cloistered structure. In recent developments however, China is seeking to improve cooperation between various aspects of civilian professions into the military. For example, China outlined in a Chinese Strategy White Paper through US Naval Institute that it would be actively:


“Accelerating CMI [civil-military integration] in key sectors. With stronger policy support, China will work to establish uniform military and civilian standards for infrastructure, key technological areas and major industries, explore the ways and means for training military personnel in civilian educational institutions, developing weaponry and equipment by national defense industries, and outsourcing logistics support to civilian support systems. China encourages joint building and utilization of military and civilian infrastructure, joint exploration of the sea, outer space and air, and shared use of such resources as surveying and mapping, navigation, meteorology and frequency spectra. Accordingly, military and civilian resources can be more compatible, complementary and mutually accessible.”

This is a significant development because it would advance Chinese military technological capacity and technical competency. By improving its institutions and structures for technological advancement, China will continue to climb at a rapid pace, closing the gap between Chinese and American military power. (Chinese Strategy White Paper through US Naval Institute)

The above segment also addresses Chinese expansion into a variety of strategic realms. The Chinese Navy, for example, is increasingly aggressive in the South China Sea and is significantly present in the Indian Ocean. It is not unforeseeable that the Chinese become engaged in deep sea exploration and becomes a common presence in global waters, especially as states increasingly compete for natural resource exploitation. China will also have an increased space presence as well, and if there is a new space race the likely participants will be the Americans and the Chinese, instead of the Russians. By diversifying their strategic operating environments, America’s opponents create additional opportunities to subvert American power and defeat them in alternative battle realms. (Minnick)

Another large structural change towards alternative operating environments is the explosion of cyber warfare and the increased reliance on digital technology to protect economics, infrastructure, and various other facets of the American state. Cyber attacks keep occurring and our enemies are at the forefront of these aggressive acts. The United States has strong capabilities, but our enemies are investing and expanding at a much faster pace and are therefore closing any gaps. By using cyber forces to perform asymmetric warfare functions like compromising information and intelligence or attacking banking institutions, an enemy can fight a non-linear war in order to deny the United States an advantage in strategic capacities (Brunner; Yadron).

The other major change in adversary behavior is a much higher level of structural advancement. As they expand, Russia, China, and to an extent Iran are beginning to take more unilateral action in the international arena. All three states are trying to expand their respective spheres of influence in order to establish themselves as powers with a considerable regional backing. This grab for strategic partners is not a new thing in strategic history, but is a new development in our modern post-Soviet era. These states with newfound power are taking unilateral action without the consultation of international bodies or other states to address issues. These proactive behaviors have been termed by Western observers as bellicose, but they run far deeper than any preemptive aggression. The fact that these states are challenging American unipolarity shows that they do not see us as a global hegemon or as a collaborative partner. American global hegemony is not necessarily the primary state interest, but collaborating and being a strong negotiating power in an international concert is important to national security. If these states challenge us diplomatically, they may choose to address their grievances militarily as well.

Exploitation of the Strategic Environment

Whatever war is next will be fought across the breadth of the strategic environment. This means not just the air, sea, and land trifecta that has been the status quo for the past hundred years, but also includes recently exploited areas such as outer space and the cyber realm. Rising states will challenge American power in all aspects of the strategic environment in order to gain the best comparative edge.

The newly explored cyber realm is the most asymmetric realm because so much damage can be caused by comparatively little force and resources. Because cyber is personnel based, it is naturally cheaper than traditional operations simply because it is exceedingly cheaper to train a human than to buy tanks, aircraft, and ships. Cyber is also more likely to be used by non-state actors because it is hard to track due to such a soft footprint. For example, Iran has had some success using non-state cyber proxies to complete various mission sets without being tied directly to Iran. Iran’s new cyber network was developed very quickly and within a few years of its inception began to rival the United States, Russia, and China. Cyber forensics are difficult to track or attack, with Israel having the most success up to this point in relation to detecting the sources of cyber crime initiated by its adversaries (Brunner).

Part of the danger of the cyber realm is that the technologies can be learned at home or purchased directly off a technology store shelf. Any person with a computer can access the realm and become a threat, with the proper training and will to do evil. A cyber attack targeted at American nodes is remarkably asymmetric, because so little equipment would have such a detrimental impact. This makes cyber use by non-traditional military forces likely for a strike against the United States. Among conventional enemies, the Chinese military has a large and advanced cyber force that is capable of, and has attacked, Western businesses and defense systems. The American military cyber capabilities are small compared to the Chinese system, which makes any cyber realm conflict potentially more hazardous. (Yadron; Valentino-DeVries)

Another new strategic realm that the Chinese mentioned in their strategic expansion report is outer space capabilities. As both a symbolic gesture of power parity and a general strategic goal, China wants to expand its extraterrestrial operations. A space expansion would not necessarily mean that the next great conflict will be a space war, but it does mean that China can have more access to natural resources, as well as communication nodes in outer space. The competition for natural resources on Earth is so intense that it is possible that in the near future there will be similar competition for space resources. Additionally, China could use extraterrestrial bodies to station enhanced communications array in a futuristic step towards enhanced information and cyber warfare (Sullivan and Erickson).

China is additionally expanding into using the deep seas as an operating environment. As discussed earlier, China is expanding its Navy, including its force of aircraft carriers. This modernized navy has been increasingly assertive in the South China Sea conflict and has operations around the Indian Ocean as well. This mobility is part of the Chinese goal of achieving “tran-theater mobility” in its military operations. America has been the preeminent naval power since the end of World War II, but now that preeminence is being challenged by the rise of China. Although a symmetric development, it is still important because it is a new development that we have not had to address recently. An additional reason for states to expand into deep-sea operations is resource competition, especially newly found energy resources in various world oceans. (Chinese Strategy White Paper through US Naval Institute; Sullivan and Erickson)

This Chinese advancement of naval forces and expeditionary power is similar to Russian strategic goals of military involvement. Russia has become increasingly more expeditionary in its operations, first fighting in only the post-Soviet states but now has expanded into fighting in the Middle East, with the recent aerial campaign in Syria. Russia has made it a point to improve its expeditionary capabilities in light of the 2008 Georgia conflict. The new readiness brigade structure described earlier is the result of the Russian goal of capable expeditionary operations. Russia has also begun to modernize its Air Force and strategic missile system, in another significant power projection method (Pifer).

The United States is still the strongest world power in air, sea, and land capabilities because it maintains the largest Armed Forces and has the largest sea fleet. Although there has been significant advancement on behalf of China, Russia, and Iran on new air, land, and sea capabilities, their current strategies suggest that these are mainly in order to increase regional hegemony, not directly confront the United States. The advancement of competitor militaries would have to be in an alternative warfare type in order to have an edge over the American military.

Adversary Technology Investment

Our enemies are going to continue to invest in technologies in order to obtain a differential advantage and undermine American global superiority. This will come in different forms addressing the breadth of military capabilities, with several specifically targeted programs. Russia is currently in the process of modernizing all of its equipment, especially its artillery and its airplanes. China also is modernizing its equipment, with both states espousing 2020 as the completion date of the equipment overhauls. New vehicles being developed are intended to gain parity with American military vehicles in order to be competitive in a peer conflict. (Gressel; Pifer)

The technological investment of other states has been growing while at the same time the United States has been decreasing its military investments because of budget constraints. Although we still retain the advantage, pundits are still claiming that the gap is quickly closing between the United States military power and the rising powers. Additionally, old advances are becoming common and are available in the civilian market. The best known example is unmanned aerial vehicles, previously a purely military capability that now can be purchased by civilians and used to do whatever they decide to use it for, whether delivering packages, or delivering bombs.

American Course of Action

The United States needs to follow two courses of action in order to maintain its national security in the next fifteen years. These measures are not necessarily meant to increase American hegemony, but rather to protect its interests and national borders in the face of increasingly complex adversaries. The first course of action is a strategic level focus, and the second partner course of action is an increased investment in personnel.

On a strategic level, American forces and intelligence personnel need to work closer with international partners on several levels. For general situational awareness, international collaboration should be increased in order to identify threats faster. Information sharing should be extensive in such an interdependent international system, and with the rapid movement of people across the globe it is necessary to share information of threats and dangerous personnel across the globe.

America also needs more adept partners to engage in balancing in East Asia. Although we have strategic partners in the region, it is primarily American forces that balance against emerging Chinese power. A better regional concert would be all the ASEAN states engaging in strong balancing together, rather than relying on American forces to augment their forces in case of any military actions.

Another way to increase strategic partnerships would be to create a NATO cyber team, which would be a collaborative body that combats cyber threats and combines the best professionals in the Western world together. Such a team would be immensely capable of preventing cyber attacks on NATO states, as long as they are given proper leeway to operate within mission intent.

The United States needs to invest in personnel more in order to meet the demands that complex warfare will present in future conflicts. The first step is to better educate our military personnel. One way to do this is to increase lateral entry of cyber professionals in a similar manner that we currently bring in doctors and chaplains. In that manner, the military gets experienced professionals without having to drag them up through the ranks. We also need to focus on better training our enlisted personnel. In the world of the “strategic corporal”, low-level leaders and the Soldiers underneath them need to be prepared to handle intense and diverse situations, especially in emerging environments like megacities (Krulak). Soldiers need to have multiple and diverse skill sets in order to be on par with their rivals and to operate to the same proficiency American forces have in the past.

In planning training programs and doctrine, it is necessary to understand how best to train individuals for future challenges. If we are training to fight hybrid warriors, we should be training to fight as hybrid warriors. We need to have more dynamic smaller units, similar in style to our special forces independent operating capabilities. Having increased platoon and squad level patrolling independence would increase the combat effectiveness of fighting small, highly mobile hybrid warriors, especially in megacities. Although entire divisions may be needed to operate in a megacity, it will be much smaller units actually maneuvering against the enemy in enclosed urban areas.

That being said, the likelihood of a near-peer war is more likely now than anytime since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. In the case that a large, terrain-based war is the next conflict, we must still know how to fight against combined arms units. It is not necessary for us to increase the size of active personnel, but instead we need to increase mobilization and conscription capabilities, especially speed. Other large states are reorganizing their strategies to be more effective in a fast-paced operating environment and we should do the same. The two important metrics are speed of mobilization and number mobilized. A way to combat our current deficiency is to have a mobilization plan already in place, with ghost divisions that can be fully staffed within a matter of weeks. In addition, it would be prudent that those registered for the selective service have a baseline of military training to expedite the process of delivering them to mobilized units. Essentially, with the amount of enemies we face, it is necessary to have a Cold War-esque mobilization strategy close at hand, ready to be enacted at any minute.

Conclusion

The United States is still the preeminent military and diplomatic force in the world. However, states that we consider as adversaries are quickly closing the gap and catching up to us. They are expanding into new realms that we have not calculated into our strategic interest before, as well as developing and using technology at a rate never seen before. As we see this competition increase, it is important that we train our personnel to retain a distinct advantage in warfare. Through a variety of structural adjustments and alternative considerations, the American military will develop into a more effective force ready to confront new threats in the complex future world.

Works Cited

Brunner, Jordan. "Iran Has Built an Army of Cyber-Proxies." The Tower. The Tower, Aug. 2015.

"Defense Ministry to Improve Conscripts' Preparedness through Military Lessons in Schools." RT International. RT International, 26 May 2016.

"Document: China's Military Strategy." US Naval Institute. US Naval Institute, 26 May 2015.

"Exercises of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation." Ministry of Defense Mission. Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation.

Gorenburg, Dmitry. "Impact of the Economic Crisis." The Cipher Brief. The Cipher Brief, 08 Apr. 2016.

Gressel, Gustav. "Russia's Quiet Military Revolution, and What It Means for Europe." International Relations And Security Network. 31 Dec. 2015.

Harress, Christopher. "China State Visit 2015: China's Military Is Closing The Gap On US Defense Technology." International Business Times. IBT Media, 22 Sept. 2015.

Horowitz, Michael C. "The Looming Robotics Gap." Foreign Policy. Foreign Policy, 5 May 2014.

Kamphausen, Roy, and David Lai, eds. The Chinese People’s Liberation Army in 2025. Carlisle: United States Army War College. Federation of American Scientists. Federation of American Scientists.

Krulak, Charles C. "The Strategic Corporal: Leadership in the Three Block War." Marine Magazine. Jan. 1999.

McDermott, Roger. "Russian Military Plans New NCO Training Center." The Jamestown Foundation. The Jamestown Foundation, 8 Sept. 2009.

Minnick, Wendell. "China Challenges Army With Realistic Training Scenarios." Defense News. 10 Oct. 2015.

“National Military Strategy 2015”. United States of America. Department of Defense. Joint Chiefs of Staff. Joint Chiefs of Staff. Department of Defense, June 2015.

Pifer, Steven. "Pay Attention, America: Russia Is Upgrading Its Military." The National Interest. The National Interest, 3 Feb. 2016.

"Reform of the Russian Armed Forces." Sputnik News. Sputnik News, 12 Apr. 2009.

Sullivan, Alexander, and Andrew S. Erickson. "The Big Story Behind China's New Military Strategy." The Diplomat. The Diplomat, 5 June 2015.

Yadron, Danny, and Jennifer Valentino-DeVries. "Cataloging the World's Cyberforces." The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, Inc., 11 Oct. 2015.


About the Author »

Dylan Farley

Dylan Farley is a senior at the College of William and Mary finishing up his BA in a self-designed interdisciplinary program, Geostrategic Security Studies. His focus is in two areas; post-Soviet frozen conflicts and anthropological development of terrorist organizations and insurgencies. Originally from Cranston, Rhode Island, Dylan is an ROTC cadet who will be commissed in the US Army Reserves in May as a Signal Corps Officer with the 443rd Civil Affairs Battalion in Newport, Rhode Island.

 

[Housecarl]

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russia-flight-tests-anti-satellite-missile/
(fair use applies)


Russia Flight Tests Anti-Satellite Missile
Launch took place as Air Force held space war game
BY: Bill Gertz
May 27, 2016 4:57 am

Russia conducted a successful flight test of a developmental anti-satellite missile on Wednesday that is capable of destroying satellites in orbit, American defense officials said.

The Nudol direct ascent anti-satellite missile was launched from the Plesetsk test launch facility, located 500 miles north of Moscow, said officials familiar with the situation.

The missile was monitored by U.S. intelligence satellites and the test appeared to be successful.

The launch marks another major milestone for Moscow’s efforts to develop weapons capable of destroying U.S. navigation, communications, and intelligence satellites, a key strategic advantage.

No additional details were available, and it could not be learned if the Nudol missile was fired against a satellite or was test launched in a suborbital trajectory without hitting a target.

It was the second successful test of the Nudol, following a Nov. 18 launch, and shows Russia is advancing its anti-satellite weaponry.

Pentagon spokeswoman Lt. Col. Michelle Baldanza declined to comment.

Under Russian President Vladimir Putin, Moscow is modernizing its entire strategic arsenal and developing new weapons like anti-satellite missiles.

Air Force Lt. Gen. David J. Buck, commander of the Joint Functional Component Command for Space, told a House hearing in March that the Russians are developing space weapons, known as “counter-space capabilities.”

“Russia views U.S. dependency on space as an exploitable vulnerability, and they are taking deliberate actions to strengthen their counter-space capabilities,” Buck told the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee.

Gen. John Hyten, the commander of Air Force Space Command, also has said both Russia and China are building space weapons. “They are developing capabilities that concern us,” Hyten has said in press reports.

Russia’s Nudol program has been couched in secrecy, but it appears linked to Moscow’s missile defense systems. State-run press reports in the past have mentioned the Nudol experimental development project as a “a new Russian long-range missile defense and space defense intercept complex.”

Former Pentagon official Mark Schneider said senior U.S. military leaders have been warning about Russian anti-satellite threats for years and regard it as serious.

“GPS guidance has been widely adopted for many of our weapons because it was cheap, all weather, and works well in low and medium intensity conventional conflict,” he said. “The loss of GPS guidance due to [anti-satellite] attack would take out a substantial part of our precision weapons delivery capability and essentially all of our standoff capability.”

Geneva-based Russian military analyst Pavel Podvig speculated whether Russia may have conducted a simulated intercept in the latest test.

How the Nudol program fits within Russia’s military doctrine is difficult to assess, he said.

“My take is that it is not necessarily part of a well thought out strategic plan,” Podvig said.

Soviet-era and current Russian weapons developments were often developed without a clear idea on how they would be employed.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if the [Nudol] system is being developed just because it can be developed—they will think about its role later, assuming that it works,” he noted.

Podvig said the apparent missile manufacturer, Almaz-Antey, “is making an argument that an [anti-satellite] system might be useful to hold U.S. [low-earth orbit] assets at risk.”

“But if it gets to a real conflict scenario it is very difficult to see how this capability might be militarily useful,” he added.

A Defense Intelligence Agency report to Congress in February 2015 warned that, “Russia’s military doctrine emphasizes space defense as a vital component of its national defense. Russian leaders openly assert that the Russian armed forces have anti-satellite weapons and conduct anti-satellite research.”

Schneider said the threat to U.S. satellites is compounded by a lack of kinetic U.S. counter-space capabilities that could hold Russian Glonass satellites at risk.

China also is developing anti-satellite missiles and in 2007 conducted a test of a missile that destroyed a weather satellite, resulting in tens of thousands of pieces of dangerous orbiting debris.

The blog Planet4589.org, which monitors space launches, lists three earlier Nudol tests, including an April 22, 2015, test that failed. The two other tests were the successful launch on Nov. 18 and an Aug. 12, 2014 launch.

The blog identified the Russian designation for the Nudol missile as “14Ts033.”

Coincidentally, the Nudol test took place a day before the Air Force Space Command concluded a major annual war game involving a notional Russian adversary armed with both direct ascent anti-satellite missiles and orbiting anti-satellite robots, command officials told reporters.

Air Force Col. Mike Angle, Space Command’s chief of training, weapons, and tactics, said the exercise involved European allies and U.S. forces facing off against a “peer competitor” in 2026 that appeared to be Russia.

The annual exercise is called Schriever Wargame 2016 and was held this year at Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery, Ala.

The exercise included simulated activities by missiles, cyber attacks, and orbiting satellite-killing robots. Scenarios also included cyber attacks against GPS satellites that provided false data to military GPS receivers that are widely used for navigating precision-guided weapons.

“We’ve got to, and we feel we need to, prepare for a crisis or conflict that might extend in the space domain,” Angle said.

Jason Altchek, a Space Command official who directed the war game, would not say if the notional adversary was Russia. “I can tell you it was a global scenario that focused on the European Command,” he said, noting that the scenarios were split evenly among space and cyber crisis and conflict simulations and responses.

Pressed on whether Russia was the adversary, Altchek said such details remain classified. “But I can tell you that the Schriever Wargame has gone from looking at a near-peer competitor, to a peer competitor,” he said.

The seven allied nations that took part in the war games were not immediately identified by the Air Force. However, Angle said one lesson was that “were not all on the same sheet of music” in dealing with space and cyber threats.

Past Air Force exercises had been limited to mainly launching and controlling satellites in a relatively peaceful space domain. “We had never trained to perform in the face of a thinking adversary,” Angle said.

In recent years and including the recent war game, the military has begun training to deal with space threats such as “what happens when you have a direct ascent [missile] launched against a satellite,” Angle said.

Missiles are easier to identify than unidentified, small maneuvering satellites that might either be a killer anti-satellite robot or a benign maintenance satellite.

The goal of the exercise was to simulate coalition warfare that extends into space and cyber space.

The scenarios took place in the European Command area and included “a full spectrum of threats across diverse operating environments to challenge civilian and military leaders, planners and space system operators, as well as the capabilities they employ.”

About 200 military personnel and civilians from 27 commands and agencies took part.

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/russias-next-super-weapon-crush-america-combat-16393

The Buzz

Russia's Next Super Weapon To Crush America in Combat Is...

China has them. America has them. And now Russia as well.

Dave Majumdar [2]
Comments 44

Russia has apparently conducted a successful test launch of its Nudol [4] direct ascent anti-satellite missile. This is the second test of the new weapon, which is capable of destroying satellites in space. The weapon was apparently launched from the Plesetsk test launch facility north of Moscow.

At press time no additional details are available. However, if the report is correct, that means the Russians have developed a means to attack the space-based navigation, communications and intelligence gathering tools that are the sinews of U.S. military operations.

It should come as no surprise that Moscow has embarked on the development of such a weapon. Attacking America’s space-based assets would be an effective means to disrupt U.S. military operations, which is a fact not lost on the Kremlin—or on the People’s Republic of China. Indeed, Beijing has previously tested such weapons [5]—most notably in 2007 when it destroyed a satellite in orbit.

Washington, too, has shot down a satellite [6] that was in a decaying orbit in 2008 using the U.S. Navy’s Aegis system. However, the United States has been vocal in calling on other nations to desist from such activities. Indeed, many space experts warn that the debris from such tests pose an extreme hazard, not just to military satellites but all space activity. Even small fragments can severely damage a spacecraft given the extreme velocities involved.

Given the Russians expertise in developing air and missile defense systems, it’s not likely to have been a huge technological leap for Moscow to develop the Nudol. Indeed, the Russians have boasted that their developmental S-500 will also be able to engage incoming ballistic missiles in space.

The S-500—which will form the upper tier of Russia’s layered integrated air defense system—is expected to be able to engage targets at altitudes of about 125 miles—or 660,000 feet. That means that S-500 will be able to engage targets such as incoming ballistic missiles in space at ranges as great as 400 miles. The first regiment of S-500 will be deployed to protect Moscow and central Russia.

The S-500 is expected to able to detect and simultaneously attack up to ten ballistic missile warheads flying at speeds of twenty-three thousand feet per second. It is also reportedly being designed to use hit-to-kill interceptors [7]—a design with similarities to Lockheed Martin's Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system.

Like all modern Russian air defense systems, the S-500 is expected to be highly mobile and will use a network of radars for targeting over vast distances. The missile system is expected to use the 91N6A(M) battle management radar, a modified 96L6-TsP acquisition radar, as well as the new 76T6 multimode engagement and 77T6 ABM engagement radars, according to Missile Threat—which is run by the George C. Marshall and Claremont Institutes. [7]

Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for The National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter: @davemajumdar [8].

Image [9]: Creative Commons.

Tags
ASAT [10]Russia [11]Russian Military [12]defense [13]Technology [14]satellite [15]US Military [16]
Topics
Security [17] [3]

Links:
[1] http://nationalinterest.org/blog/russias-next-super-weapon-crush-america-combat-16393
[2] http://nationalinterest.org/profile/dave-majumdar
[3] http://twitter.com/share
[4] http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russia-flight-tests-anti-satellite-missile/
[5] http://spacenews.com/41413us-state-department-china-tested-anti-satellite-weapon/
[6] http://www.mda.mil/system/aegis_one_time_mission.html
[7] http://missilethreat.com/defense-systems/s-500/
[8] https://twitter.com/davemajumdar
[9] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:S-400_Triumf#/media/File:Rehearsal29april15Moscow-65.jpg
[10] http://nationalinterest.org/tag/asat
[11] http://nationalinterest.org/tag/russia
[12] http://nationalinterest.org/tag/russian-military
[13] http://nationalinterest.org/tag/defense
[14] http://nationalinterest.org/tag/technology
[15] http://nationalinterest.org/tag/satellite
[16] http://nationalinterest.org/tag/us-military-0
[17] http://nationalinterest.org/topic/security

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.voanews.com/content/light-fight-to-take-fallujah/3350227.html

Signs Point to Long Fight to Retake Fallujah from IS

Jeff Seldin
May 28, 2016 6:04 PM


WASHINGTON— For almost a week, thousands of Iraqi forces have been advancing on the Islamic State-held city of Fallujah, methodically moving to cut off as many as 1,000 IS fighters from help on the outside.

By Friday, backed by coalition airstrikes and artillery fire, Iraqi forces had cleared the town of Karma, about 16 kilometers northeast of the city.

But while admitting Fallujah is “largely isolated,” U.S. officials are trying to downplay expectations of a quick or decisive victory over IS.

“ISIL has entrenched itself in the city,” a U.S. intelligence official told VOA on the condition of anonymity, using an acronym for the terror group.

“Fallujah has been one of ISIL’s important footholds in Iraq,” the official added, calling it “the most forward position ISIL holds” and a threat to Baghdad.

http://gdb.voanews.com/71653315-E74C-4226-8FAC-5CAF5B754494_w640_s.png

No retreat - yet

And while IS fighters did retreat in the face of coalition-backed forces in Hit and in Rutbah, military officials say there have been few signs that IS leadership is willing to let fighters to flee and cede more ground.

“We haven’t seen much of that yet,” Operation Inherent Resolve spokesman Col. Steve Warren said during a video briefing from Baghdad Friday.

“It’s still early,” he added. “The friendly forces are still a ways outside the city.”

U.S. officials also point out IS has gone to great lengths to brutally discourage its fighters from retreating.

In one example, Col. Warren cited Iraqi media reports claiming IS executed fighters who fled from Rutbah by putting them in bakery ovens and cooking them to death.

Warren also noted that although slower and more difficult, IS could find ways to reinforce Fallujah.

“It’s rare, almost impossible, to completely seal off a city,” he said. “It’s always possible for individuals to move in or out.”

And despite their weakened state, IS forces have also found ways to take coalition-backed forces by surprise, something Western officials say the terror group could do again.

In the most recent example, earlier this month, IS managed to mass dozens of IS fighters, truck bombs, a bulldozer and artillery undetected and punch through Kurdish Peshmerga lines in northern Iraq.

IS forces were ultimately repelled, losing as many as 80 fighters in the process, but not before briefly taking the towns of Telskuf and Musqelat, killing a U.S. Navy SEAL in the process.

-

Jeff Seldin

Jeff works out of VOA’s Washington headquarters and is national security correspondent. You can follow Jeff on Twitter at @jseldin or on Google Plus.


Related Articles

Families Fleeing Iraq’s Fallujah in ‘State of Shock’
IS Using Civilians as Human Shields in Fallujah
UN Fears for Fallujah Civilians as Iraq Begins Offensive

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.voanews.com/content/repo...-kill-more-than-100-is-militants/3349895.html

Islamic State Presses Offensive in Syria's North

VOA News
Last updated on: May 28, 2016 4:09 PM

Islamic State militants pressed their offensive Saturday in northern Syria against a major opposition stronghold, clashing with anti-government forces inside the town of Marea near the Turkish border.

The London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the lightning IS strike north of Aleppo cut a main road linking Marea to the nearby opposition town of Azaz.

No further combat details were available late Saturday. But the Associated Press earlier in the day quoted the head of one of the last remaining hospitals in Marea as saying the town has been encircled and his hospital under threat since Friday.

"We need urgent protection for the hospital or a way out," physician Abdel Rahman Alhafez told the wire service in an email statement.

http://gdb.voanews.com/DE2EAF4F-7559-4141-967F-CB0E430C4167_w640_s.png

To the east, a Kurdish-Arab alliance backed by the United States pressed an offensive against fighters north of the IS stronghold city Raqqa. Turkish media reported U.S. airstrikes and Turkish artillery fire destroyed several buildings used as an IS headquarters in the city.

Monitors say Syrian army warplanes and helicopters pounded other opposition-held border area towns in Aleppo province Saturday, further pressuring embattled rebels fighting to topple the government of President Bashar al-Assad.

Analysts say the recent Islamic State territorial gains around Marea and Azaz have trapped more than 160,000 Syrian civilians between the Azaz-Marea region and the closed Turkish border about 20 kilometers to the north.

Elsewhere in the region, U.S. Special Operations forces and a coalition of Syrian Kurdish and Arab fighters known as the Syrian Democratic Forces are reported clearing an area north of Raqqa, the Islamic State's de facto capital in Syria.

On Friday, a Kurdish commander in the region told an embedded VOA reporter the SDF coalition had seized at least 10 area villages and was fighting extremists on three fronts north of Raqqa.

Local reports said IS fighters were preparing to defend the city with booby-trapped buildings, a string of trenches and berms.


Related Articles

US-backed Syrian Forces Advance Toward IS Capital
Strike Killed Maher al-Bilawi Two Days Ago

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...ub-in-underwater-hunt-for-russian-vessel.html

Canadian sub in underwater hunt for Russian vessel

HMCS Windsor dispatched on underwater hunt when Russia deployed five attack subs into the North Atlantic last fall, the Star has learned.

By Bruce Campion-Smith Ottawa Bureau
Sat., May 28, 2016


ONBOARD HMCS WINDSOR—A Canadian submarine was on the front lines as NATO allies scrambled last fall to track a “surge” of Russian subs that had deployed into the North Atlantic, the Star has learned.

HMCS Windsor, already in European waters for a NATO exercise, was re-tasked on a mission to try to track the Russian vessels.

Rear-Adm. John Newton, commander of Maritime Forces Atlantic, called the movement of Russian submarines “historically significant.”

“There was a quite a surge of Russian strategic power . . . it was moving a lot of boats around the North Atlantic,” he told the Star this week.

On the move were five Russian attack submarines, a show of force that might have been Moscow’s response to “Trident Juncture,” NATO’s largest exercise in a decade, involving 36,000 personnel from more than 30 nations.

But with the Russian boats active, the exercise turned real as NATO nations responded with ships and aircraft.

That included the HMCS Windsor, one of four Victoria-class submarines operated by the Royal Canadian Navy, which had been taking part in the NATO drill.

“Near the end, we were working bilaterally, nation-to-nation, in European waters when the opportunity came up to deal with a surge of undersea activity in the North Atlantic,” Newton said.

“Our role is to go with the alliance . . . and participate in coordinated surveillance, tracking, intelligence gathering,” he said.

The Star was among several media outlets invited onboard HMCS Windsor this week to get a glimpse of submarine life as it cruised underwater in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Nova Scotia.

The extent of Canada's role in last fall’s maritime cat-and-mouse game has not previously been disclosed.

For HMCS Windsor, the tasking set in motion a search far below the rolling ocean surface, as its crew used sophisticated sonar gear to listen for the telltale sounds of a Russian boat hiding in the depths.

And the submarine had a more capable set of ears, so to speak, thanks to a sonar system installed in 2014, the same gear used on the U.S. Virginia-class nuclear submarines, Newton said.

The upgraded sonar enables the crew of HMCS Windsor to pick up contacts at a longer distance and detect the telltale sounds of engines, even the noises of bearings, air pumps and hydraulic motors, to determine the classification of a ship, sometimes even the exact ship.

During its mission, HMCS Windsor prowled the area from the North Sea down to the Strait of Gibraltar, the strategic gateway to the Mediterranean.

Lt.-Cmdr. Peter Chu, commanding officer of the HMCS Windsor, says the boat was a “major” part of NATO’s effort to “track, follow and respond.”

“The situation evolved, matured. Canada presented the asset to NATO and off we went,” Chu said in an interview.

“What is really important is that Canada had an asset — HMCS Windsor — that was responding, tactically and operationally ready, and were able to do whatever NATO wanted,” he said.

The Star has learned that a CP-140 Aurora aircraft — dispatched overseas last November at the request of Great Britain — was also employed in the search to detect and track the Russian subs.

The surveillance aircraft — purpose-built as a sub hunter and upgraded with new electronics to better search for targets — was deployed to the Royal Air Force base at Lossiemouth in northern Scotland. The defence department has refused to talk about the aircraft’s role, saying only that it “routinely conducts operations and exercises” with the British, a statement it repeated to the Star on Friday.

Last fall’s surge by Russia comes as American and NATO military leaders are sounding the alarm about heightened levels of activity by the Russian submarine fleet that boast new capabilities and more proficient crews.

The commander of U.S. naval forces in Europe told CNN last month that Russia is deploying its submarines in numbers not seen in decades.

“The submarines that we're seeing are much more stealthy,” Adm. Mark Ferguson told the news network.

“We're seeing (the Russians) have more advanced weapons systems, missile systems that can attack land at long ranges, and we also see their operating proficiency is getting better as they range farther from home waters,” Ferguson said.

The drama also happened against the backdrop of heightened tensions between NATO nations and Russia over Moscow’s aggression against Ukraine.

Newton said last fall’s events underscore the role of the subs — to covertly gather intelligence that is then shared with allies. “It’s a very clandestine battle. You never want to show your adversary you detect them,” Newton said.

Neither Chu nor Newton would say whether HMCS Windsor was able to detect and track one of the Russian vessels.

“We definitely were a major contributor. Everything with regards to the deployment was very successful,” Chu said.

But Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, commander of the Royal Canadian Navy, suggests that HMCS Windsor was successful in its mission. In a new video to highlight the navy, Norman singles out the submarine’s work last fall.

“The operational success of HMCS Windsor in particular is worthy of recognition,” Norman says.

“She was employed to help our NATO partners keep tabs on a very important vessel that was transiting through NATO’s operating areas,” Norman said.

HMCS Windsor returned to its Halifax home in December after 101 days at sea, the longest mission yet for Canada’s Victoria-class submarines and the high point of a maritime program burdened by its share of troubles.

Getting subs bought second-hand from the British operational has cost money and the life of a Canadian sailor, who was killed in 2004 when fire broke out on HMCS Chicoutimi.

But navy commanders are hoping the worst is behind them as they now exploit the capabilities of the sub fleet.

“For this boat, that was the peak of its operational readiness . . . to be employed directly in a task important to NATO, important to our bilateral relations with the French, the British and the Americans,” Newton said.

“She was doing her job.”

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.rferl.org/content/ukraine-five-soldiers-die-24-hours/27763860.html

Ukraine

5 Ukrainian Soldiers, 2 Separatists Killed As Fighting Hots Up in Eastern Ukraine

May 29, 2016

Ukrainian officials said on May 29 that five Ukrainian soldiers were killed and another four wounded during the previous 24 hours in fresh clashes with Russia-backed separatists in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine.

Meanwhile, Russia-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine said on May 29 that two of their fighters were killed as a result of intensified fighting.

Ukraine's military said it was the second highest casualty toll for government troops on any single day during 2016.

"Unfortunately, over the past 24 hours, five Ukrainian soldiers have died and four more have been wounded," military spokesman Oleksandr Motuzyanyk told reporters on May 29.

On May 28 the Ukrainian military said that fighting between government troops and Russia-backed separatists had intensified.

Russia-backed fighters have accused the army of carrying out dozens of attacks in recent days as both sides charge each other with not observing a cease-fire.

Amid the increased violence, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has called for greater foreign assistance and has appointed former NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen as his adviser.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mali-security-un-idUSKCN0YK0M8

World | Sun May 29, 2016 12:54pm EDT
Related: World, United Nations, Africa, Mali

Five U.N. soldiers killed in central Mali attack


Five United Nations peacekeepers were killed and one other seriously injured in an ambush in central Mali on Sunday, the United Nations said.

A convoy of soldiers in the U.N. Multidimensional Integrated Stabilisation Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) was attacked 30 kilometers (19 miles) west of Sevaré, the U.N. said.

The nationalities of the soldiers were not released and so far no group had taken responsibility for the attack.

It comes 10 days after five MINUSMA peacekeepers from Chad were killed in an ambush in the northern region of Kidal. Two days ago five Malian soldiers were killed near the town of Gao.

"I condemn in the strongest terms this despicable crime," said MINUSMA head Mahamat Saleh Annadif, adding that it constituted "crimes against humanity under international law".

MINUSMA and French forces have been stationed in northern Mali for three years since separatists joined jihadists to seize the region from the government in Bamako.

The militants have staged a series of high profile attacks in the past year, mainly in the north of the country, but also in neighboring Burkina Faso and Ivory Coast.

A peace accord signed last year was meant to bring stability to the region, but attacks against the U.N. mission, Malian military and civilians are still frequent.


(Reporting By Adama Diarra and Tiemoko Diallo; writing by Edward McAllister; editing by Gareth Jones)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...-in-eastern-europe/ar-BBtCkhA?ocid=spartanntp

U.S. Kicks Off 10,000-Strong Drill in Eastern Europe

Damien Sharkov
10 hrs ago

The U.S. Army in Europe has kicked off an exercise that will see over 4,000 troops from NATO allies arrive in the Baltics and 10,000 soldiers from 13 countries across Eastern Europe.

The Baltic Saber Strike exercise, which launched on Friday, will run in conjunction with the U.S.-led Dragoon Ride, which will take 400 armored vehicles from Germany, through the Czech Republic, where it will stay until Monday. Then the troops move on to Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and, finally, Estonia over the course of June.

The point of the exercise will be to test the ability of allies in Eastern Europe to work together—it will feature a series of practical tests of allied capabilities including live-fire, command post exercises, and training for cyber/electronic warfare. Its significance has been elevated in recent years as it is one of the main shows of collective force in the vicinity of Russia and Ukraine.

U.S. close-air support will provide cover for multinational ground forces during the course of the drill, while the U.S. 2nd Cavalry Regiment will perform the 2,200-kilometer tactical road march from Germany to Estonia, known as the Dragoon Ride.

The drill follows Estonia's annual Spring Storm exercise earlier this month, which featured 6,000 national and allied troops practicing joint defense maneuvers.

Saber Strike and the U.S.-led naval drills linked to Saber Strike called Baltops form part of the intense practice schedule for allied troops ahead of the NATO summit in Poland in July. The summit is intended to unite all NATO allies and allow them to coordinate their mutual strategy for the coming two years.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/...iet-war-latin-american-drug-cartels/83928274/

The Air Force's quiet war on the Latin American drug cartels

Stephen Losey, Air Force Times 9:57 a.m. EDT May 29, 2016
Comments 4

As the drug smugglers' go-fast boat streaked across the blue Caribbean Sea in March, carrying more than a thousand pounds of cocaine toward its U.S. destination, they were completely unaware they were being observed from above.

Suddenly, they felt a presence and looked up. Coming at them, low and fast, was the unmistakeable silhouette of one of the nastiest weapons in the Air Force arsenal — a B-1B Lancer, the backbone of America's long-range bomber force.

In a panic, the smugglers scrambled to retrieve all the packages of cocaine aboard and then dumped them over the side, like million dollar buoys spreading out in their wake.

“Think about it,” said Lt. Gen. Chris Nowland, commander of the 12th Air Force under Air Combat Command, and of Air Forces Southern. “If you’re in the middle of the Caribbean in a go-fast — 40 feet long, four or five 250-horsepower engines — and suddenly a bomber comes out of nowhere and flies over the top of your vessel? It’ll get your attention, to put it mildly.”That B-1 bomber wasn't there to blow them out of the water. In fact it was on a routine training mission, Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James said at an April 15 roundtable briefing with reporters at the Pentagon. But when the bomber’s crew saw the vessel, they thought it looked suspicious and took a low-level pass to check it out. The fearful smugglers threw an estimated 500 kilos of cocaine overboard.

These situations now happen occasionally. But James hopes they become increasingly regular occurrences in Latin America. She wants the Air Force to figure out ways to work more efficiently and provide more assistance to the narcotics interdiction efforts of U.S. Southern Command’s Joint Interagency Task Force-South out of Key West, Florida.

“A little U.S. goes a long way in much of Latin America,” James said. “And I intend to look for more ways to get what I call a double bang for our U.S. training buck. I’m going to be looking for additional ways to replicate these types of examples more broadly to leverage other training missions, other aircraft, perhaps helicopter sorties.”

“We as Americans, at our own peril, risk not paying attention to partner nations to the south,” Nowland said in a follow-up interview May 2. “The drug lords have morphed themselves from the days of Pablo Escobar. They are the ultimate businessmen because they don’t have to follow any rules. Cocaine, heroin, precursor chemicals [which are needed to produce other drugs such as methamphetamine], counterfeit consumer goods, wildlife, gold, female trafficking victims — which is the grossest one of all — to weapons, to smuggling migrants, to timber, to moving bulk cash. They’ve diversified, and they’re worldwide now.”As the Air Force has been occupied fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, bolstering European allies nervous about Russian aggression, and beefing up its forces in Asia, Latin America has faded to the background. That needs to change, James said. Not only do Latin American countries need assistance with counternarcotics efforts and stopping destabilizing cartels and other transnational organized crime, they need American assistance to train and improvetheir own air forces and help with with other missions, such as humanitarian assistance.

And it’s not just the for-profit criminals concerning Nowland. If drug smugglers can slip through from the south, so can terrorists.

“If you can move all these tons of cocaine or you can move the sex slaves or the precursor chemicals, it doesn’t mean that other people couldn’t move stuff,” Nowland said of fanatical militants. “We don’t want to have an open door on the southern flank of the United States.”

With ongoing missions in places like Iraq and Syria unlikely to lessen anytime soon, the Air Force simply doesn’t have airmen or aircraft to spare for a new counternarcotics mission. But B-52 aircraft assigned to its nuclear enterprise mission, for example, are always going to need to fly long-distance training missions on a regular basis to stay sharp.

“We have to live with the hand that we’re dealt,” James said. “I can’t suddenly materialize and produce lots of additional aircraft for the Air Force, lots of additional budget. But … training missions have to occur anyway. And if we can target some additional tours in this region then I think we could advance the ball.”

It shouldn’t take much to produce results, James said, although she couldn’t quantify how much the Air Force’s efforts in Latin America could increase. She’s ordered the Air Force’s deputy chief of staff for operations, Lt. Gen. John Raymond, to redouble his efforts to find ways to piggyback missions such as counternarcotics on top of already required training missions to increase the service’s reach.

Nowland called the practice of combining multiple missions into individual sorties to help JIATF-South “force packaging.”

“The beauty is, when you can take the different assets and put them together, you can increase situational awareness, you get better training, and you get better results,” Nowland said.

Another example of force packaging — albeit one without a counter-narcotics element — came in early April, when a B-52 Stratofortress from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota flew a 27-hour nonstop, long-range training sortie to South America. First, the B-52 trained with the Colombian air force and conducted a planned intercept exercise with a Lear jet and the Colombians' Israeli-made F-21 Kfir fighter jets. Then it conducted a flyover at the massive Feria Internacional del Aire y del Espacio air show in Santiago, Chile.

Counter-narcotics missions aren’t simply an airpower show, however, they’re multi-domain operations in which the Air Force works hand-in-hand with forces such as the Navy, the Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection and the militaries of Latin American allies.

JIATF-South is an international, interagency task force that allows all five military services, intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies such as Customs and Border Protection, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the FBI, and liaison officers from nations such as Brazil, Colombia and Ecuador to share radar information and work together to detect and monitor illicit trafficking of drugs and other contraband.

“Just like we have in the Five Eyes, where we can share [intelligence] information [with Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom], they have information we can share with our partner nations,” Nowland said. “JIATF-South is excellent at … layering the intelligence so that you have a higher probability, every time you go after a drug trafficker, of success. It’s exactly the same type of thing we do in the fight against [the Islamic State]. We don’t have enough assets, so the days of just putting an airplane out there to just cruise around the ocean to find a go-fast, you can’t afford to do that. So you need to use intelligence to help shape your operation.”

Coast Guard Rear Adm. Christopher Tomney, director of JIATF-South, said the Air Force brings critical assets and experience to the table that no other service or agency has.

"There's more than enough work to go around, and we don't have enough assets," Tomney said in a May 18 interview. "There are not enough aircraft to go around to search 40-plus million square nautical miles and keep a persistent presence to make sure we can monitor all that illicit activity.

"[Doing so] requires aircraft with the appropriate sensors, with the appropriate endurance, that can cover large swaths of water to find that small target, that target that doesn't want to be found, that target that's trying to do something illegal," he said. "That's why the Air Force is so critical, being that eye in the sky for us."

A common practice, Nowland said, is to have E-8 Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar Systems, or JSTARS, aircraft take off from bases such as Robins Air Force Base in Georgia and head to a spot in the Caribbean where JIATF-South thinks might have some activity. Operating alongside other aircraft, such as CBP or Navy P-3s, the JSTARS uses its intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities to scan wide swaths of ocean for suspicious vessels.

If a JSTARS aircraft spies a possible drug boat, Nowland said, it can signal a B-1 or B-52, which can use its speed and range to quickly reach the boat and identify whether or not it is engaged in smuggling. If a bomber isn’t available, the Air Force could call in a C-130 or a P-3.

The bomber — which would typically fly out of Southern bases such as Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana or Dyess Air Force Base in Texas — or another aircraft then fixes the suspected drug boat with its sniper pod to visually identify it. Because the Air Force has no law enforcement authority, it needs to call in the Coast Guard, or a Navy ship with Coast Guard personnel aboard, to track the drug boat, make arrests and confiscate the drugs or other contraband.

In addition to taking drugs out of the supply chain, Nowland said, such exercises provide valuable command and control training. The aircrews get experience talking to other aircraft, headquarters such as JIATF-South, Navy and Coast Guard ships, and helicopters and rigid inflatable boats launched from Coast Guard cutters.

“We can get training all the way through the command and control network, all the way down to talking to a Coast Guard vessel on the water and actually talking to the Coast Guardsmen who are then using their legal capability to interdict that,” Nowland said.

When flying over water, the JSTARS’ radar can scan 10 times the amount of territory as a traditional maritime patrol aircraft such as a P-3, Nowland said.

“That’s why JIATF loves them, because they’re super-efficient, they can cover such a great space,” Nowland said. “But this is a problem for us. JSTARS right now is having big depot issues and half of the fleet is in depot status. So, unfortunately for us, that limits our ability to get the JSTARS out over the water as much as we would like to.”

When scanning the ocean, JSTARS air crews look for suspicious patterns to separate drug boats from legitimate vessels. For example, smugglers in a semi-submersible — a craft that operates just below the surface, leaving a snorkel-like structure above water for air — might occasionally disappear from the radar. That is a red flag for airmen looking for drug smugglers, Nowland said.

Nowland would not say how often these missions are conducted, but said the frequency ebbs and flows, in part based on aircrafts' availability.

The vast majority of drug smuggling — roughly 93 percent — is done over the seas. But the Air Force also uses E-3 Sentry AWACS aircraft temporarily assigned to the 429th Expeditionary Operations Squadron at Forward Operating Location Curacao, an island nation just north of Venezuela, to search for airborne drug smugglers, Nowland said.

But what the Air Force does with that information depends on which nations are involved, and those nations’ policies on shooting down drug planes, Nowland said. For example, the United States stopped sharing radar intelligence with Honduras in 2014, after that nation passed a law allowing it to shoot down smugglers' planes.

“Legally, that puts our airmen at risk” if they pass on information that is then used to kill non-combatants, even if they are drug smugglers, Nowland said.

Instead of alerting Honduras, JIATF-South keeps its own eye on that plane and notes where it goes.

But for Colombia, which has stricter shoot-down rules limiting how its military can engage with aircraft, JIATF-South passes on the radar information so the Colombians can interdict it on the ground. Colombia is now the only nation with an air interdiction program with which the U.S. shares real-time information, and uses force to try to get an airplane to land "only as a last resort, in very limited circumstances," JIATF-South said.

Nowland said he would like to start rolling Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve training missions into force packaging as well.

Meanwhile, the Border Patrol is trying to use radar-mounted MQ-1 Predator drones to expand the government’s view of the smuggling routes and give Air Force surveillance aircraft a boost, he said. But that proposal has not yet been approved.

“Worldwide, that would take our [remotely piloted aircraft] community to the next level,” Nowland said.

One airman who works as an Air Force liaison to JIATF-South — Senior Airman Cesar, who declined to give his last name — said for him, the mission is personal.

"I come from Puerto Rico, and seeing all the mayhem and damage that it does motivated me to volunteer to work in this area," Cesar said. "All the way from middle school, I saw friends drop out from school, high school, even college. The crime rate going up, organized crime. Just seeing this growing up, and then you're given one chance to have a hand in changing it, it was really a huge thing for me."

From March 2015 to April 2016, the Air Force conducted 278 hours of force-packaged counter-narcotics flight operations and helped with the interdiction of 14 metric tons of cocaine worth roughly $437 million.

In all, JIATF-South took 192 metric tons of cocaine off the high seas in 2015, Nowland said. And so far this year, JIATF-South has already interdicted 140 metric tons of cocaine.

But that’s barely a drop in the bucket of the nearly $650 billion the cartels rake in each year. Cocaine alone is an $85 billion a year industry around the world. And Nowland is concerned that, with cartels’ cocaine production up sharply these days, JIATF-South has its work cut out for it, just trying to keep up.

“Even though we’ve gotten 140 metric tons this year, JIATF-South has watched a lot of drugs go right by,” Nowland said. “Are you going to be able to stop everything? No, but the more you stop, the better.”

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.wsj.com/articles/russias-long-road-to-the-middle-east-1464361067

Life | Ideas | The Saturday Essay

Russia’s Long Road to the Middle East

Vladimir Putin’s intervention in Syria caught many by surprise, but it is a return to Russian geopolitical aspirations that stretch back to the czars

By Yaroslav Trofimov
May 27, 2016 10:57 a.m. ET
44 COMMENTS

Every Russian schoolchild is taught about the violent death of Aleksandr Griboyedov in 1829. A poet and playwright whose work is enshrined in the country’s literary canon, Griboyedov had the misfortune to be Czar Nicholas I’s ambassador to Tehran in the wake of Persia’s humiliating loss of territory to Moscow’s spreading empire. A Tehran mob, furious at the czar and his infidel representatives, stormed the embassy, slaughtering the unlucky ambassador and 36 other Russian diplomatic staff.

A century and a half later, in 1979, those events were almost replayed in Iran (as Persia is now known). When five leaders of the Iranian revolutionary students gathered in Tehran to decide which foreign embassy to target, two of them advocated seizing the Soviet legation. They were persuaded instead to overrun the U.S. embassy, creating a no less historic trauma for another world power entangled in the politics of the Middle East

Russia’s long history of involvement—and warfare—in the region is largely unknown to Westerners, but it helps to explain President Vladimir Putin’s decision last fall to intervene in Syria’s civil war. Mr. Putin’s gambit on behalf of the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad caught many in the West by surprise. Critics have assailed it as a miscalculated bid to replace the U.S. as the dominant outside power in the region.

But when viewed from Moscow, Mr. Putin’s Middle Eastern adventure looks like something very different: an overdue return to geopolitical aspirations that stretch back not only to the Soviet era but to centuries of czarist rule. “The Middle East is a way to showcase that the period of Russia’s absence from the international scene as a first-rate state has ended,” said Fyodor Lukyanov, the head of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy in Moscow, which advises the Kremlin and other government institutions.

In Syria, Mr. Putin has achieved notable results. Russia has prevented the collapse of the Assad regime, which seemed imminent just a year ago. It also has positioned itself at the center of the Middle East’s diplomatic maneuvering, challenging the formerly unrivaled influence of the U.S. in the region.

“Russia sent a message to the Middle East with its direct intervention in Syria: We are more serious in settling the region’s problems than the Americans are,” said Salim al-Jabouri, the speaker of the Iraqi parliament and the country’s leading Sunni politician.

But today’s Russia can no longer dictate outcomes in the Middle East, as it once did in 19th-century Persia. Mr. Putin’s Syria campaign is limited by design and necessity—a modest investment by a power that can only afford to invest modestly. It is an attempt to become relevant again in a region that, historically, Russia has seen as its strategic backyard.

Russia has been in contact with the Muslim world, often unhappily, for more than a millennium. In the seventh century—long before the emergence of the Slavic principalities that would eventually form the Russian state—Arab armies of the early caliphate brought Islam to Derbent, the oldest city in today’s Russian Federation.

Ibn Fadlan, a 10th-century Arab diplomat and traveler, described meeting early Russians while visiting Muslim towns along the Volga River. He was struck by their “perfect bodies,” their poor hygiene and their practice of burning slave girls in the ship-borne funeral pyres of dead noblemen. Ibn Battuta, a 14th-century Arab globe-trotter, was less impressed: He wrote off the Russians as “an ugly and perfidious people with red hair and blue eyes.” At the time, the prince of Muscovy was a vassal of the Muslim khan of the Golden Horde, and Moscow’s coinage bore Arabic script.

Only in 1480 did Muscovy become fully independent and stop paying tribute to its Muslim overlords. A few decades later, Czar Ivan the Terrible began a series of wars that destroyed the vast Muslim khanates in Kazan, Astrakhan and Siberia, pushing Russia’s boundaries far to the south and east.

In the following centuries, Russia fought more than a dozen wars against the receding Ottoman Empire and steadily advanced into Persian-held lands. In the “Great Game” of the 19th century, Russia punched further south toward British India, gobbling up one Central Asian principality after another and almost coming to blows with the British over Afghanistan.

Moscow also positioned itself as the protector of the Middle East’s Christians—many of whom, like the Russians, were Orthodox. (The current head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill, alluded to this history when he recently described Russia’s military campaign in Syria as a “holy war” and called Russian troops there “Christ-loving warriors.”)

When World War I erupted, Britain and France promised Russia that, once the Ottoman Empire was defeated, the ultimate prize of Constantinople—today’s Istanbul—would come under Russian rule. That promise went unfulfilled after the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution.

The Soviet Union, which retained most of the territories that had been conquered by the czars, also hungered for more influence in the Middle East. In 1941, working as partners during World War II, the Soviet Union and the U.K. occupied Iran and ousted its shah, ostensibly to prevent German activities there.

By the 1960s, Soviet weapons, pilots and military instructors were pouring into Arab client states, transforming the Middle East into an arena for Cold War competition. While the U.S. backed Arab monarchies and Israel, the Soviets sided with leftist regimes in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Libya and South Yemen, which became the Arab world’s only Marxist state.

With Iran’s revolution in 1979 and the rise of political Islam, Moscow’s influence began to wane. Egypt, the most populous Arab state, signed a U.S.-brokered peace treaty with Israel, and Moscow presided over a textbook case of imperial overreach by invading Afghanistan—undermining its regional influence and speeding up the Soviet Union’s own demise.

After Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, Mikhail Gorbachev went along with the U.S.-led war to expel Iraq from its conquered neighbor. As Moscow’s influence in the region hit its nadir, Washington’s involvement grew larger. In the following decade, Russia was too busy trying to prevent the breakup of its own rump post-Soviet state, bloodied by separatist uprisings in Chechnya and other Muslim regions.

Mr. Putin successfully pacified those borderlands and, at first, largely left unchallenged the Middle East’s Pax Americana. As recently as 2011, when the Arab Spring started blazing through the region, Moscow chose not to use its veto in the U.N. Security Council to block a resolution that paved the way for the U.S. and its allies to intervene militarily in Libya and oust dictator Moammar Gadhafi.

But Mr. Putin has repeatedly blocked any such action in Syria, where 400,000 people have been killed and more than half the population displaced since 2011, according to the United Nations. Moscow’s relationship with the Syrian regime goes back many decades—to the days of Hafez al-Assad, the current president’s father—and the country is also home to Russia’s only naval facility in the Mediterranean, at Tartus. While the U.S. has long stated that Mr. Assad must go, Washington has refrained from openly attacking his regime. Mr. Putin, by contrast, has deployed Russia’s latest weaponry against Mr. Assad’s opponents, including groups backed by Washington.

Few people in the Middle East—even Moscow’s beneficiaries—assign charitable motives to Russia’s new activism in the region. “The Russians are not doing it because they are part of the Red Cross. They are doing it because they have interests,” said Yassine Jaber, a Lebanese Shiite member of parliament and a former cabinet minister. “Now they’ve achieved their historical dream of having bases in the warm waters of the region, and they will make sure no gas pipelines will come from Central Asia or Qatar without their approval. They have gained a foothold in the region.”

Mr. Putin’s ambition to re-establish Russia as a major power in the Middle East (and the rest of the world) has been constrained by his country’s declining economy, now roughly the size of Italy’s and still shrinking. Already suffering from sanctions imposed by the West after Mr. Putin’s 2014 invasion of Ukraine, Russia has been hit hard by the low prices of oil and gas, the country’s main exports. But such limits are familiar to Russia, which has never been particularly prosperous but has frequently sought a leading role in global affairs.

“Putin understands that Russia, based on its economic weight today, can’t be a great power, but he refuses to act in accordance with this weight,” explained Dmitri Trenin, head of the Carnegie Center in Moscow and a former Soviet military officer whose career included a stint as an adviser in Iraq. “He aims to punch well above Russia’s economic might. The worldview is: We are either a great power, or we disintegrate and are nothing.”

Nor is it just a lackluster economy that limits the reach of Russian influence. Russia also lacks the kind of soft power that the U.S. has long exercised world-wide. Young Arabs and Iranians are not particularly eager to watch Russian movies, listen to Russian pop music or study in Russia.

“No one in this part of the world loves or hates Russia today. Russia in the Arab mind is just political strategy and weapons. These are its only commodities,” said the Lebanese writer and commentator Hazem Saghieh. “It can’t give much because it doesn’t have much.”

If anything, there is a stronger social and cultural influence spreading in the other direction. Today’s Russian population is about 15% Muslim—a proportion that has grown with the influx of millions of migrant workers from Central Asia. Russia is also, by some counts, the world’s second-largest source of recruits for Islamic State. From a city like Derbent, the distance to Baghdad is roughly the same as from Boston to Chicago.

“The Middle East is too close to us for Russia to be a mere observer,” said Andrey Kortunov, the head of the Russian International Affairs Council, a think tank affiliated with the Russian foreign ministry. “It’s not remote Australia or Argentina; it is a world that we see on the streets of our cities, behind the counters of our stores, among the workers of our construction sites and, yes, also inside our jails. All of this requires playing an active role.”

An active role does not mean, however, attempting to imitate the massive Middle East engagements of the U.S. over the past decade. “The American experience in Iraq is being studied with great attention,” said Mr. Lukyanov of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy. “The lesson is that we can’t get involved too deeply—but we also can’t withdraw too quickly.”

Despite concern about maintaining limits on its involvement in Syria, Moscow may yet—as President Barack Obama publicly warned last year—get “stuck in a quagmire.” Russia also risks alienating the Muslim world’s majority Sunnis by siding with Mr. Assad, who is backed by Shiite Iran and Shiite militias in his war against mostly Sunni rebels. In a region increasingly split across sectarian lines, such alliances may make Russia more of a target for Islamic State and other Sunni Islamist terrorist groups.

Aware of that danger, Russia has avoided casting today’s Middle East as a zero-sum game or seeking to push the U.S. from the region. Despite occasional bombast, Moscow quietly welcomed Mr. Obama’s recent decision to extend the deployment of nearly 10,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, a move that could prevent the spread of Islamist militancy into former Soviet states in neighboring Central Asia.

Unlike the U.S.—or the former Soviet Union, whose Middle Eastern alliances were constrained by ideology—Mr. Putin’s Russia has the advantage of being on speaking terms with all of the region’s main powers. (The lone exception is Turkey, a bitter foe of the Assad regime that, to Mr. Putin’s fury, downed a Russian warplane in November.)

“While the American influence has receded, Moscow has built unique relationships in the Middle East. On one side, it has strategic ties with Israel, and on the other, no less important ties with Iran,” said Yelena Suponina, a Middle East expert at Russia’s Institute of Strategic Studies, a think tank affiliated with the Kremlin. Moscow also keeps up ties with Hamas and Hezbollah, which the West considers terrorist groups. “Not a single Western country can repeat what Russia is doing,” she added.

This readiness to deal with all sides has meant, however, that Russia finds itself with no bedrock allies in the region. Even as Russia has joined with Iran to save Mr. Assad’s regime, overall Iranian-Russian relations remain cool, and the two countries haven’t become major trade partners. The Iranians resent Moscow’s cooperation with Israel, and Russia does not want to get dragged into Iran’s sectarian conflict with Sunni powers led by Saudi Arabia.

“The Iranians feel they are constantly being duped [by the Russians]…and that they are not going to follow through with their promises,” said Dina Esfandiary, a fellow at King’s College London.

“There is no love for Iran in Russia, and for Russia in Iran. The beauty of this relationship is that it’s purely pragmatic,” agreed Mr. Trenin of the Carnegie Center. The only country in the Middle East with which a significant proportion of Russians empathize, he added, is Israel, in part because so many Israelis hail from the former Soviet Union and speak Russian. As it happens, of course, Israel is also the closest regional ally of the U.S.

The Russia-Israel connection is likely to grow even warmer with the return to government of the most prominent of the Soviet-born Israelis, Avigdor Lieberman, who became Israel’s defense minister this past week. Mr. Lieberman, an ultranationalist and a former foreign minister, has called the Russian-sponsored deal to remove Syria’s chemical weapons a major boon to Israeli security.

“My experience is that you can do business with [the Russians]. They are pragmatic, and you can close a deal and get a clear answer,” Mr. Lieberman said in an interview before taking his new post. “Russia is near by, and it will never renounce its interests in the Middle East. It is too big a power to be ignored.”

Write to Yaroslav Trofimov at yaroslav.trofimov@wsj.com


Related Reading

The Democracy Activist Who Became a Suicide Bomber (April 7, 2016)
The Librarian Who Saved Timbuktu’s Cultural Treasures From al Qaeda (April 15, 2016)
Europe’s New Medieval Map (Jan. 15, 2016)
Jihad Comes to Africa (Feb. 5, 2016)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timdais...ic-to-counter-us-beijing-claims/#13aaa1247a6e

May 29, 2016 @ 12:08 PM 56,016 views

China To Send Nuclear-Armed Submarines To Pacific To Counter U.S., Beijing Claims

Tim Daiss, Contributor
Geopolitical analyst and energy markets journalist based in Asia. Full Bio …I
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
Comments 37


Just as most Americans settle in for a nice three-day Memorial Day weekend, news broke that China is planning to send submarines armed with nuclear missiles to the Pacific Ocean for the first time. The U.K.-based Guardian newspaper, citing Chinese officials, first reported the news on May 27.

According to the report, Beijing is claiming that U.S. weapons systems have become so advanced and so undermine China¡¦s existing deterrent force that Beijing has little choice but to send in the submarines armed with nukes.

Beijing claims that U.S. plans disclosed in March to station the Thaad anti-ballistic system in South Korea, and the development of hypersonic glide missiles potentially capable of hitting China less than an hour after being launched, as major threats to the effectiveness of its land-based deterrent force.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon¡¦s latest annual report to Congress released less than two weeks ago predicted that China will probably conduct its first nuclear deterrence patrol sometime this year.

The Guardian report said that warheads and missiles would be put together and handed over to the Chinese navy, allowing a nuclear weapon to be launched much faster if the decision to launch was ever made.

However, other reports seem to debunk the ability of Chinese to implement this plan, at least at the current time. A report by the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), an organization that provides science-based analysis of and solutions to protect against catastrophic threats to national and international security, stated that ¡§it seems that various news media reports and official statement continue to exaggerate or preempt the operational capability of the Chinese submarine force.¡¨

¡§Many have said the new Jin-class SSBNs had begun conducting deterrent patrols, but the DOD [Department of Defense] report seems to indicate that the subs (or rather, their missiles) are not yet fully operational.¡¨

Questionable timing

One can¡¦t help but question the timing of the Chinese submarine report, released just days after President Obama¡¦s landmark visit to Vietnam and his decision to lift the decades old arms embargo against Vietnam and allow sales of military weapons technology. Though Obama said that his move was not aimed at China, most think otherwise. As soon as Obama made the announcement, Beijing fired back with harsh criticism over the announcement.

¡§Obama claimed that this move is not aimed at China, yet this is only a very poor lie which reveals the truth - exacerbating the strategic antagonism between Washington and Beijing,¡¨ the Beijing-based Global Times said. The Global Times often expresses the views of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

While there is little doubt among analysts that China will in time arm its submarines with nuclear weapons, it must also be noted that Chinese military officials and state-controlled media, have to learned to master the fine art of the spin ¡V in essence they drum up domestic support at home, feeding into nationalism as well as releasing news in efforts to micro-manage China¡¦s global image.

At times, this news has actually downplayed China¡¦s military preparedness, but more often that not it gives a stronger image of China¡¦s military than is supported by the facts. Often op-ed articles and opinion pieces in Chinese media are written by military officials.

Nonetheless, the arming of Chinese submarines with nuclear missiles and multiple warheads would up the ante once again in the hotly contested South China Sea where China has overlapping claims with the Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei, albeit in a sea that sees over $5 trillion in trade pass through it each year, including vital oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) shipments to Japan, South Korea and Taiwan ¡V all U.S. allies. Japan and South Korea are the world¡¦s number one and number two LNG importers, respectively. Around two-thirds of all LNG demand comes from the Asia-Pacific region.

The South China Sea is already becoming one of the most hotly contested waterways in the world, and a potential military flash point between not only the U.S. and China, but among rival claimants and China as well.

Moreover, while The Guardian may have allowed itself to be used by China to spread Beijing¡¦s own message, the fact remains that when China does indeed arms its subs with nukes, the Pacific will become even more dangerous as all sides counter each other¡¦s moves. This is the backdrop that will frame the Asia-Pacific region for the next several decades if not longer, and miscalculation by Washington will give Beijing an advantage that the U.S. will not be able to wrest away for years, if ever.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm.....(The comments on the article are well worth a look...HC)

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/o...ations-turn-their-backs.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

Sunday Review | Editorial

As Rich Nations Turn Their Backs

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
MAY 28, 2016
Comments 298

The world is witnessing the largest exodus of refugees in generations, spawned by armed conflicts in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia. But “witnessing” is perhaps the wrong word. Many world leaders, including those who run most of the richest countries, are choosing to look the other way. They are more interested in barricading their nations from the fallout of conflict than in investing in peacekeeping and stability.

This willful neglect was on display last week at the inaugural World Humanitarian Summit, convened to face the needs of the world’s most vulnerable people. Most heads of state from the richest nations — including the United States — didn’t bother to show up, drawing a rebuke from the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon.

“It’s disappointing that some world leaders could not be here, especially from the G-7 countries,” he said at a news conference on Tuesday. “We have reached a level of human suffering without parallel since the founding of the United Nations” 70 years ago.

Even if some of the wars can be brought to an end, it will take decades and billions of dollars to meaningfully address their ramifications. The challenge of doing so will be compounded by the expanding needs of people displaced by climate change and natural disasters.

“Today, we do not yet have a functioning humanitarian aid system,” Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, the only head of state of a member of the Group of 7 nations to attend, said at the conference, which was held in Istanbul. “Very often pledges are made, but the money does not reach where it is most needed.”

The international community spends roughly $25 billion a year on humanitarian aid, which seems a lot but in fact is $15 billion less than relief agencies need to do the job properly.

Among the agencies most in need of repair and rejuvenation is the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which administers the refugee resettlement process and has been underfinanced for years. This has forced millions of refugees to put their fates in the hands of unscrupulous smugglers and set out on perilous journeys in search of a new start. According to the agency, there are more than 59.5 million forcibly displaced people, including roughly 19.5 million refugees.

Medical professionals continue to perform heroic work in war zones, even as they have come under attack routinely, sometimes deliberately. Doctors Without Borders, which runs battlefield hospitals, boycotted the summit meeting, calling it a “fig-leaf of good intentions.”

Humanitarian aid, including food and basic medicine, often reaches besieged communities too late, if at all. That means that people are dying daily from malnutrition and a lack of basic health care.

Even in parts of the world that are comparatively stable, there is widespread disregard for the institutions that investigate human rights abuses. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which investigates abuses in Latin America, announced last week that it would soon have to lay off half of its staff as a result of chronic budget shortages.

The meeting’s organizers issued a series of objectives on Tuesday at the end of the two-day event. They called on leaders to do more to prevent war, uphold human rights norms and distribute the burden of resettling refugees more equitably. These are all sensible aspirations, but unless world leaders make binding commitments to carry them out they’re unlikely to be met.

It may be politically expedient to propose fortifying barriers and tightening immigration controls in an effort to keep the tide of suffering and despair at bay. But doing so will only raise the long-term cost of dealing with crises that are metastasizing each year.

 

[mzkitty]

Yes, Carl, the comments were worth it. Here's the one that got the most "recommends":


ZAW Houston, TX 1 day ago

It's easy for the one percent, like the New York Times Editorial Board, to tell the rest of us that we need to push over and make room for refugees, but they never seem to share the burden.
.
Houston takes in more refugees than any other city in the US, and most of them are housed in a handful of poorer neighborhoods. Gulfton by far gets the most. I'd wager Gulfton by itself takes in more refugees every year than the state's of Vermont and North Dakota put together. Probably more than Lower Manhattan. Which would be fine, but whenever those of us who live or work near Gulfton ask anyone to address the deteriorated housing, struggling schools, and lingering crime issues in the area, we are scoffed at.
.
My point here is: I would have a much easier time taking this article seriously if the New York Times would put its money where it's mouth is. Give over a floor in your building to house refugees. Squeeze in your writers - I'm sure they won't mind sharing desks. Do it for the common good. You don't hesitate to ask the rest of us to do that.

331 Recommend

-------------------------------

24m
Egypt court sentences Muslim Brotherhood leader and 35 others to life in prison - AFP

http://tribune.com.pk/story/1112918/egypt-court-sentences-brotherhood-leader-life/

 

[Housecarl]

Here we go again.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missile-idUSKCN0YL10J

Business | Mon May 30, 2016 5:54pm EDT
Related: World, Japan, South Korea, North Korea

Japan puts military on alert for possible North Korea missile launch

Japan put its military on alert on Monday for a possible North Korean ballistic missile firing, while South Korea also said it had detected evidence of launch preparations, officials from Japan and South Korea said.

Tension in the region has been high since North Korea conducted its fourth nuclear test in January and followed that with a satellite launch and test launches of various missiles.

Japan ordered naval destroyers and Patriot anti-ballistic missile batteries to be ready to shoot down any projectile heading for the country, state broadcaster NHK said.

A Japanese official, who declined to be identified as he is not authorized to speak to the media, confirmed the order. A spokesmen for Japan's defense ministry declined to comment.

The missile tubes on a Patriot missile battery on the grounds of Japan's Ministry of Defense were elevated to a firing position.

The South Korean defense official declined to comment on what type of missile might be launched, but South Korea's Yonhap News Agency said officials believe it would be an intermediate-range Musudan missile.

"We've detected a sign and are tracking that. We are fully prepared," said the South Korean official, who also declined to be identified.


Related Coverage
› South Korea detects sign of possible planned North Korea missile launch

A Pentagon spokesman, U.S. Navy Commander Gary Ross, said: "We are closely monitoring the situation on the Korean Peninsula in coordination with our regional allies. We urge North Korea to refrain from provocative actions that aggravate tensions and instead focus on fulfilling its international obligations and commitments."

Ross said he would not discuss U.S. intelligence assessments. The White House declined to comment.

North Korea tried unsuccessfully to test launch the Musudan three times in April, according to U.S. and South Korean officials.

Japan has put its anti-ballistic missile forces on alert at least twice this year after detecting signs of launches by North Korea.

North Korea's nuclear and missile tests this year triggered new U.N. sanctions. But it seems determined to press ahead with its weapons programs, despite the sanctions and the disapproval of its sole main ally, China.

Last Friday, leaders of the Group of Seven industrialized nations, including Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and U.S. President Barack Obama, met in Japan and demanded that North Korea comply with a U.N. Security Council resolution to stop all nuclear and missile tests and refrain from provocative action.

On the same day, North Korea threatened to retaliate against South Korea after it fired what it said were warning shots when boats from the North crossed the disputed sea border off the west coast of the Korean peninsula.

Japan has advanced Aegis vessels in the Sea of Japan that are able to track multiple targets and are armed with SM-3 missiles designed to destroy incoming warheads in space before they re-enter the atmosphere.

Patriot PAC-3 missile batteries, designed to hit warheads near the ground, are deployed around Tokyo and other sites as a second and final line of defense.


(Reporting by Tim Kelly and Nobuhiro Kubo in TOKYO and Ju-min Park in SEOUL; Additional reporting by Lisa Lambert and Jeff Mason in Washington; Editing by Robert Birsel and Dan Grebler)

 

[Housecarl]

The video and pictures of the towed 152 mm gun battery at work raises some questions...are they re-commissioned guns from the Saddam era, if not, who supplied them and who's supplying the ammunition?....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-falluja-idUSKCN0YL1B0

World | Mon May 30, 2016 10:37am EDT
Related: World, Iraq

Iraqi army storms to edge of Islamic State-held Falluja; fresh bombings hit Baghdad

SOUTHERN OUTSKIRTS OF FALLUJA, Iraq | By Maher Nazeh and Saif Hameed

Video
Gallery

The Iraqi army stormed to the southern edge of Falluja under U.S. air support on Monday and captured a police station inside the city limits, launching a direct assault to retake one of the main strongholds of Islamic State militants.

A Reuters TV crew about a mile (about 1.5 km) from the city's edge said explosions and gunfire were ripping through Naimiya, a largely rural district of Falluja on its southern outskirts.

An elite military unit, the Rapid Response Team, seized the district's police station at midday, state TV reported.

The unit advanced another mile northward, stopping about 500 meters (yards) from the al-Shuhada district, the southeastern part of city's main built-up area, army officers said.

The battle for Falluja is shaping up to be one of the biggest ever fought against Islamic State, in the city where U.S. forces waged the heaviest battles of their 2003-2011 occupation against the Sunni Muslim militant group's precursors.

Falluja is Islamic State's closest bastion to Baghdad, and believed to be the base from which the group has plotted an escalating campaign of suicide bombings against Shi'ite civilians and government targets inside the capital.

As government forces pressed their onslaught, suicide bombers driving a car and a motorcycle blew themselves up in the capital. Along with another bomb planted in a car, they killed more than 20 people and injured more than 50 in three districts of Baghdad, police and medical sources said.

Separately, Kurdish security forces announced advances against Islamic State in northern Iraq, capturing villages from militants outside Mosul, the biggest city under militant control.

The Iraqi army launched its operation to recover Falluja a week ago, first by tightening a six-month-old siege around the city 50 km (30 miles) west of Baghdad.

Falluja, in the heartland of Sunni Muslim tribes who resent the Shi'ite-led government in Baghdad, was the first Iraqi city to fall to Islamic State in January 2014. Months later, the group overran wide areas of the north and west of Iraq, declaring a caliphate including parts of neighboring Syria.

On Monday, army units were "steadily advancing" to Falluja's southern outskirts under air cover from a U.S.-led coalition helping to fight against the militants, according to a military statement read out on state TV.

A Shi'ite militia coalition known as Popular Mobilisation, or Hashid Shaabi, was seeking to consolidate the siege by dislodging militants from Saqlawiya, a village just to the north of Falluja.

The militias, who took the lead in assaults against Islamic State in other parts of Iraq last year, have pledged not to take part in the assault on the mainly Sunni Muslim city itself to avoid aggravating sectarian strife.

Between 500 and 700 militants are in Falluja, according to a U.S. military estimate. The U.S.-led coalition conducted three air strikes near Falluja over the past 24 hours, destroying fighting positions, vehicles, tunnel entrances and denying the militants access to terrain, it said in a statement.


ISLAMIST MILITANT STRONGHOLD

Falluja has been a bastion of the Sunni insurgency that fought both the U.S. occupation of Iraq and the Shi'ite-led Baghdad government that took over after the fall of dictator Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, in 2003.

Related Video
Video

Iraqi forces keep up pressure in battle for Falluja

American troops suffered some of their worst losses of the war in two battles in 2004 to wrest Falluja back from Al Qaeda in Iraq, the insurgent group now known as Islamic State.

The latest offensive is causing alarm among international aid organizations over the humanitarian situation in the city, where more than 50,000 civilians remain trapped with limited access to water, food and health care.

Falluja is the second-largest Iraqi city still under control of the militants, after Mosul, their de facto capital in the north that had a pre-war population of about 2 million.

It would be the third major city in Iraq recaptured by the government after Saddam's home town Tikrit and Ramadi, the capital of Iraq's vast western Anbar province.

Falluja is also in Anbar, located between Ramadi and Baghdad, and capturing it would give the government control of the major population centers of the Euphrates River valley west of the capital for the first time in more than two years.

On the northern front, the security forces of the autonomous Kurdish region launched an attack on Sunday to oust Islamist militants from villages about 20 km (13 miles) east of Mosul so as to increase the pressure on Islamic State and pave the way for storming that city.

The Kurdish forces, known as peshmerga, have retaken six villages in total since attacking Islamic State positions on Sunday with the support of the U.S.-led coalition, the Kurdistan Region Security Council said on Monday. That represents most of the targets of their latest advance.

Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi hopes to recapture Mosul later this year to deal a decisive defeat to Islamic State.

Abadi announced the onslaught on Falluja on May 22 after a spate of bombings that killed more than 150 people in one week in Baghdad, the worst death toll so far this year. The worsening security in the capital has added to political pressure on Abadi, struggling to maintain the support of a Shi'ite coalition amid popular protests against an entrenched political class.

Monday's bombings targeted two densely populated Shi'ite districts, Shaab and Sadr City, and a government building in one predominantly Sunni suburb, Tarmiya, north of Baghdad.

A car bomb in Shaab killed 12 people and injured more than 20, while in Tarmiya eight were killed and 21 injured by a suicide bomber who pulled up in a car outside a government building guarded by police. In Sadr City, a suicide bomber on a motorcycle killed three people and injured nine.

The battle of Falluja is helping Abadi refocus the attention of Iraq's unruly political parties on the war against Islamic State, so as to defuse popular unrest prompted by delays in a planned reshuffle of the cabinet to help root out corruption.

In a speech to parliament on Sunday, he called on political groups to "put on hold their differences until the military operations are over."

Washington says Islamic State's territory is steadily being rolled back both in Iraq and in Syria, where it has lost ground to U.S.-backed, mainly Kurdish insurgents in the north and to the Russian-backed forces of President Bashar al-Assad.


(Additional reporting by Saif Hameed and Kareem Raheem in Baghdad; Writing by Maher Chmaytelli; Editing by Peter Graff)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-attacks-france-trial-idUSKCN0YL1IO

World | Mon May 30, 2016 6:04pm EDT
Related: World, Syria

Brother of Paris attacker on trial over militant training

PARIS | By Chine Labbé

Seven people went on trial in Paris on Monday accused of traveling to Syria to train as militant fighters, among them the brother of one of the militants who killed 130 people in the French capital last November.

The seven, aged from 24 to 27, face up to 10 years in jail if found guilty of taking part in an Islamist recruitment network and receiving training in Syria from Islamic State.

The accused, friends from eastern France, were part of a larger number who in December 2013 traveled to Syria, where two of them died.

All but one returned to France in early 2014. The one who stayed behind was Foued Mohamed-Aggad, who took part in the three-man team that killed 90 people at the Bataclan concert hall during the multiple attacks in Paris.

Two of the three killed themselves by exploding their suicide vests and another was shot dead by police.

Foued's brother, Karim Mohamed-Aggad, is among the seven accused.

The defendants told investigators they had believed they were going to Syria on a humanitarian mission or to fight Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces but not to become Islamist militants.

"I went there with one goal only: to fight the regime of Bashar al-Assad," Karim Mohamed-Aggad told the court.

Mohamed-Aggad urged the court not to confuse him with his brother. "You choose your friends, not your family," he said. "My brother did what he did, he alone bears responsibility."

The group's defense team says the seven were duped and when they realized they had fallen into the hands of a militant network they looked for a way out.

"They were told they could be useful," said Martin Pradel, lawyer for one of the defendants, told Reuters ahead of the hearing. "Their mistake was to believe the propaganda."

His colleague Xavier Nogueras said: "This is the trial of seven youths who came back after three months. That will allow us to highlight the difference between those who decided to come back and the one who stayed."


(Reporting by Chine Labbe; Writing by Brian Love and Ingrid Melander; Editing by Richard Lough and Alison Williams)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.voanews.com/content/taliban-kills-thirty-afghan-forces/3351913.html

News / Asia

Taliban Kills Around 57 Afghan Forces

Ayaz Gul
Last updated on: May 30, 2016 1:16 PM

ISLAMABAD—Taliban militants in Afghanistan have intensified battlefield attacks, killing around 57 Afghan security forces and wounding 37 others in the restive southern Helmand province.

Afghan officials say fierce fighting has raged since Saturday, when the Taliban launched a string of coordinated assaults on three districts, including Nad Ali, Gereshk and Marjah. Most of the casualties occurred in Nad Ali and Gereskh, said Major General Asmatullah Dawlatzai.

The insurgents also overran four security outposts on the main road linking Marjah to the provincial capital of Lashkardah in the overnight fighting.

Insurgent gains

Senior Afghan commanders say fighting is currently raging on the outskirts of Lashkargah. But they have vowed to push back the Taliban, saying national security forces have inflicted heavy casualties on the insurgents. However, no figures were released.

Helmand is the largest province of Afghanistan and is poppy-producing region.

http://gdb.voanews.com/D7E15759-F3F8-40E5-A243-0A4768231628_w640_s.png

The Taliban has stepped up attacks since it appointed Mullah Hibatullah Akhundzada as its new chief. His predecessor, Mullah Mansoor, was killed in a U.S. drone attack in neighboring Pakistan on May 21.

​Critics expect fighting and bloodshed to escalate in Afghanistan this summer under Hibatullah, widely known as a conservative Islamist cleric, because he would want to consolidate power through battlefield gains to try to dismiss the impression the killing of his predecessor has weakened the Taliban.

In a significant development on Monday, a key council of pro-Taliban clerics pledged allegiance to Hibatullah.

Hibatullah gets endorsement​

In a statement sent to VOA, the council's chief Maulvi Ahmad Rabbani said the decision was taken in the wake of Hibatullah's unanimous election for the top position. The council had refused to endorse Mansoor who faced opposition to his leadership even from within the Taliban.

Meanwhile, the Afghan Interior Ministry said Monday that an army-led operation to open the main highway linking southern Uruzgan and Kandahar provinces has killed at least 22 Taliban insurgents.

The Kandahar police spokesman, Zai Durban, however, told the local Pajhwok news agency that the insurgent deaths occurred in an overnight U.S. drone strike.


Related Articles

Security Experts: Taliban Likely to Increase Attacks During Ramadan
Iran Denies Ties to Slain 'Terrorist' Taliban Leader
Who Gave Info that Led to Drone Strike on Taliban Leader?

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missile-fail-idUSKCN0YM015

Business | Tue May 31, 2016 1:32am EDT
Related: World, South Korea, North Korea, Aerospace & Defense

Attempted North Korea missile launch fails: South Korea

SEOUL | By Ju-min Park


North Korea attempted to fire a missile from its east coast early on Tuesday but the launch appears to have failed, South Korean officials said, in what would be the latest in a string of unsuccessful ballistic missile tests by the isolated country.

The launch attempt took place at around 5:20 a.m. Seoul time (04:20 p.m. EDT), said the officials, who asked not to be identified, without elaborating.

Tension in Northeast Asia has been high since North Korea conducted its fourth nuclear test in January and followed that with a satellite launch and test launches of various missiles.

Japan put its military alert on Monday for a possible North Korean ballistic missile launch.

"We have no reports of any damage in Japan. We are gathering and analyzing data. The defense ministry is prepared to respond to any situation," Japanese Minister of Defence Gen Nakatani told a media briefing.

"North Korea shows no sign of abandoning the development of nuclear missiles and so we will continue to work closely with the U.S. and South Korea in response and maintain a close watch on North Korea," Nakatani said.

South Korea's Yonhap News Agency said it appeared North Korea had attempted to launch an intermediate-range Musudan missile. North Korea attempted three test launches of the Musudan in April, all of which failed, U.S. and South Korean officials have said.

Yonhap quoted a South Korean government source as saying the missile was likely to have exploded at about the time it lifted off from a mobile launcher.

The flurry of weapons technology tests this year came in the run-up to the first congress in 36 years of North Korea's ruling Workers' Party early this month, where young leader Kim Jong Un further consolidated his control.

Tuesday's attempted launch appears to have been its first missile test since then, and experts have said it was unusual to test-fire a missile so soon after a previous failure.

The South Korean military said Pyongyang's continuous missile launches could stem from Kim's order in March for further tests of nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles.

"They must've been in a rush. Maybe Kim Jong Un was very upset about the failures," said Lee Choon-geun, senior research fellow at South Korea's state-run Science and Technology Policy Institute.


REPEATED FAILURES

North Korea has never had a successful launch of the Musudan missile, which theoretically has the range to reach any part of Japan and the U.S. territory of Guam.

North Korea is believed to have roughly 20 to 30 Musudan missiles, according to South Korean media, which officials said were first deployed in around 2007.

"It could have cracks and something wrong with the welding," Lee said of possible causes for the latest failure. "But deployment before test-firing these to complete development seems unusual."

The attempted launch took place near the east coast city of Wonson, one of the South Korean officials said, the same area where previous Musudan tests had taken place.

Separately, Japan's Kyodo news agency reported on Tuesday that career diplomat Ri Su Yong, one of North Korea's highest-profile officials, would visit China on Tuesday.

There was no indication of any link between the latest failed missile launch and Ri's visit to China.

China is reclusive North Korea's only major ally but has been angered by Pyongyang's nuclear and missile tests and signed up to tough UN sanctions against the reclusive country.

Ri was North Korea's foreign minister until he was named a member of the politburo during the recent Workers' Party congress.


(Additional reporting by Vincent Lee in SEOUL, Tim Kelly in TOKYO and Ben Blanchard in BEIJING; Writing by Tony Munroe; Editing by Paul Tait)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports2/2016/05/iran-deal-regional-proliferation

The Iran Nuclear Deal: Prelude to proliferation in the Middle East?

By Robert Einhorn and Richard Nephew
May 31, 2016

Explore the full paper »


The global nuclear nonproliferation regime has been remarkably resilient, with no new entrants to the nuclear club in the last 25 years. But observers believe that could change and that we may be heading toward a “cascade of proliferation,” especially in the Middle East. The presumed trigger for a possible Middle East nuclear weapons competition is Iran, which has violated nonproliferation obligations, conducted activities relevant to the development of nuclear weapons, and pursued sensitive dual-use nuclear technologies without a persuasive peaceful justification. Tehran’s nuclear program—combined with provocative behavior widely believed to support a goal of establishing regional hegemony—has raised acute concerns among Iran’s neighbors and could prompt some of them to respond by seeking nuclear weapons capabilities of their own.


The Iran nuclear deal

Conscious of the risks that Iran’s nuclear program posed to the international and regional security order, the United States has sought to head off its further development until confidence could be built regarding Iranian intentions. In July 2015, negotiations aimed at preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and heading off a regional nuclear arms competition resulted in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between Iran and the P5+1 countries (China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States). The JCPOA provides for deep reductions in Iran’s existing uranium enrichment capacity and the re-design of its planned plutonium-production reactor, which together effectively eliminate its capability to produce fissile materials for nuclear weapons for at least ten to fifteen years. It also calls for highly intrusive International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) monitoring measures, many of which are unlimited in duration, capable of providing confidence in Iranian compliance. In exchange, the JCPOA requires the suspension and eventual termination of U.S., European Union (EU), and Security Council nuclear-related sanctions against Iran.

"...the JCPOA is off to a good start. But the challenges to effective and sustained implementation of the JCPOA are formidable. Even if all parties intend to abide by their JCPOA commitments, compliance issues are bound to arise."

The JCPOA survived contentious reviews in the U.S. Congress and Iranian Majlis (parliament); key nuclear reduction and sanctions relief milestones have been reached; and implementation to date has gone relatively smoothly, although Iran’s return to the global economy has been more halting than Iran’s leaders would have preferred. But despite the promising start, the nuclear deal remains highly controversial in both Tehran and Washington as well as in several Middle East capitals. The potential for Iranian and American critics to undermine the JCPOA—together with the complex compliance issues likely to arise and the uncertainties surrounding leadership transitions in the United States and Iran—raise questions about the long-term sustainability of the deal, questions that will be on the minds of leaders of Middle East countries as they consider how best to ensure their security in the years ahead.

The Iran deal's uncertain future

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Re...regional-proliferation/jcpoa_future.jpg?la=en

Reactions to the deal in the Middle East


Reactions to the JCPOA in the region have been mixed. Israel, in particular Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has been the most vocally negative, although Israeli officials were consulted during the negotiations and are now working constructively with the United States to promote vigorous enforcement of Iranian compliance. Turkey and Egypt have been generally positive, relieved by the peaceful resolution of the long-standing Iran nuclear issue and—unlike Israel, some Gulf Arab states, and American opponents of the deal—comfortable that the JCPOA permits Iran to retain an enrichment program. Perhaps reluctant to break ranks with their American security partner, the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) have publicly endorsed the nuclear deal, including at the April 2016 U.S.-GCC summit meeting in Riyadh.

However, despite public expressions of support, several states of the region, especially the Sunni Arabs of the Gulf, have serious reservations about the nuclear agreement. Their concerns fall into three areas:

• The deal will only delay and not prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. Key restrictions on enriched uranium- and plutonium-production expire after 10 and 15 years, permitting Iran to expand its nuclear capacities and greatly reduce the time it would need to produce nuclear weapons, if it chose to do so in the future. While U.S. supporters of the JCPOA believe that Iran can be deterred from seeking nuclear weapons after 15 years, Iran’s rivals, particularly the Saudis and Emiratis, are convinced that Iran remains determined to possess nuclear weapons and will bide its time, use the 15 years to develop more advanced centrifuges and missile delivery systems, and emerge after 15 years with a strengthened economy and in a better position than today to quickly expand its infrastructure and go for nuclear weapons.

• The deal does not impede Iran’s destabilizing regional behavior and will even worsen the problem. Some of Iran’s neighbors accuse Tehran of meddling in the internal affairs of its neighbors, using proxies such as Hezbollah and the Houthis to advance its goals, intervening directly in the Syrian and Yemeni civil wars, and in general seeking to sow instability, undermine rival governments, and become the dominant power in the region. While they recognize that the JCPOA could not be expected to resolve their concerns about Iran’s behavior, they feel the deal could actually exacerbate them—by releasing to Iran tens of billions of dollars in frozen assets, ending Tehran’s international isolation, and strengthening its economic capacity to upgrade its military and expand its regional influence.

• The deal is part of a regional realignment unfavorable to America’s traditional partners. Based significantly on suspicions and distorted perceptions of events and trends, some Middle East governments, especially among the Sunni Arabs, see the JCPOA as an indication that the United States is withdrawing from or at least reducing its military presence in the region. They fear that the U.S. may accept a prominent and even central role for Iran, and shift its allegiance from an exclusive focus on its traditional Arab partners to an approach balanced between those partners and Iran in which Iran would become a U.S. partner in promoting stability and resolving conflicts. Although the Obama Administration has made a major effort to dispel these concerns, they persist to a significant degree.


Will key regional states seek to acquire nuclear weapons?


U.S. supporters of the JCPOA argue that the removal of the near-term risk of a nuclear-armed Iran will sharply reduce the incentive for regional states to acquire their own fissile material production capabilities or nuclear weapons. Opponents claim that, by legitimizing Iran’s enrichment program, permitting Iran to ramp up its nuclear infrastructure after 10-15 years, and facilitating an economic recovery that will enable Iran to greatly boost the resources devoted to its nuclear program, the JCPOA itself will be the catalyst for proliferation in the region.

Whether states in the region eventually opt for nuclear weapons will depend on a range of factors, some related to the JCPOA and some not. Among the key factors will be their perceptions of Iran’s future nuclear capabilities and intentions, their assessment of Iran’s regional behavior, their view of the evolving conventional military balance with Iran, their confidence in the United States as a security partner, their evaluation of how the United States and other countries would react to their pursuit of nuclear weapons or a latent nuclear weapons capability, and, not least, the feasibility—in terms of their technical expertise, physical infrastructure, and financial resources—of succeeding in the effort to acquire fuel cycle facilities or nuclear weapons.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/re...ional proliferation/me_proliferation_v201.jpg

In assessing the probability of proliferation in the Middle East, it is necessary to focus on how these various factors may affect nuclear decision-making in individual countries, especially in the countries often cited as the most likely to go for a latent or actual nuclear weapons capability: Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Egypt, and Turkey.

Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia is widely considered to be the most likely regional state to pursue the nuclear option, an impression reinforced by occasional remarks by prominent Saudis that the Kingdom will match whatever nuclear capability Iran attains. The Saudis regard Iran as an implacable foe, not just an external threat determined to achieve regional hegemony but also an existential threat intent on undermining the Saudi monarchy. Moreover, while their concerns about Iran have grown, their confidence in the U.S. commitment to the security of its regional partners has been shaken. They cite what they regard as evidence of Washington’s unreliability, such as not preventing former Egyptian President Mubarak’s ouster, failing to enforce the red line against Syria’s use of chemical weapons, giving lukewarm support to Syrian rebels, and accepting a greater Iranian regional role.

"At the same time that Saudi concerns with Iran have been rising, confidence in the United States has been falling."

Animated by what they see as a waning U.S. commitment to Gulf security, the Saudis have beefed up their conventional defense capabilities, explored cooperation with Russia and other potential partners, and adopted a more assertive, independent role in regional conflicts, most dramatically in waging their aggressive military campaign in Yemen. Still, senior Saudis maintain that they have no choice but to rely heavily on the United States for their security.

While confident that they can handle the current conventional military threat from Iran, the Saudis worry about the military implications of a post-sanctions Iranian economic recovery, and they regard a future Iranian nuclear weapons capability as a game-changer. These concerns, together with their uncertainty about the future U.S. role, may motivate the Saudis to consider their own nuclear options.

But while the Saudis appear to be motivated to acquire nuclear weapons, their ability to do so is very much in doubt, at least for the foreseeable future. While they clearly have the necessary financial resources, the Saudis lack the human and physical infrastructure and have had to postpone their ambitious nuclear power plans for eight years while they train the required personnel. Although Riyadh is not willing to formally renounce the acquisition of an enrichment capability, Saudi nuclear energy officials state they have no plans for enrichment and do not anticipate pursuing an enrichment program for at least 25 years.

Given the Kingdom’s difficulty in developing an indigenous nuclear weapons capability, speculation has turned to the possibility of the Kingdom receiving support from a foreign power, usually Pakistan, which received generous financial support from Saudi Arabia in acquiring its own nuclear arsenal. But while rumors abound about a Pakistani commitment to help Saudi obtain nuclear weapons, the truth is hard to pin down. Senior Saudis and Pakistanis deny such an understanding exists. If it does exist, it was probably a vague, unwritten assurance long ago between a Pakistani leader and Saudi king, without operational details or the circumstances in which it would be activated. In any event, the Saudis would find it hard to rely on such an assurance now, especially in the wake of Islamabad’s rejection of the Saudi request to take part in the Yemen campaign. Pakistan is highly unlikely to become the Saudis’ nuclear accomplice.

So Saudi Arabia may be motivated to make a run at nuclear weapons, but its prospects for success are very limited.

United Arab Emirates
Like the Saudis, the Emiratis believe Iran poses a severe threat to regional security, has increased its aggressiveness since the completion of the JCPOA, is still trying to export revolution, and will resume its quest for nuclear weapons when JCPOA restrictions expire. Also like Riyadh, Abu Dhabi has lost considerable confidence in the reliability of the United States as a security partner, has explored defense cooperation with other outside powers, and has played an increasingly assertive, independent military role in the region, especially in the Yemen campaign. But like Saudi Arabia, it knows it has no real choice but to rely heavily on the United States for its security.

Moreover, perhaps because of traditionally strong economic ties between the UAE and Iran, the Emiratis take a more pragmatic approach to Tehran than do the Saudis. While the Saudis tend to see the struggle with Iran as irreconcilable, the Emiratis tend to believe that if Iran’s regional designs can be countered and a regional balance established, a modus vivendi with Iran can eventually be achieved.

The ambitious UAE nuclear energy program—including a project well underway by a South Korea-led consortium to build four power reactors—is the best indication that Abu Dhabi has no current intention to pursue an independent nuclear path. In negotiations on a U.S.-UAE civil nuclear agreement required for the project, the Emiratis accepted a legally binding renunciation of enrichment and reprocessing ( the so-called “gold standard”), effectively precluding the pursuit of nuclear weapons. Although the UAE subsequently indicated that it might seek to renegotiate the gold standard in light of the JCPOA’s acceptance of enrichment in Iran, Emirati officials indicate that, while their acceptance of the gold standard received criticism at home and from other Arab governments, the Iran deal has not produced any change in their nuclear energy plans, and they still have no intention to pursue enrichment or reprocessing.

Egypt
Although Egypt flirted with nuclear weapons development in the 1950s and 1960s and failed to report to the IAEA on some sensitive nuclear experiments it carried out between 1990 and 2003, Cairo today appears to lack both the inclination and the wherewithal to make a push for nuclear weapons.

Although Tehran and Cairo have occasionally sparred on regional issues and Iran is actively supporting causes that undermine the interests of Egypt’s main Arab allies and benefactors, Egypt does not see Iran as a direct military threat. Its principal security concern is the turbulent regional security environment—extremist ideology, the fragmentation of Syria and Iraq, and instability in Libya—and its adverse impact on internal security. Unlike the Gulf Arabs, the Egyptians are supportive of the JCPOA and believe a U.S.-Iranian rapprochement could have a positive effect on regional stability.

“Egypt will never seek nuclear weapons.” – Egypt Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry in an interview with the authors

Although Russia is committed to work with Egypt on its first power reactor, Cairo’s nuclear energy’s plans have experienced many false starts before, and there is little reason to believe the outcome will be different this time around, especially given the severe economic challenges currently faced by the Egyptian government. Moreover, although Egypt trained a substantial number of nuclear scientists in the 1950s and 1960s, its human nuclear infrastructure atrophied when ambitious nuclear energy plans never materialized.

So, given its preoccupation with nearby security challenges and low-tech threats such as insurgencies and terrorism and given its shortage of technical expertise and financial resources, it is unlikely that Egypt will reconsider its current non-nuclear status.

Turkey
Because of its emergence in the last decade as a rising power, its large and growing scientific and industrial base, and its ambition to be an influential regional player, Turkey is usually included on a short list of countries that may decide, in the wake of the Iran nuclear deal, to pursue a latent or actual nuclear weapons capability. But its pursuit of nuclear weapons is highly improbable.

Turkey has maintained reasonably good relations with Iran, and it resisted efforts to restrict its engagement with Tehran even at the height of the global sanctions campaign. Although Turkey and Iran have taken opposing sides in the Syrian war, most Turks do not see Iran as a direct military threat. Instead, Ankara sees instability and terrorism emanating from that conflict and from within Turkey’s borders as their principal security threats, concerns that cannot be addressed by the possession of nuclear weapons.

Tensions with Moscow over Turkey’s shoot-down of a Russian fighter jet in November 2015 are a source of concern in Ankara. But the best means of addressing that concern is reliance on the security guarantees Turkey enjoys as a member of NATO. While Turkish confidence in NATO has waxed and waned in recent decades, most Turks, especially in the military, believe they can count on NATO in a crisis, and would be reluctant to put their NATO ties in jeopardy by pursuing nuclear weapons.

Turkey has plans for nuclear power to meet energy shortages, including by purchasing nuclear reactors from Russian and Japan. Moreover, although Turkish energy officials say they have no current plans for enrichment, they are unwilling to rule it out. Still, especially in light of current political difficulties with Russia, Turkish experts are skeptical that Ankara’s civil nuclear plans will proceed in a timely manner, if at all.

Other cases
Although Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, and Turkey are most often mentioned as potential aspirants to the nuclear club, three other regional countries merit observation, given their past interest in nuclear weapons: Iraq, Syria, and Libya. But none of them are likely to revive their nuclear weapons ambitions in the foreseeable future.

Iraq’s nuclear infrastructure was decimated by two wars and a decade of sanctions, and it is severely constrained by its conflict with ISIS, its internal political and religious differences, and an economy struggling to grow in the face of low oil prices. Israeli’s destruction of Syria’s al-Kibar reactor in 2007 effectively ended Damascus’s nuclear weapons program. Moreover, consumed by civil war and its survival as a unitary state very much in question, Syria lacks the basic attributes needed to pursue a successful nuclear weapons program, including human and physical infrastructure, financial resources, and a disciplined leadership. With most of the sensitive equipment acquired through Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan’s black market network shipped out of the country in 2004, the absence of sufficient indigenous technical expertise, and the country in a state of disarray, the likelihood of Libya embarking on a renewed nuclear weapons effort in the foreseeable future is remote.

In February 2016, Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon stated publicly that “we see signs that countries in the Arab world are preparing to acquire nuclear weapons, that they are not willing to sit quietly with Iran on the brink of a nuclear or atomic bomb.” Ya’alon did not offer any evidence for his statement. It is, of course, possible that Israel has access to information unavailable to the authors (or even to the U.S. government). But the current study has not found indications that any of Iran’s neighbors are making preparations to acquire nuclear weapons. Indeed, our research and analysis suggest that none of them are likely to pursue nuclear weapons or succeed if they do.


Policies to reduce the likelihood of a proliferation cascade in the Middle East


Still, even if prospects for proliferation seem remote today, predicting future developments with confidence—especially given the unpredictability of the recent past and continued turmoil in region—seems imprudent. Whatever the likelihood that Middle East states may opt to acquire nuclear weapons in the future, it is incumbent on policymakers, especially U.S. policymakers, to do what they can to reduce those prospects further. The following are policies recommended for the Obama administration and future U.S. administrations.

1 Ensure that the JCPOA is rigorously monitored, strictly enforced, and faithfully implemented. Confidence by regional states that the JCPOA is working effectively as a barrier to an Iranian nuclear weapons capability will reinforce their inclination to remain non-nuclear, whereas a JCPOA of uncertain sustainability with a checkered compliance record will increase their incentives to hedge their bets. Effective and sustained implementation will mean not only pressing for strict Iranian compliance but also ensuring that Iran realizes the benefits of sanctions relief that it is entitled to, including by making modest adjustments in sanctions policy if it is found that previously unidentified and unintended technical problems are impeding sanctions relief.

2 Strengthen U.S. intelligence collection on Iranian proliferation-related activities and enhance intelligence-sharing on those activities with key partners. Uncertainty about nuclear developments in Iran will feed concerns about the future and create incentives for regional states to keep their nuclear options open. Washington should increase its investment in national intelligence capabilities to monitor Iran’s nuclear activities and create mechanisms for better sharing such intelligence with regional partners.

3Deter a future Iranian decision to produce nuclear weapons. Incentives for acquiring a latent or actual nuclear weapons capability will increase if regional states believe Iran can successfully break out and produce nuclear weapons. President Obama and his successors should declare that it is U.S. policy to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and that the United States is prepared to use military force, if necessary, to stop Iran from breaking out and producing nuclear weapons. To demonstrate national unity and strengthen the deterrent effect, Congress should adopt a standing Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) in the event the president determines and provides evidence to Congress that Iran is breaking out and moving toward nuclear weapons.

4 Seek to incorporate key JCPOA monitoring provisions into routine IAEA safeguards applied elsewhere in the Middle East and in the global nonproliferation regime. Making some of the innovative features of the JCPOA’s monitoring systems the new normal for IAEA safeguards could enhance confidence that Iran’s neighbors are not pursuing nuclear weapons as well as ensure that Iran will remain bound by them indefinitely. Consideration should be given to widening the application of online enrichment-level monitoring and continuous surveillance of key elements of the enrichment supply chain, such as centrifuge production workshops. Explicitly banning activities related to the development of nuclear weapons, and verification of such a “weaponization” ban, should also be universalized.

5 Pursue civil nuclear cooperation with Middle East governments on terms that are realistic and serve U.S. nonproliferation interests. To avoid continuing deadlock with Middle East countries (particularly Saudi Arabia and Jordan) on bilateral civil nuclear cooperation agreements—which would exclude the United States from nuclear commerce in the region and leave the field to nuclear suppliers less interested in discouraging enrichment and reprocessing—the United States should be prepared, if necessary, to relax its insistence on a legally binding renunciation of enrichment and reprocessing, while still pressing for the strongest possible constraints on such capabilities.

6 Promote regional arrangements that restrain fuel cycle developments. Developing region-wide or sub-regional arrangements (involving several states) could head off competitive fuel cycle developments as restrictions on Iran’s programs expire in 2025-2030. Some measures could apply equally to all participants, such as a ban on reprocessing, agreement to rely on foreign-supplied fuel for all power reactors and to ship all spent fuel out of the country, and agreement that all new research and power reactors would be light-water moderated and use uranium fuel enriched to below five percent. Some other measures might not apply equally to all participants, such as agreement by some Arab governments to forgo enrichment and agreement by Iran to postpone the expiration of key JCPOA restrictions or accept limits on its enrichment capacity after 15 years.

7 Strengthen security assurances to U.S. partners in the Middle East. Concerns about the credibility and effectiveness of U.S. commitments to their security are the principal reason that Gulf Arab countries, especially Saudi Arabia, might decide to pursue latent or actual nuclear weapons capabilities. At the U.S.-GCC summit meetings of May 2015 and April 2016, the United States issued strong statements of support for the security of its Gulf partners. Among other steps, the leaders called for stepping up maritime security cooperation, expediting the implementation of an integrated missile defense early warning system, training Special Operations Forces units from each GCC country, and expanding cooperation on cyber security. Building on those steps, the United States should explore with its GCC partners the development of a more closely integrated regional security framework, with strong operational and institutional ties.

8 Promote a stable regional security environment. In a Middle East less racked by conflict, incentives for acquiring nuclear weapons, both by Iran and other states of the region, would be significantly reduced. The United States should pursue a dual-track approach. On the one hand, it should instill confidence in its partners that the United States is committed to their security, will prevent any country from achieving regional hegemony, and will maintain a formidable military and diplomatic presence in the region. On the other, it should promote the resolution of regional conflicts, especially in Syria and Yemen, and encourage Iran and Saudi Arabia to find ways to tamp down their disputes and eventually reach an accommodation. In the longer run, Washington should encourage the creation of an inclusive regional security forum.

A proliferation cascade? Unlikely, at least for now
By sharply diminishing Iran’s capacity to produce fissile material for nuclear weapons for at least 10-15 years, the JCPOA has reduced incentives for neighboring states to acquire nuclear weapons or at least a hedging fuel cycle capability. But it has not eliminated those incentives.

For years to come, regional states will remain uncertain about several factors affecting their security—how well the JCPOA will deter and detect any Iranian non-compliance; whether the agreement will survive compliance disputes, challenges by opponents, and leadership transitions; and whether Iran will opt for nuclear weapons when key restrictions expire after 15 years. They will also be uncertain about other factors that could motivate them to reconsider their nuclear options, especially Iran’s future behavior in the region and America’s future regional role. These uncertainties will keep concerns about proliferation alive.

"None of the Middle East’s 'likely suspects' appears both inclined and able in the foreseeable future to acquire an indigenous nuclear weapons capability."

But this study suggests that, at least for now, those concerns have been subdued, even if not permanently set to rest. None of the Middle East’s “likely suspects” appears both inclined and able in the foreseeable future to acquire an indigenous nuclear weapons capability.

In the years preceding the JCPOA, it had practically become the conventional wisdom that, given Iran’s nuclear program, several additional nuclear-armed states would inevitably emerge in the Middle East. That conventional wisdom has largely been discredited. But there is a risk that a more complacent conventional wisdom will take its place—that we no longer have to worry about a regional nuclear arms competition.

It will be essential for the United States and other interested countries—pursuing policies along the lines recommended here—to make sure that the earlier predictions of a Middle East proliferation cascade do not yet come to pass.


ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Robert Einhorn is a senior fellow in the Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Initiative and the Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence, both housed within the Foreign Policy program at Brookings. During his career at the U.S. Department of State, Einhorn served as assistant secretary for nonproliferation during the Clinton administration, and as the secretary of state’s special advisor for nonproliferation and arms control during the Obama administration. At Brookings, Einhorn concentrates on arms control, nonproliferation, and regional security issues (including Iran, the greater Middle East, South Asia, and Northeast Asia) and U.S. nuclear weapons policies.

Richard Nephew is a nonresident senior fellow in the Foreign Policy Program and affiliated with the Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Initiative housed within the Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence. He is also a research scholar and program director at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University. During his career, Nephew served as the principal deputy coordinator for sanctions policy at the U.S. State Department and director for Iran at the National Security Council. Nephew also served as the lead sanctions expert for the U.S. team negotiating with Iran.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2016/05/485_205995.html

Posted : 2016-05-31 21:31
Updated : 2016-05-31 22:26

N. Korea, China agree to boost ties amid int'l sanctions

À½¼ºµè±â
By Yi Whan-woo, Jun Ji-hye

Senior party officials from North Korea and China agreed to boost cooperation, according to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), Tuesday.

The agreement was made during talks Ri Su-yong, vice chairman of North's ruling Workers' Party had with his Chinese counterpart, Song Tao, minister of the International Department of the party, late Tuesday.

The agreement was seen as a fresh sign that the traditional allies are trying to mend soured ties after the international community imposed its harshest sanctions yet on the North in early March for its fourth nuclear weapons test.

Ri arrived in Beijing earlier in the day for a three-day visit as a special envoy of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.

Song and Ri agreed to "strengthen exchanges and cooperation between the two parties," the CCP said in a brief statement posted on its website.

The two also agreed on the "promotion of regional peace and stability," according to the statement.

Ri, the highest-ranking North Korean official to visit China since Pyongyang conducted the nuclear test, Jan. 6, was accompanied by a large delegation.

Government officials and analysts in Seoul speculated that the young North Korean leader sent him to China in order to improve bilateral ties and create a rift in international commitments to the U.N. Security Council's (UNSC) latest sanctions on Pyongyang.

They also said that Ri may be carrying a message from Kim asking for a summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

"It is likely Ri will discuss the results of the Workers' Party Congress, including Kim's announcement of North Korea as a responsible nuclear state," said Kim Yong-hyun, a professor of North Korean studies at Dongguk University.

During the May 6 to 9 congress, Kim Jong-un said his country would not use nuclear weapons unless it was attacked by another nuclear power -- most likely the United States. He also said his country would also strive for "global de-nuclearization."

"Ri will try to justify Kim Jong-un's statement and convince China that North Korea was wrongfully punished for its nuclear program in the latest UNSC sanctions," Kim Yong-hyun said.

The UNSC approved Resolution 2270 in March in response to the fourth nuclear test. The U.S. and China jointly drafted the resolution.

Park Young-ho, a senior researcher Korea Institute for National Unification, said that Ri was likely carrying a request for a summit.

"The Workers' Party Congress was aimed at consolidating Kim Jong-un's leadership but this could have been destabilized in the wake of the UNSC sanctions," Park said. "Under such circumstances, a summit would be seen as China's approval of the young North Korean ruler as legitimate successor of the Kim dynasty."

Noting that China has emphasized dialogue with North Korea, Yang Moo-jin, a professor at the University of North Korean Studies, said a Pyongyang-Beijing summit was likely.

However, he added that such a meeting would not mean Beijing, Pyongyang's biggest benefactor, will defy UNSC Resolution 2270 by resuming bilateral trade.

"It's likely Xi will meet Ri in person and receive Kim's message. But even if he does so, China will still stick with other countries in their punishment of North Korea," Yang said.

Ri was North Korea's ambassador to Switzerland and watched over Kim Jong-un when he went to school there as a teenager.

During the congress, Ri, who had been serving as foreign minister, was promoted to vice chairman of the party and made international relations department director for its Central Committee. He theoretically oversees North Korea's foreign policy.


pss@ktimes.com


N. Korea leader's special envoy visits China

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-security-kurds-idUSKCN0YM1GN

World | Tue May 31, 2016 9:25am EDT
Related: World, Turkey

Turkey counts cost of conflict as Kurdish militant battle rages on

ISTANBUL | By Daren Butler


Turkey's conflict with Kurdish militants, said to have killed more than 5,000 people since July, has also destroyed at least 6,000 buildings that will cost approaching 1 billion lira ($340 million) to rebuild, according to a government estimate.

Large swathes of towns in the mainly Kurdish southeast have been devastated by daily shelling, blasts and gunfire in battles that are still raging, even as President Tayyip Erdogan says the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) is in its "death throes".

Turkish warplanes struck overnight at PKK gun positions and shelters in Semdinli by the border with Iraq and Iran, the army said. The fighting, at its most intense in two decades, resumed after a two-year-old ceasefire collapsed last July.

A day earlier, roadside bombs killed at least six people in two attacks on security forces in the southeast. Air strikes in northern Iraq's Metina area have killed 14 PKK fighters since last Wednesday, the army said.

As fighting continued, the government of new Prime Minister Binali Yildirim said 6,320 buildings, or 11,000 dwellings, had been destroyed in five areas alone: Sur in Diyabakir, Silopi, Cizre and Idil in Sirnak province and Yuksekova in Hakkari.

"We now face a process of planning reconstruction and repairing damaged houses," Deputy Prime Minister Numan Kurtulmus said after a cabinet meeting on Monday, estimating the cost of rebuilding in the areas at 855 million lira ($290 million).

Lawmaker Dengir Mir Mehmet Firat of the pro-Kurdish HDP was dismissive of the reconstruction plans in ancient places like Sur and Cizre, where the "historic fabric had been wiped away".

"They are deluding themselves and trying to cover up their crimes," he told Reuters. "If they are think they can win over the local people like this they are wrong. The destruction of these towns has caused an emotional rupture."


MOSQUES AND CHURCHES DAMAGED

Some 338 civilians, including 78 children, have died in the conflict since last summer, and curfews violated the rights of 1.6 million people, Turkey's Human Rights Foundation said. Ankara says 355,000 people have migrated to other parts of Turkey.

"These are the last death throes of the separatist terror group," Erdogan told a crowd waving Turkish flags and chanting "damn the PKK" in the Aegean coastal city of Izmir overnight.

Military sources say 5,000 PKK militants have been killed since the conflict resumed, around half in southeast Turkey and half in northern Iraq, where the PKK has bases. They put the death toll for Turkish security forces at around 500.

The PKK, designated a terrorist group by Turkey and its Western allies, launched its insurgency in 1984 and more than 40,000 people have been killed in the conflict.

Alongside destruction of housing, nine mosques and two churches in Sur alone have suffered damage, a local official told journalists taken under escort to the area on Tuesday.

The 500-year-old Kursunlu mosque's facade is pockmarked by gunfire, its interior burned out and sandbags in its windows testament to fighting there, a Reuters witness said.

The Roman-era basalt walls which surround Sur district were listed as a UNESCO World Heritage site in July 2015. Weeks later, the armed conflict was reignited.


(Additional reporting by Gulsen Solaker in Ankara, Seyhmus Cakan in Diyarbakir; Writing by Daren Butler, editing by Larry King)

 

[Housecarl]

http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...Dept-issues-alert-for-summer-travel-to-Europe

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thehill.com/policy/national-...dept-issues-alert-for-summer-travel-to-europe

Home | Policy | National Security

State Dept issues alert for summer travel to Europe

By Julian Hattem - 05/31/16 11:51 AM EDT

The State Department on Tuesday issued a summer travel alert for Europe, warning that major soccer contests and public events could be prime targets for terror attacks.

The department is “alerting U.S. citizens to the risk of potential terrorist attacks throughout Europe, targeting major events, tourist sites, restaurants, commercial centers and transportation,” the department said in its alert.

“The large number of tourists visiting Europe in the summer months will present greater targets for terrorists planning attacks in public locations, especially at large events.”
In particular, the U.S. pointed to the European Soccer Championship and the Tour de France, which will be held in June and July, as well as the Catholic Church’s World Youth Day in late July in Poland as possible points of concern.

The Tuesday alert amounted to a formal escalation of the Obama administration’s worries about the potential of a terrorist attack striking the heart of Europe this summer, on the heels of violence in Paris and Brussels over the last seven months.

Those attacks were traced back to Europe-based followers of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), who had reportedly been eyeing the Euro 2016 soccer championships before the Brussels violence. European officials have ramped up their security efforts in advance of the international matches, which kick off on June 10.

“European authorities continue to take steps to assure public safety and disrupt terrorist plots,” the State Department said. “We work closely with our allies and will continue to share information with our European partners that will help identify and counter terrorist threats.”

In response to the possibility of an attack, the State Department urged Americans traveling abroad to be mindful of their surroundings, avoid large crowds and have a plan in case of an emergency.

A travel alert is less severe than travel warnings issued by the department for more pressing security matters, but signify some level of concern for short-term events.

Tuesday’s alert expires on Aug. 31.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ori...ans-us-general-allen-security-plan-cairo.html

ISRAEL PULSE

Can a Cairo conference launch regional peace talks?

Author: Ben Caspit
Posted: May 30, 2016
Translator: Sandy Bloom
Comments 8

After cutting off negotiations with moderate Zionist Camp leader Isaac Herzog and inserting Yisrael Beitenu head Avigdor Liberman into the government as defense minister instead, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu picked up the phone to Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi last week. As a reminder, it is no secret that Liberman hails from the most right-wing of the political map, at least at the moment.

There was great fury toward Netanyahu in Cairo, in light of the fact that the Egyptian president himself rolled up his sleeves in anticipation of international steps designed to jump-start the peace process, with the backing of 24 Knesset members of the Zionist Camp, on the failed assumption that Herzog will join the government.

Netanyahu, who boasts a close relationship and unprecedented security alliance with Sisi, informed the fuming Egyptian president that he, Netanyahu, stands behind every word of the understandings and promises that he dispensed in recent months. “Everything is still valid,” said Netanyahu, according to sources who were privy to the contents of the conversation and who spoke with Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity. When Sisi asked how it will be possible to implement all their plans with Liberman, Netanyahu answered, “He’s on. I spoke to him.”

A week later, in the third week of May, Housing Minister Gen. (Res.) Yoav Galant said, in a private talk with Jewish leaders in New York, according to a political source who spoke with Haaretz daily, “Government policy is not to build in Judea and Samaria.” Thus, for the first time, an Israeli minister in office admits to the de facto “quiet building freeze” in settlements that is taking place in the West Bank.

Nevertheless, this is not a full freeze since Agriculture Minister Uri Ariel from HaBayit HaYehudi has full control over the settlement division of the World Zionist Organization. And this organ, which operates as another governmental construction arm in the West Bank territories, does continue to build.

According to Western diplomats, Netanyahu had a two-pronged commitment to Sisi: to carry out acts on the ground that demonstrate Israel’s commitment to the two-state solution, and recognize the 2002 Arab Initiative as the de facto basis for negotiations, with the required "alterations." There is also a second side to this promise that, according to Netanyahu, is still valid: The Egyptians committed themselves, together with other Sunni states, to convene an international conference in Cairo that would jump-start the process — mainly renewal of the bilateral negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians and turning the Arab Peace Initiative into a working plan.

This is the first time since the Arab Initiative was on the table that the Arab states are willing to integrate steps toward normalizing relations with Israel while simultaneously entering into negotiations without waiting for the conclusion of the negotiations. This is a dramatic development signaling the beginning of normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia, for instance, even before a permanent arrangement with the Palestinians is reached. Every Israeli step on the ground will be answered with an appropriate Arab step.

However, let's not forget that these plans at this stage are still on paper. Netanyahu has promised many things to many people in the past, but has never carried through. An initiative similar to the Egyptian one was made by the Saudis in the last two years, but Netanyahu ignored it. But when it came this time — from the direction of Cairo — Netanyahu hurried to pick up the gauntlet. No, it's not that he has changed; it’s just that reality is painting him into a corner. The international moves, the French initiative, the strong fears regarding what US President Barack Obama is capable of doing to him between the US elections in November and the new president's inauguration in January — all these have pushed Netanyahu to create the outward appearance of negotiations and progress, to survive the difficult period.

Another issue that will not make it any easier for him is the publicity that is expected to be released on May 31 regarding a new, inclusive defense program for peace in the Middle East. Many American and Israeli experts have been diligently working on the program in recent months. They also consulted with all the relevant sources, including Egypt, the Palestinians and the Jordanians. The new program will be presented at a special press conference by representatives of the authors, who led the entire process. On the Israeli side is Maj. Gen. (Res.) Gadi Shamni, former head of Central Command in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), and additional high-level officers from the Commanders for Israel's Security movement, headed by Maj. Gen. (Res.) Amnon Reshef. On the American side is Ilan Goldenberg, who was Martin Indyk’s team leader on peace talks in 2013-14. Then there is Col. Kris Bauman, chief of staff under Gen. John Allen and former member of US Secretary of State John Kerry's team. In the latter capacity, two years ago he tried to create an American security program for Israel in the course of traumatic negotiations that led nowhere.

As we recall, at the time Allen was appointed to create defense solutions for Israel, which would allow the Israeli public to understand that it is possible to establish a Palestinian state without endangering the security of the Israeli state. The Americans stormed this mission with great seriousness, and Allen came to the region as head of a tremendous staff of 150 experts. At a relatively early stage, then-Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon instructed the IDF officers not to cooperate with the American experts, not to contribute ideas and not to express their opinions. The Israeli security higher-ups were only allowed to listen.

Allen spent long months toiling over a comprehensive plan that was rejected by the Israeli security system. Until this very day, the Americans are convinced that the high-ranking IDF officers secretly were in favor of the Security Arrangements program, but that the political echelons and decision-makers, headed by Netanyahu and Ya’alon, forbade them to express this opinion. Meanwhile, Netanyahu and Ya’alon felt that this program would not provide proper security to Israel, should it withdraw from Judea and Samaria.

Allen’s security plan was never publicized. Sources told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity that Allen reached many understandings with the Palestinians, and also the Jordanians. For instance, the Jordanians agreed that a Palestinian airport would be situated in their territory, so that the takeoff and landing runways would extend from Palestinian territory in the west, to end in Jordanian territory in the east, where checkpoints and custom duty services would be situated. Thus, Israel, which trusts the Jordanians, would be able to supervise the incoming and outgoing flights from this airport.

Now, after comprehensive headquarters work, US and Israeli experts upgraded Allen’s plans and turned it into the most comprehensive, thorough and creative plan ever consolidated for a peace arrangement between Israel and the future Palestinian state. The objective is to show the Israeli public the security options, to calm fears and to demonstrate how the scare tactics employed by the right in Israel — headed by Netanyahu, against an Israeli withdrawal from the territories — is exaggerated.

Publication of the program will be backed by a public relations campaign and promoted within Jewish organizations and the Israeli public. This security plan is supposed to back up any intentions of Netanyahu to take a sharp political turn from the right to the center to resuscitate the diplomatic process. How will such intentions be implemented by the most right-wing government that Israel has ever seen? That is already Netanyahu’s problem.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/05/31/indias-500-million-bet-on-iran/

Report

India’s $500 Million Bet on Iran

New Delhi hopes a giant new Iranian port will help meet its energy needs — and outflank Pakistan.

By Keith Johnson
May 31, 2016
keith.johnson@KFJ_FP


India’s plan to spend $500 million on a new port complex on Iran’s Indian Ocean coast caps a decade-long quest to find a way to get sorely needed supplies of energy. But the Chabahar port deal also offers India a way to outflank Pakistan and elbow its way into the economic and diplomatic jockeying that is reshaping Central Asia.

During a visit to Iran this week, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced a spate of deals that included the long-sought accord to develop the port of Chabahar, which sits less than 50 miles from Gwadar, the deepwater port China is developing in Pakistan. The development plans will give Iran its first deepwater port, to finally allow it to conduct global trade with big cargo ships rather than the small ships its ports can currently handle, thus ending its reliance on the United Arab Emirates as a shipping intermediary.

The Chabahar plans also include factories as well as road and rail links to Afghanistan and beyond. Once complete, the new port could help India bypass Pakistan and deepen its ties with energy-rich countries in Central Asia like Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Chabahar also promises to give Afghanistan an outlet to the sea, potentially boosting the trade prospects of the landlocked and war-torn nation.

“It’s meant to ease access to key markets,” said Michael Kugelman, senior associate for South Asia at the Wilson Center. The port and rail connections will give India, which has become one of the biggest energy consuming countries in the world, access to natural gas from Iran and countries in Central Asia, as well as offering quicker transit for Indian trade as far afield as Russia.

“For India, it’s about economics and energy,” he said.

Chabahar has been on the drawing board for more than a decade, but was stalled due to Iran’s international isolation. But Iran and India have long had close ties: Even when Iranian oil exports were sharply limited by U.S. sanctions, India remained one of Iran’s biggest customers. Now that sanctions are being lifted as part of the nuclear deal, India is rushing to take advantage.

But closer ties with Iran could also complicate India’s relations with the United States just ahead of Modi’s long-awaited visit to Washington next month. Spurred by concerns over Chinese expansion in Asia, and particularly in the South China Sea and in the Indian Ocean, New Delhi and Washington just opened the door to greater defense cooperation, especially between their navies.

The United States is keeping a close eye on the Indian investment in Iran, a State Department official told Congress this week. But since the deal is mostly meant to give India trade access it currently doesn’t have — rather than deepen military ties with Tehran — it won’t likely raise red flags, Nisha Desai Biswal, the assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asia, said at the hearing.

That would be good news for New Delhi, which has long been seeking alternative ways of addressing its growing energy needs without relying on an ambitious, quixotic, $10 billion plan to build a pipeline that would snake from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan and Pakistan to India.

Groundbreaking has begun on the project, known as TAPI, but the pipeline’s viability is threatened both by terrorism and instability in Afghanistan and by long-standing enmity between Pakistan and India. Chabahar could pave the way for India to tap the vast deposits of natural gas in Central Asia without worrying about shipping its energy supplies through war-torn Afghanistan or through Pakistani territory. And if post-sanctions Iran is able to attract enough foreign investment to rejuvenate its natural gas fields, the Shiite republic could also become a source of gas for India.

That’s not to say that broader geopolitical calculations don’t enter into New Delhi’s thinking. In recent years, China has pushed its own plan to integrate Central and South Asia with a so-called “new Silk Road” that includes overland road and rail links and a maritime route across the Indian Ocean from China to Europe. Chinese investment in Gwadar is part of that, as is another port deal in Sri Lanka and a military base in Djibouti. Just this week, a Chinese firm inked a deal to develop port and industrial facilities in Oman. The deepening diplomatic and military ties between Beijing and Islamabad in particular make many in New Delhi nervous.

“The Chinese penetration into the subcontinent is of course a concern for India,” said C. Raja Mohan, the director of Carnegie India.

That concern about China combines with the legacy of the 1947 partition of India and Pakistan, which at a stroke pushed Indian borders away from both Iran and Afghanistan. Ever since, Pakistan has refused to allow India access through its territory, cutting it off from Afghanistan and essentially locking India out of China’s Silk Road projects.

For India, said Mohan, Chabahar offers a route to sidestep the geographical legacy of partition and regain direct access to its former neighbors. It’s a way to not only push back against perceived Chinese encirclement, but also gives India a path to play a bigger part in developing Afghanistan and Central Asia. Indeed, some Chinese commentators have concluded that the Chabahar port plus the road and rail links will give India a much bigger voice in Afghanistan’s future.

“Basically, it all comes down to the historical consequences of partition,” Mohan said.

___

Some maps....

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-c9iSBW4k6AA/VUm0wnmgx0I/AAAAAAAAA1U/UYrhZ1prjMo/s1600/CHB-GWADAR-1.JPG

http://image.slidesharecdn.com/yama...tan-railway-authority-7-638.jpg?cb=1414457809

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.hellenicshippingnews.com...iran-one-step-closer-to-regional-trading-hub/

India port deals puts Iran one-step closer to regional trading hub

in Port News ©ô30/05/2016

Iran moved closer to realising its ambitions of becoming a regional trading hub this week with India committing to developing the country¡¯s only port with direct ocean access.

Iran, India and Afghanistan agreed on Monday to revive a 2003 project to build a trading corridor that would connect Afghanistan to the Indian Ocean via Iran. India is committing $500 million (Dh1.83 billion) to develop Chabahar port on the Gulf of Oman and for rail links that will give landlocked Afghanistan an alternative to Pakistani seaports.

The announcement ties in with a series of agreements between Iran and regional countries to develop north-south trading corridors linking the Indian Ocean through Iran to energy-rich former Soviet states, Russia and Eastern Europe.

Iran has ¡°grand ambitions to serve as a trade hub not just for the Middle East but into the Caspian and Central Asia,¡± Henry Smith, associate director at Control Risks, told Gulf News by phone on Thursday.

Chabahar port, undeveloped and in Iran¡¯s southeast, is the country¡¯s only seaport outside the Arabian Gulf and Caspian Sea, which is close to the capital Tehran. The Indian investment to expand infrastructure will make the port capable of handling container vessels. Today, it mainly handles bulk cargo.

The agreement is a ¡°validation of Iran¡¯s policy to build its position as a regional hub for manufacturing, distribution and export,¡± former UK ambassador to Iran Richard Dalton told Gulf News by email.

Chabahar is outside the Strait of Hormuz, a shipping choking point that separates Iran and the Arabian Peninsula and where nearly a fifth of the world¡¯s daily oil consumption passes through.

The Indian investment will give Iran a ¡°major port facility¡± that ¡°allows them to circumvent some of the potential problems that would arrive if there is an issue in the Gulf,¡± Smith said.

Shiite-majority Iran¡¯s relations with its mostly Sunni-majority Arab Gulf neighbours have deteriorated this year following a series of events that started when Sunni-majority Saudi Arabia executed a prominent Shiite cleric in January. Protesters mobbed Saudi Arabia¡¯s embassy in Tehran after the execution, leading to Saudi Arabia and Bahrain to cut diplomatic ties and the United Arab Emirates to downgrade ties to charge d¡¯affairs.

Chabahar may provide Iran with additional assurance of guaranteeing its import and export trade but the port¡¯s development is unlikely to rival the region¡¯s larger terminals, including Dubai¡¯s Jebel Ali.

¡°It¡¯s not going to be any competitor to the existing ports in the region. This primarily serves an Indian purpose, whereas Iran gets some investments and developments,¡± said Peter Sand, Chief Shipping Analyst at BIMCO, the world¡¯s largest shipping association.

China is developing a regional port 100 kilometres away in Pakistan¡¯s southwest. China has plans to transform Gwadar into a regional shipping gateway linking the Indian Ocean with Central Asia, similar to India¡¯s plans for Chabahar.

¡°Neither [Gwadar or Chabahar] ¡* are going to be on a scale anytime soon to threaten the role Jebel Ali plays in trade between Asia, the Middle East and Africa,¡± Smith said,

Iran also sits along the ¡®One Belt, One Road¡¯ trade route and both Tehran and Beijing see the country as an integral part of the strategy, whilst it is widely accepted that at least of part of India¡¯s motivation to invest in Chabahar was to counter the China-Pakistan influence in the region.

Iran¡¯s President Hassan Rouhani announced the Chabahar deal in Tehran during a visit by India¡¯s Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Afghanistan¡¯s President Ashraf Ghani flew in for the announcement.

This is ¡°confirmation of its policy of dealing even-handedly with its neighbours to seek mutual advantage,¡± Dalton said.

The deal comes four months after the lifting of nuclear related sanctions against Iran, who has since taken steps to form closer economic and diplomatic ties with western and Asian countries.

China¡¯s President Xi Jinping and South Korea¡¯s President Park Geun-hye have both been to Tehran this year and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is expected to be the next major Asian leader after Prime Minster Modi¡¯s visit this week.

¡°All these big Asian economies ¡* are important buyers of Iranian oil and gas and will remain,¡± Smith said. ¡°Iran is not interested in doing anything to antagonise relationships with those countries.¡±

Source: Gulf News

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://wap.business-standard.com/ar...r-port-as-security-threat-116053100272_1.html

Pakistan dubs trade route linking Chabahar Port as 'security threat'

ANI | Lahore May 31, 2016 12:15 PM IST

Former Pakistan defence secretary and retired Lieutenant General, Asif Yasin Malik, has said that the alliance between India, Afghanistan and Iran was a security threat to Pakistan.

"In view of the regional and global environment, i see Pakistan falling into an abyss of isolation primarily because of its own mistakes and partly due to the hostile policies of other states," General Malik said.

According to Dawn, Malik blamed the situation on the dysfunctional foreign office and the absence of a full time foreign minister.

Advisor on Foreign Affairs, Sartaj Aziz, at a press conference earlier on Thursday said that Pakistan did not see Iran's Chabahar port as a rival and Pakistan was in fact exploring the possibility of developing links with Gwadar.

At an event earlier, retired Lt-Gen Nadeem Lodhi said the existence of such a formidable bloc in the neighbourhood had ominous and far reaching implications for Pakistan.

He feared the three-nation bloc will affect Pakistan's plans for regional economic integration, restoration of internal peace and maintenance of peaceful borders.

"It will also affect CPEC (China-Pakistan Economic Corridor) timelines. We need to break out of this encircling move with help from friends, diplomatic manoeuvres and by forging a strong deterrence," he said, adding that of the three countries, Iran is most likely to pay heed to Pakistani concerns.

"Iran must not be further alienated and its interests in CPEC should be developed," Lodhi added.

He said that the defence and strategic relationship with China should be formalised instead of an unwritten understanding.

Air University Registrar Ghulam Mujadid said that the eminence of security in national priorities is reflected in the four military takeovers in the country and the ascendancy of military in political, internal and foreign policy decision making.

"Pakistan needs to correct this strategic myopia. A survivalist mindset about national security dominates the political discourse and continues to be the central pillar in Pakistan's strategic calculations," he said.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm......Interesting considering the article source.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.firstpost.com/world/indi...ivilizations-can-curb-radicalism-2808348.html

India and Iran: How The Two Ancient Civilizations Can Curb Radicalism

Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi
May 31, 2016 16:45 IST
Comments 2

(Sorry all, having problems cutting and pasting this one...HC)

 

[Possible Impact]

Borei Class Subs Become Part of
Russian Navy's Permanent Readiness Force

00:01 01.06.2016(updated 00:27 01.06.2016)
http://sputniknews.com/military/20160601/1040573629/russia-borei-submarines-navy.html

Northern Fleet's Borei class strategic nuclear submarines have been assigned
to the Russian navy's permanent readiness force, Northern Fleet Commander
Vice-Admiral Nikolai Yevmenov said on the eve of the fleet's 283rd anniversary
on Wednesday.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — According to official data, there are currently
two Borei class submarines — the Yuri Dolgoruky and the Vladimir
Monomakh — in service with the Northern Fleet.

"As you know, the Northern Fleet was the first to commission Borei class
strategic submarines. The vessels of this class have been assigned to
the permanent readiness force, and their crews are effectively perform
their assigned tasks," Yevmenov said.

Yevmenov added that the fleet's strategic submarines regularly carry out
patrol missions in the Arctic and other regions around the globe.

By 2020, the Russian Navy plans to operate a total of eight submarines
of this type. It has three Borei submarines in operation, including the
Alexander Nevsky in service with the Pacific Fleet, and four more under
construction, namely Emperor Alexander III, Knyaz Vladimir, Knyaz Oleg
and Generalissimus Suvorov.

Borei-class nuclear-powered subs are to become the mainstay of the naval
component of the country’s strategic nuclear deterrent.


​

^^^ Looks like the NATO/EU/USA 'Cold war restoration project' has worked...
(These would probably have never been built/completed without Western encouragement)

Borei-class submarine (Project 955)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borei-class_submarine




Rejection of NATO-Russia Founding Act
'Could Lead to Arms Race'

23:46 30.05.2016
http://sputniknews.com/military/20160530/1040507210/russia-nato-arms-race.html


The rejection of NATO-Russian Founding Act
on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security
could mean direct invitation to a new phase of arms race,
Russia's NATO envoy Alexander Grushko said Monday.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — Grushko said that the NATO-Russian founding act
remained one of a few constraints precluding a new arms race and its
value should not be underrated.

"The rejection of the founding act, its provisions for restraints in military
sphere will be a direct invitation to a new phase of arms race.
Such development could greatly destabilize the situation in Europe and it is
not in the interest of the whole of Europe," Grushko told Rossiiskaya Gazeta
newspaper.
​

© AFP 2016/ JOHN THYS
Russia to Respond to NATO Attempts to Bring Conflicts to Black Sea

"In a number of NATO countries there are political forces that favor
the rejection of the act. This would be quite dangerous. Then, perhaps,
we could talk about Europe possibly losing the last tools to provide security,
which would not be based on the balance of threats and counter-threats,"
he said.

The Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security was
signed by NATO and Russia on May 27, 1997, at a NATO summit in Paris.

Under the act, the sides do not consider each other as adversaries,
and seek to build "a lasting and inclusive peace in the Euro-Atlantic area"
based on the principles of democracy and cooperation.

​

 

[Possible Impact]

Hummm......Interesting considering the article source.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.firstpost.com/world/indi...ivilizations-can-curb-radicalism-2808348.html

India and Iran: How The Two Ancient Civilizations Can Curb Radicalism

Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi
May 31, 2016 16:45 IST
Comments 2

(Sorry all, having problems cutting and pasting this one...HC)

Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi May 31, 2016 16:45 IST
http://www.firstpost.com/world/indi...ivilizations-can-curb-radicalism-2808348.html

Recently, I was in the capital of Iran, Tehran when the epoch-making
trilateral relations were built between India, Iran and Afghanistan.
After 15 years, the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi visited Iran
to rejuvenate the bilateral ties. He signed a $500m deal to develop Iran's
Chabahar port in a strategic effort to open up India's trade routes to
Afghanistan and Europe.
According to the Chabahar project which was agreed between PM
Narendra Modi and the Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, India will invest
billions of dollars in Iran following the removal of sanctions.

Indeed, this deal will greatly help to deepen ties between India and Iran
in business, commerce, agriculture, culture and education.

But one wonders how India and Iran can exert joint efforts in countering
extremism and growing radicalism? This is a relevant question because
the two countries have also agreed to consult 'closely and regularly'
on combating the threats of radicalism and terrorism.

Since India and Iran share grave concerns at the spread of radicalised
forces, their agreement over close and regular consultation on combating
threats of radicalism is well received in the region. To curb extremist
thoughts and hardcore philosophies, both countries have great potentials
and civilisational forces stemming from their ancient inclusive and
pluralistic cultures.

As Narendra Modi pointed out, India and Iran are not new friends.

Their friendship [or ‘dosti’ in the Persian language] is as old as history.

Through centuries, their societies have stayed connected through culture,
art and architecture, poetry, spiritual traditions and commerce. Today,
when terrorism and radicalism are among the most baffling problems
in the region, it was urgent and timely for the two governments to sit
together and brainstorm effective ways to tackle the radical onslaught.

Modi has rightly pointed out that India and Iran “share a crucial stake
in peace and stability” and that “both share common concerns relating
to radicalism and terrorism.” Therefore, the two countries have agreed
to enhance cooperation between their defence and security institutions.

Already, both establishments have spent a large amount of money on
internal security, domestic peace and counter-terrorism. But what seems
more effective to help the two countries in their bid to curb extremism is
their renewed pledge to preserve the rich ancient culture of religious
pluralism, peaceful co-existence and celebration of multiculturalism.


Narendra Modi in Iran. File photo. Twitter/@MEAIndia

The ancient civilizations of the both the Vedic and Islamic countries
have been inclusive and welcoming to foreign cultures. In his address to
the conference on traditional linkages between India and Iran before
winding up his two-day visit to Iran, Mr Modi highlighted Sufism and other
cultural linkages as ‘a perfect response to those who preach radical
thoughts in our societies’.

It is interesting to note that the current Indian PM has been consistently
celebrating the universal appeal of Sufism as ‘a rich product of India’.

It is common knowledge now that after his participation in the World Sufi
Forum recently held in Delhi, PM Modi is seen constantly preaching
religious pluralism, the composite nature of Indian culture and its diversity.
For instance, in his recent visit to Brussels in the wake of terrorist attacks
on Belgium, he ardently praised Islam and its offshoot Sufism referring to
the World Sufi Forum. He affirmed: “In recent days in India, liberal Islamic
scholars, linked to Sufism, said those who speak of terror are un-Islamic.
The more such voices rise, the faster the radicalization of youth can be
prevented”.

Similarly, in his visit to Iran, the Indian PM delivered a remarkable speech
on Sufism and its humanitarian approach to strengthen Indio-Iran relations.
Recalling the historical religious and traditional bearings of the two
countries, Modi invoked Sufism as the binding force that unites the world as
one family. "Sufism, rich product of our ancient links, carried its message
of true love, tolerance, acceptance to entire mankind," he remarked in his
speech in Tehran.

In my own recent experience in several historic cities of Iran, particularly
Qom, Shiraz, Mashhad, Isfahan and the capital Tehran, I could see the
same culture of peace emanating from deep-rooted Islamic mysticism. The
pluralistic essence of Sufism which both India and Iran share in common
has contributed to the growth of moderate and tolerant societies in both
the countries. Iranians reflect the very spirit of Sufism, which Mr. Modi
recalled as “voice of peace, co-existence, compassion and equality.” It is
equally embedded in the Indian Vedic concept of ‘Vasudhaiva
Kutumbakam’, which means that the ‘World is one family’.

Similarly, there are striking parallels between the ancient heroes and epics
of the two countries. The holy shrines [dargahs] of Khawaja Gharib Nawaz
in Ajmer Sharif and Hazrat Nizamuddin Aulia in Delhi are equally adored in
Iran. Much in the same way, Mahabharata of India and Shahnama of Iran,
Bhima of Bharat and Rustam of Persia and Arjuna and Arsh of the two
countries bear great symbiosis in universal values and egalitarian
messages for brotherhood of mankind.

This is an established historical fact that Islam in India and Iran owes much
of its existence to Sufi saints and dervishes like Shaikh Sa’adi and Hifiz
Sherazi in Iran and the 13th century Sufi saint Khwaja Ghareeb Nawaz of
Ajmer Sharif in India. Gharib Nawaz came from Iran to India and rendered
great humanitarian services. His peace activism is regarded a milestone in
the path of love, human equality, spirituality and religious pluralism.

Thus, this peaceful and pluralistic Indian tradition ushered in a new era of
composite culture in the country which still remains well-spirited and widely
accepted among the Indian common masses regardless of faith and creed.

After Khwaja Ghareeb Nawaz, one of the most celebrated Indian Sufi
masters, Makhdum Sayed Ashraf Jahangir Simnani (1287 – 1386 CE) left
his birthplace Simnan in Iran and settled in India. Revered by both Indian
and Iranian Muslims, Makhdum Simnani was a prominent Sufi Shaikh
belonging to the Chishti and Qadiri Sufi orders. He became the disciple of
the well-known Sufi saint of Bengal, Hazrat Alaul Haq Pandavi and
established his own Sufi order (silsila) through his spiritual disciple Syed
Shah Abdur Razzaq Nurul-Ain, the 11th direct descendant of the world
renowned Sufi Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani. His shrine is still revered as great
Sufi hospice and is known as “Aastana-e-Hazrat Jahangir Simnani” in
Ambedkar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.

The long and short is that Iranian-origin Indian Sufis fervently taught and
promoted pacifism, spirituality and non-violence. As a result, the shrines of
these saints are still attracting people from all faith traditions even after
hundreds of years. In the current situation of growing religious hatred,
faith-inspired terror and malice, the Indian and Iranian governments are
reminded of these peace actors. It is indeed a welcome move.

A view is emerging in both the countries that the menace of extremism can
be better wiped out from the region through the restoration of Rishi-Sufi
tradition and propagation of its universal values. Not only the governments,
but more of common citizens have developed this impression in their own
ideological battle against the extremist thoughts and hardcore
philosophies.

I met a considerable number of Muslim youths in Iran who consider Islamic
State an offshoot of radical Islamism, not just ‘a handiwork of the Jews’ a
widespread perception in the global Muslim community. When asked how
they try to rebut its ideology, they told me they seek to strengthen Islamic
moderation through the doctrine of Mahdism, an Islamic belief in the
awaited messiah or spiritual savior of the world from the clutches of the
evils.

Iranian Muslims in general are Shiites and, hence, venerate the fourth
caliph of Islam, Hazrat Ali as their supreme spiritual leader. He was
assassinated by the Kharijites, the first terrorist faction in Islamic history.
They indulged in violent takfirism, declaring others kafir [infidel] and thus
legitimizing their killings. With the commencement of the 19th century,
many new-born Kharijites emerged in the Middle East and took roots in the
wider Asian region. They started anti-Sufism and anti-Shia movements with
an aim to fan the fire of sectarianism and thus giving rise to extremism
among Muslims.

The ideology of Kharjiites which basically originated in the time of Hazrat
Ali was later propagated among people on the grounds of misinterpreted
and seemingly militant Qur’anic verses.

In this entire duration, spiritually inclined masters of the community,
the Sufis, remained confined to their conclaves in holy shrines and
hospices. As a result, particular fractions of religionists began to adopt
theoretical extremism, religious bigotry, takfirism and justification of
wanton killings. This is the Kharijite ideology which is now playing havoc
across the world and the Middle East in particular.

It is indeed gratifying to note that the two peace-loving countries, India
and Iran, with their ancient civilizational and cultural linkages, are on the
lookout for an acute anti-extremism alliance. While India has been
ideologically fighting the Islamic State on its soil, Iran has been the most
proactive Muslim country in breaking terror's back. Tehran has already
committed its military and weaponry in Iraq, offering Baghdad its
unconditional support against the self-imposed Islamic caliphate,
Daesh’s atrocities.

Since Iran is a Shia-majority country and Daesh is ideologically anti-Shia,
it has killed thousands of Shias considering them kafir (infidel).

After its expansion in Iraq only kilometers away from Iranian western
borders, Islamic State became the biggest threat to the Shia Muslims
of Iran. Therefore, Iran has been actively engaged in an ideological battle
against the radicalism since the beginning of Syrian Civil War in 2011.
It was the first Muslim country to provide assistance to Iraqi and Syrian
regimes to fight Islamic State, deploying its troops in the two countries.
It is still combating the takfirist terrorists of Islamic State in both Iraq
and Syria. The Iranian Quds Force played pivotal role in military intervention
against the Daesh.

Al Jazeera once reported that hundreds Iranian Sunni Kurds crossed
the Iran-Iraq border to fight Islamic State in January 2015.


As a result of its effective anti-terror strategy, the Jihadists of Islamic
State, despite having their strong base in the close neighborhood, in Iraq
and Syria, have not yet succeeded in Iran. Various research works and
polls have shown that Islamic State got no recruitments from the Iranian
Muslim society, not even from the Sunni community of Iran.

At this juncture, we are amazed at the naivety of our anti-terror Indian
establishments that could not prevent a few Indian Muslim youths from
travelling to Iraq and Syria and joining the Islamic State.

While signing the 12 new agreements, India and Iran have also decided
to jointly combat cyber crime to weaken the terror networks and radical
recruiters. As the two strategic partners in counter-extremism, India
and Iran can fiercely battle the online radical indoctrination.

In fact, we have contagious cyber threat against peace, pluralism religious
diversity in India. This forms the bedrock for the extremists’ recruitment of
Indian youth. Growing cyber radicalisation and terrorists’ recruitments on
social media are still unrestrained. Young and naive Muslims with
impressionable minds are still being drawn into extremism through
different online channels. Seductive messages in the disguise of Islamic
exhortations easily catch the imagination of the young netizens in Indian
subcontinent like in the Middle East, US and Europe.

Inspired by the neo-Kharijite extremist ideology, a few Indian Muslim
youths traveled to the Middle East, particularly in Iraq and Syria,
for terrorist training that was meant to bring the cancer of radicalism back
home. In this grim situation, the Indo-Iranian joint efforts to counter the
cyber radicalization will be a panacea for this ill.

​

Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi is a scholar of Comparative Religion & Classical Islamic sciences,
cultural analyst and Doctoral Research Scholar at Centre for Culture, Media & Governance
(JMI Central University).

 

[Housecarl]

Thanks Possible Impact, the connection I'm using was choking on it.

 

[AlfaMan]

If I didn't know any better, it sounds like they are having fuel or fuel tank problems. The Musdan is supposed to be hypergolic fuels-either UMDH (fuel) and nitrogen tetroxide (oxidizer) or kerosene (fuel) and red fuming nitric acid (oxidizer). Sounds like they can't get the turbopumps to deliver the fuels in the proper proportions or their engines aren't being built in a particularly clean environment. Scraps of magnesium around those fuels is enough to start fast and HOT fires.Water or moisture around either fuels is enough to set them off- All but the Kerosene is extremely toxic, and volatile (particularly the red nitric acid-put a drop of water or moisture in it and see what happens).
The UMDH and nitrogen tetroxide combo was used in the Titan 2 missile (for those who saw the Gemini spacecraft launches, that's why the rocket exhaust was orange colored) and the kerosene and RIFNA combo was used by our Thor and early Delta space launches (red tinged rocket exhaust). We had problems with both fuel combos-and this stuff will find a weak weld and squirt right through it too. Did this launch make it as far as maximum Q? Stories indicate it came out of the launcher basically and exploded (mechanical/poor weld issue-added with these fuels and blewie!!!!) Thanks to God the DPRK welders are so poor...


QUOTE=Housecarl;6063942]Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missile-fail-idUSKCN0YM015

Business | Tue May 31, 2016 1:32am EDT
Related: World, South Korea, North Korea, Aerospace & Defense

Attempted North Korea missile launch fails: South Korea

SEOUL | By Ju-min Park


North Korea attempted to fire a missile from its east coast early on Tuesday but the launch appears to have failed, South Korean officials said, in what would be the latest in a string of unsuccessful ballistic missile tests by the isolated country.

The launch attempt took place at around 5:20 a.m. Seoul time (04:20 p.m. EDT), said the officials, who asked not to be identified, without elaborating.

Tension in Northeast Asia has been high since North Korea conducted its fourth nuclear test in January and followed that with a satellite launch and test launches of various missiles.

Japan put its military alert on Monday for a possible North Korean ballistic missile launch.

"We have no reports of any damage in Japan. We are gathering and analyzing data. The defense ministry is prepared to respond to any situation," Japanese Minister of Defence Gen Nakatani told a media briefing.

"North Korea shows no sign of abandoning the development of nuclear missiles and so we will continue to work closely with the U.S. and South Korea in response and maintain a close watch on North Korea," Nakatani said.

South Korea's Yonhap News Agency said it appeared North Korea had attempted to launch an intermediate-range Musudan missile. North Korea attempted three test launches of the Musudan in April, all of which failed, U.S. and South Korean officials have said.

Yonhap quoted a South Korean government source as saying the missile was likely to have exploded at about the time it lifted off from a mobile launcher.

The flurry of weapons technology tests this year came in the run-up to the first congress in 36 years of North Korea's ruling Workers' Party early this month, where young leader Kim Jong Un further consolidated his control.

Tuesday's attempted launch appears to have been its first missile test since then, and experts have said it was unusual to test-fire a missile so soon after a previous failure.

The South Korean military said Pyongyang's continuous missile launches could stem from Kim's order in March for further tests of nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles.

"They must've been in a rush. Maybe Kim Jong Un was very upset about the failures," said Lee Choon-geun, senior research fellow at South Korea's state-run Science and Technology Policy Institute.


REPEATED FAILURES

North Korea has never had a successful launch of the Musudan missile, which theoretically has the range to reach any part of Japan and the U.S. territory of Guam.

North Korea is believed to have roughly 20 to 30 Musudan missiles, according to South Korean media, which officials said were first deployed in around 2007.

"It could have cracks and something wrong with the welding," Lee said of possible causes for the latest failure. "But deployment before test-firing these to complete development seems unusual."

The attempted launch took place near the east coast city of Wonson, one of the South Korean officials said, the same area where previous Musudan tests had taken place.

Separately, Japan's Kyodo news agency reported on Tuesday that career diplomat Ri Su Yong, one of North Korea's highest-profile officials, would visit China on Tuesday.

There was no indication of any link between the latest failed missile launch and Ri's visit to China.

China is reclusive North Korea's only major ally but has been angered by Pyongyang's nuclear and missile tests and signed up to tough UN sanctions against the reclusive country.

Ri was North Korea's foreign minister until he was named a member of the politburo during the recent Workers' Party congress.


(Additional reporting by Vincent Lee in SEOUL, Tim Kelly in TOKYO and Ben Blanchard in BEIJING; Writing by Tony Munroe; Editing by Paul Tait)[/QUOTE]

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/the-african-surge-into-europe/article30210771/

The African surge into Europe

Margaret Wente
The Globe and Mail
Published Tuesday, May 31, 2016 5:00AM EDT
Last updated Tuesday, May 31, 2016 11:32AM EDT
Comments 207

Last month I stumbled across what must be the most poignant shrine in Sicily. It consists of a few rough planks of wood, painted red and blue – all that’s left of a primitive boat filled with migrants desperate to reach the Promised Land. You can see it in the great baroque church in Noto. What became of the people is unknown.

Last week, tragedy struck again as more than 700 people drowned in the sea between Libya and Sicily. Wrenching pictures showed people spilling into the water as their overcrowded hulks capsized.

Why do they risk their lives? Because they’re betting they’ll be rescued before they die. They know their boats are death traps. They also know the rescue ships are bound by law to deliver them to Europe. Migrants told one reporter that the trafficker had given them the phone number of a rescue service to call as soon as they were in international waters.

Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi kept a lid on the people-smuggling trade. But after Hillary Clinton and her European allies knocked him out in a burst of do-gooder interventionism, no one could stop the smugglers. Now that the Balkan route is shut, Libya has become the main migration route to Europe. Just last week, 13,000 people were rescued and delivered to Italian shores. Last year, Italy saw more than 150,000 migrants arrive by sea, according to the UN refugee agency. Three hundred thousand or more could arrive this year, according to some estimates.

This is a different kind of migration than the one that shocked the conscience of the world last year. These people aren’t fleeing for their lives, as were refugees from the Syrian war or conflict in Afghanistan. Almost all are Africans, from Gambia, Eritrea, Ghana, Niger, Nigeria. The vast majority are young men. Quite a few are unaccompanied minors, whose families believe they have a better chance of being taken in because they are legally children.

European leaders have no idea how to cope with the latest surge. Their response has been the usual combination of blame shifting, buck passing, and refusal to face the facts.

The African migrants are allowed to apply for refugee status in Italy, but few will succeed. Most will be sent to overflowing “reception centres,” where they will be fed and housed for at least a year while their claims are processed. Some will be summarily rejected and ordered to leave the country right away. But no one enforces the deportation orders, and no one keeps track of the failed claimants. Most head north in search of better opportunities. Until recently, many of them left the country to become someone else’s problem.

But now, they’re blocked. Germany has told Italy to stop sending migrants. Austria even threatened to build a wall at the Brenner Pass if Italy can’t stop the flow. Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi said such a move would be a “flagrant breach of European rules,” which is certainly correct but probably beside the point.

Italy’s latest migrant wave could set off a national crisis. Much of the country is in a near-permanent recession. And Italians feel as if the wars and unrest and the relentless population pressures of the Middle East and Africa are right on their doorstep. Imagine that you’re sitting in Canada and hundreds of thousands of people – unskilled, semi-literate, culturally very different, demanding food, shelter, health care and permanent residency – were expected to pour into the country this year. That’s the way Italians feel.

Lots of people believe that part of the solution lies in helping to improve African economies so that the would-be migrants would stay home. Mr. Renzi and German Chancellor Angela Merkel want Europe to offer financial incentives to stimulate economic development. A billion euros might help, Ms. Merkel says. But nobody agrees on who should pay. And it’s difficult to imagine that even generous bribes would do the trick. The human-smuggling business, enabled by cellphone technology, is hugely profitable. And the allure of Europe’s wealth is extremely strong.

Ironically, the great migration from Africa is only possible because people are no longer desperately poor. Millions of people are now able to scrape together the few thousand dollars they need to buy their way to Europe. Meanwhile, the population of Africa is exploding. By 2050, it is expected to double to 2.4 billion people, roughly four times the size of Europe.

Europe’s current migrant problem, in other words, is just a taste of things to come.

-

More Related to this Story

• More than 700 migrants died trying to reach Italy in past week, UN says

• MIGRANT CRISIS Italian coast guard rescues 4,000 migrants in single day

• Teta Bayan I was bumped from speaking to the House. I need to say this: Migrant workers need better rights

___


For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...spreading-to-english-channel/article30219213/

Britain fears Mediterranean migrant crisis spreading to English Channel

PAUL WALDIE - EUROPEAN CORRESPONDENT
The Globe and Mail
Published Tuesday, May 31, 2016 2:16PM EDT
Last updated Tuesday, May 31, 2016 4:03PM EDT
Comments 76

Britain is facing growing concerns that the migrant crisis that has gripped the Mediterranean could spread to the English Channel.

In the past few days, two small boats carrying 35 Albanians have landed on British beaches, including one inflatable boat that had to be rescued last Saturday after it started to sink off the coast of Dover. Another inflatable boat, which officials believe was used by migrants, was found near Dover on Sunday. All of the migrants have been taken to immigration centres and police detained three British men on charges of people smuggling.

The migrants are believed to be from Calais, France, where thousands of people from conflict countries such as Syria, Afghanistan and Libya have been living in makeshift camps for months as they try to get to Britain. There are fears that a recent crackdown to stop them from trying to board trains has led some to attempt the dangerous journey by boat. The channel is just 32 kilometres across but it is a busy shipping lane and the weather can make crossing treacherous for small boats.

“In the last two weeks we’ve suddenly had loads and loads of refugees because the weather has improved and they are coming across in boats,” said Martyn Underhill, the police and crime commissioner for the Dorset region, which runs along the south coast. “It’s a matter of time before we have a refugee drowning in our English Channel.”

Mr. Underhill and others blame cuts to border security measures in recent years by the government. He pointed out that Britain’s Border Force has just three patrol ships to cover 7,000 miles of coastline. The government has also focused largely on security issues at airports and the channel tunnel railway. “There is no security in small English ports and that is our weakest link and that is why we are exposed,” he said.

A report by the National Crime Agency released last month said migrants were paying up to £10,000 each, or $19,000, to cross the Channel and they were seeking new routes to quieter ports that have lower security. The NCA also said much of the trafficking involved organized crime.

The Home Office, which includes border protection, played down concerns about ports earlier this year after a report by the Independent Chief Inspector raised concerns about drug trafficking and people smuggling through the country’s airports and sea ports. “The risk of people smuggling into the U.K. via [sea] is not currently assessed as being significant, however we remain vigilant to changes in methods and the measures outlined will strengthen our response should the risk picture change,” the Home Office said at the time.

This week, the government’s tune changed and the Home Office said it was pursuing a number of new measures to address maritime people smuggling. That includes giving Border Force officers powers to board, divert and detain vessels as well as to arrest anyone suspected of people smuggling. The government has also said it will deploy six new patrol boats and set up three maritime co-ordination hubs across the country to track “a range of threats on the U.K. coastline.”

The arrival of the Albanians has also become an issue in the campaign for the June 23 referendum on whether Britain should leave the European Union. The Vote Leave campaign has seized on the migrants as proof Britain can’t properly control its borders as part of the EU.

“We have all seen the horrors of the Mediterranean, with thousands crossing and hundreds dying. We cannot allow that to happen off the shores of Kent and Sussex,” Nigel Farage, leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party and a leading campaigner for Brexit, said. “We must not make the same mistake as the EU has done over the Mediterranean situation.”

The Remain side has argued sufficient resources are being put in place to combat people smuggling. And they say co-operation with the French over migrants would be harder outside the EU.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thecipherbrief.com/article/asia/new-era-us-japan-security-partnership-1093

A New Era in the U.S.-Japan Security Partnership

May 31, 2016 | Fritz Lodge

Last Friday, Barack Obama became the first sitting U.S. President to visit Hiroshima after the city was destroyed by an American atomic bomb on August 6 1945. Although the President did not apologize for the act, he did use the occasion to advocate nuclear nonproliferation, mourning the day when “a flash of light and a wall of fire… demonstrated that mankind possessed the means to destroy itself.”

However, this long-anticipated gesture of goodwill is more than just a platform for the nuclear issue or recognition of a past tragedy. As Japan expands its Self Defense Forces and inches ever closer to revising a 70-year old Constitutional ban on maintaining an offensive military, the President’s visit may also mark a new era in America’s alliance with its most important security partner in East Asia.

The significance of this new era is enhanced by the intimate role that the U.S has played in shaping Japanese military policy. Article 9 itself, the keystone of Japan’s “Peace Constitution,” was written by an American-led drafting committee to address fears that Japan might rise again to threaten U.S. interests. However, after the Korean War began in June 1950, Cold War priorities quickly snuffed out those fears and American policymakers began to pressure the reluctant Japanese Prime Minister, Yoshida Shigeru, to rebuild the country’s armed forces.

In Prime Minister Nobosuke Kishi – Shinzo Abe’s grandfather – the U.S. found a more willing military partner. By 1960, he had negotiated revisions to the U.S.-Japan Mutual Security Treaty, which offered new base concession to the U.S. and loosened the restrictions on Japanese remilitarization. However, this deal sparked the Anpo Toso “Anti-Security Treaty Struggle,” some of the largest mass protests in Japanese history. The treaty revisions eventually passed, but the protests were so large that President Dwight Eisenhower was forced to cancel his trip to the country. The Kishi government fell soon after, and the issue of security policy became so toxic that, for the next 30 years, it received almost no public mention in Japanese politics.

Today, however, the political tide has clearly turned. Once a token force, the Japanese Self Defense Forces (JSDF) have quietly developed into a sizable military over the past two decades. Since Abe returned to office in 2012, that expansion has accelerated quickly. In 2013, the Abe government increased Japan’s military budget for the first time in 11 years – by 0.7 percent to $46 billion. Purchase orders for weapons systems like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the V-22 Osprey, previously considered too offense-oriented to be legal, have upgraded the JSDF’s operational capability. And the reversal of a ban on military exports in 2014 has fueled a burgeoning Japanese defense industry.

Most importantly, the Abe government has energetically expanded interpretations of Article 9 to bypass Constitutional limits on security policy. In December 2013, the Abe government published Japan’s first National Security Strategy and created an executive body similar to the U.S. National Security Council. In April 2015, Tokyo signed a new bilateral security agreement with the U.S. called the Joint Defense Guidelines, which expanded Japan’s role in the alliance and, in March of this year, the government expanded the interpretation of Article 9 to include the concept of “Collective Self-Defense,” allowing the JSDF to aid foreign allies. Although efforts to revise Article 9 itself have slowed in the face of public and political opposition, these reforms have met with far less resistance than they would have less than ten years ago. How to explain this national change of heart?

For one thing, the strength of the Japanese peace movement, which arose out of the Anpo Toso protests, rested on three main pillars: painful personal memories of World War II, resentment over the proliferation of U.S. bases in Japan, and widespread opposition to nuclear weapons. These issues are no longer so relevant today. Members of the war generation have begun to die off, the so-called “Realignment of Force Posture in Japan” has reduced the visibility of American forces in the country, and the U.S. no longer tests nuclear weapons in the Pacific – a practice that was extremely unpopular in Japan.

However, the real elephant in the room is China. Although polling indicates that the Japanese public remains generally opposed to military expansion, only seven percent of Japanese have a favorable view of their western neighbor. As Beijing pours money into defense – albeit at lower levels than past years – and tensions continue to simmer over the disputed Senkaku-Diaoyu islands, many Japanese feel that a purely defensive military may not be enough to keep their country secure. Of course, there are dangers to this path. Professor at the Pardee School of International Relations and Cipher Brief expert Thomas Berger writes that “many Japanese strategists worry that as the [military] balance of power continues to shift, Beijing may be tempted to take more direct action, such as landing ‘patriotic fishermen’ or even military personnel on the [Senkaku] islands.”

For the United States, Japan’s return to military normality represents an opportunity. First, in operational terms, greater flexibility for the JSDF has allowed Japanese forces to deploy troops abroad and engage more actively in U.S.-led training exercises and strengthen their joint command capabilities. Second, writes Associate Director of the RAND Center for Asia Pacific Policy and Cipher Brief expert Scott Harold, Japan’s security reforms are “empowering it to play a more active role in shaping the regional Indo-Asia-Pacific security environment in ways that are stability-enhancing.” At the end of the day, after 71 years, Tokyo feels ready to return to normality. President Obama’s trip has helped further salve painful legacies of war and occupation while enhancing Japan’s new era of security relations with the U.S.

Fritz Lodge is an International Producer with The Cipher Brief.


Related Articles

Nuclear Deterrence and Assurance in East Asia
Will Edwards

Cybersecurity Challenges in Asia
Will Edwards

Stability in the East China Sea
Alexandra Viers

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm.....So how long to this reversing all the battering and denting of saber scabbards that's emanating out of Brussels?....


For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.spiegel.de/international...-an-easing-of-russia-sanctions-a-1094585.html

SPIEGEL ONLINE
05/30/2016 06:12 PM

Step-by-Step Rapprochement

Germany Considers Easing of Russia Sanctions

Standing tough on Russia remains official policy, but Germany has begun working on the careful easing of sanctions imposed following Moscow's aggression in Ukraine. The US is opposed, but many in the EU could support the new approach. By SPIEGEL Staff

With the Wednesday evening sun shining in his face, German Economics Minister Sigmar Gabriel is standing at the entrance to the HanseMesse convention center in the northern German city of Rostock. He's surrounded by cardboard sandwich boards displaying the center's motto: "Where the world comes together." Today, the sentence is half true at best: The world isn't coming together in Rostock, rather German and Russian business leaders are converging here. It is the second "Russia Day" and Gabriel is the keynote speaker.

The focus of the gathering is on business, but when Russia is involved, politics are never far away. Even Gabriel's appearance sends a political message, as is his demonstratively friendly treatment of Russia's industry minister -- not to mention the first sentence he speaks into the microphone: "Isolation is not at all helpful."

Later in his speech, Gabriel expands on that sentiment, saying isolation is not a tenable policy and that only continued dialogue is helpful. He says that Russia has recently shown that it can be a reliable partner and mentions the nuclear deal with Iran as an example. He says that Russia and the world are dependent on each other -- and that the time has come for a step-by-step easing of sanctions.

Gabriel voiced a similar message prior to the most recent extension of the sanctions against Russia. Nothing came of it then, but things could be different this time.

As expected, G-7 leaders reiterated their hardline approach to Moscow in the Japan summit's closing statement. Chancellor Angela Merkel complained last Thursday that there still isn't a stable cease-fire in Ukraine and the law pertaining to local elections in eastern Ukraine, as called for by the Minsk Protocol, still hasn't been passed. That, she said, is why "it is not to be expected" that the West will change its approach to Russia.

What Merkel didn't say, though, is that behind the scenes, her government has long since developed concrete plans for a step-by-step easing of the sanctions against Russia and that the process could begin as early as this year.

Thus far, the message has been that the trade and travel restrictions will only be lifted once all the provisions foreseen by the Minsk Protocol have been fulfilled. One-hundred percent in return for 100 percent.

Now, however, Berlin is prepared to make concessions to Moscow -- on the condition that progress is made on the Minsk process. "My approach has always been that sanctions are not an end in themselves. When progress is made on the implementation of the Minsk Protocol, we can also then talk about easing sanctions," says Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier.

Chancellery Changing Course

The Chancellery also supports the new approach. Thus far, it was the Social Democrats that were particularly vocal about rapprochement with Russia. Led by Economics Minister Gabriel, the SPD is Merkel's junior coalition partner. While Steinmeier, also a senior SPD member, has never explicitly demanded the easing of sanctions, he has long supported Russia's return to the G-7. Merkel, by contrast, had always maintained a hard line. Now, though, the Chancellery also appears to be changing course.

The plan is to lift initial sanctions in return for Moscow's cooperation on planned local elections in eastern Ukraine. Berlin is not looking at lifting those financial sector penalties that are particularly painful to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Nor is there a willingness to revisit the sanctions imposed in response to Russia's annexation of the Crimean Peninsula. But eliminating travel restrictions imposed on certain select individuals, such as members of the Russian parliament, could be considered. Another approach under examination is that of simply reducing the interval for extending the sanctions from six months to three months.

Berlin's argument is that, in a Europe where those in favor of sanctions and those opposed to sanctions are drifting ever further apart, it is necessary to find a way to keep the EU on the same page. Two weeks ago, Steinmeier warned that, with Brussels set to vote on an extension of the penalties soon, resistance to doing so is growing within Europe. It is becoming more difficult, he said, to arrive at a uniform EU position on the issue, which is necessary since the sanctions extension must be passed unanimously. The German line is that Putin must not be given the impression that he can divide the EU.

"The highest priority is that of preserving the EU consensus," says Gernot Erler of the SPD, who is the German government's special coordinator for Russia policy. "If we have to pay a price for that, we should be prepared to do so. The worst outcome would be the disintegration of European unity and the EU losing its role."

In Brussels, the European Council, the powerful body representing the leaders of the 28 EU member states, and the European Commission, the EU executive, are staying firm officially: Only after the Minsk Protocol has been 100 percent fulfilled can sanctions be lifted. That is the approach passed unanimously last year and extended for six months last December.

European Council President Donald Tusk said last Thursday at the G-7 in Japan that he was "quite sure" that a decision to renew the sanctions would be made "in the next two or three weeks without huge discussions." Tusk is opposed to putting the issue on the agenda for the EU summit scheduled for the end of June, preferring instead to have sanctions discussed by EU ambassadors in Brussels.

Questioning the Sanctions Regime

But more and more EU member states have begun questioning the strict penalty regime, particularly given that it hasn't always been the Russians who have blocked the Minsk process. Despite Tusk's apparent optimism, indications are mounting that getting all 28 EU members to approve the extension of the sanctions at the end of June might not be quite so simple. Berlin has received calls from concerned government officials whose governments have become increasingly skeptical of the penalties against Russia but have thus far declined to take a public stance against them.

Members of some governments, though, have very clearly indicated that they are not interested in extending the sanctions in their current stringent form. Austrian Vice Chancellor Reinhold Mitterlehner is among the skeptics as is French Economics Minister Emmanuel Macron. So too are officials from Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal.

Hungary has been particularly outspoken. Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said last Wednesday following a meeting with his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov in Budapest that his country would not accept an automatic extension of the sanctions regime. Hungarian exports to Russia have collapsed as a result of the penalties, a problem experienced by the Czech Republic and other Eastern European countries as well.

Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi is another EU leader who has long been critical of the EU's approach to Russia. Renzi is bothered by the fact that his country has suffered economic losses as a result of the sanctions while Germany has continued working together with Russia on the Nordstream Pipeline across the Baltic Sea. Italy, the EU's third largest economy, is one of Russia's largest trading partners in Europe.

The mood is changing in France as well. At the end of April, the French parliament adopted a non-binding resolution calling for the end of the penalties imposed on Moscow. One of the reasons cited was that French farmers are suffering the consequences. Sanctions critics also argue that Moscow is a necessary partner when it comes to pacifying Syria and that constantly keeping Russia at arm's length is counterproductive.

The Netherlands, which currently holds the rotating EU presidency, is in a difficult situation. In an April referendum, the Dutch voted against the planned European Union association agreement with Ukraine. The issue wasn't directly related to the issue of Russian sanctions, but some have interpreted it as a pro-Russian vote. Since then, the Dutch government has been acting extremely carefully.

Meanwhile, Great Britain, Poland and the Baltic countries are leading the opposition to any relaxation of the sanctions in place against Russia. But a possible compromise is in the works. Poland and the three Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania could agree to a step-by-step easing of the sanctions were more NATO troops to be stationed in those countries. Such an arrangement would allow both camps to save face.

'A Dangerous Precedent'

It is certain, however, that Berlin's plans will not be particularly well received on the other side of the Atlantic. "The sanctions against Russia should only be lifted once the Protocol is comprehensively implemented," says US Ambassador to Germany John B. Emerson. "A modification would not send a strong message. It could become a dangerous precedent."

Part of the rationale for holding out the prospect of easing sanctions is that of providing Moscow with an incentive to finally focus on making progress on Minsk. Putin holds a significant amount of influence over separatists in the Donbass region of eastern Ukraine. Were the Russian president to convince them to finally allow elections there, and if the OSCE were to confirm that they were free and fair, the penalties currently in place could be eased.

For that to happen, though, Ukraine must pass a new election law. Recently, there has been some progress made toward that end. Whereas the Ukrainian government and the separatists had been negotiating the new law directly, Russia is now also a party to the talks and has been exerting influence on the separatists. At the same time, hold-ups on the Ukrainian side have decreased in the wake of Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk's April resignation. If the new election law could be passed by the end of June and if uncontested elections were held soon thereafter, the process of easing sanctions could begin as early as this fall.

The minimal lifting of sanctions with strict conditions attached would be an attempt to improve relations with Russia without returning to normality -- and without sending Putin the message that the West has resigned itself to Russia's annexation of Crimea and its destabilization of eastern Ukraine. That, at least, is the hope. But there are dangers: Putin could interpret the move as a weakness and as a sign that the West is not unified enough to stand up to his aggression.

Mistrust remains extreme on both sides, as does frustration. Putin's military provocations have made the present the most dangerous period since the end of the Cold War. NATO, meanwhile, is planning to pass a resolution at its early July summit that will provide for an expansion of the alliance's presence in Eastern Europe -- a move that Russia is certain to interpret as a provocation.

At the same time, though, the West has shown an interest in increased dialogue with Moscow after an extended period of virtual silence. The most obvious signal is the reactivation of the NATO-Russia Council, which -- largely at the behest of German Foreign Minister Steinmeier -- will soon meet for a second time at the ambassador level.

Meaningless Dialogue?

Discussion, though, is taking place at all levels. Contacts that were considered unthinkable until recently are now being rebuilt. In early April, for example, a group of German parliamentarians from Merkel's conservatives, Gabriel's SPD and the Left Party came together in Moscow with Sergei Naryshkin as part of a conference held by the German-Russian Forum. Naryshkin is chairman of the Duma, Russia's parliament, and is on the EU sanctions list. A further encounter with Naryshkin is planned ahead of the mid-July meeting of the Petersburg Dialogue, the bilateral discussion forum aimed at promoting exchange between Russian and German civil society. The session is to take place in St. Petersburg and keynote speaker on the German side will be Hamburg Mayor Olaf Scholz, an indication that the controversial dialogue platform is once again receiving high-level backing.

There has also been a series of meetings with Russian parliamentarians in Germany in recent weeks. At a mid-May event organized by the Aspen Institute, lawmakers from Russia, the US and Germany participated in a confidential meeting outside of Berlin. Shortly thereafter, the Club of Three, a German-French-British dialogue platform, met in Berlin for talks with Russian counterparts.

But without political rapprochement, such dialogues are meaningless. Furthermore, participants say they often don't go beyond the exchange of hardened positions with very little mutual understanding on display. Indeed, the Russian side has already indicated that talking is not sufficient, a message consistent with Moscow's extreme self-confidence since the beginning of Putin's intervention in Syria.

As such, Berlin's new approach to Russia is not without risk. Indeed, even if the EU agrees collectively to pursue such a course in relation to Moscow, there is a danger that Russia will simply reject it as being too little, too late.

By Matthias Gebauer, Christiane Hoffmann, Peter Müller, Ruben Rehage, Michael Sauga and Christoph Schult


URL:
http://www.spiegel.de/international...-an-easing-of-russia-sanctions-a-1094585.html


Related SPIEGEL ONLINE links:
The Russian Threat: NATO Struggles to Recover after Years of Budget Cuts (05/24/2016)
http://www.spiegel.de/international...r-potential-threat-from-russia-a-1093358.html
Moscow's Fifth Column: German Populists Forge Ties with Russia (04/27/2016)
http://www.spiegel.de/international...-forge-deeper-ties-with-russia-a-1089562.html
Vibrant, Noisy and Booming: Welcome to the New Moscow (04/22/2016)
http://www.spiegel.de/international...ity-of-life-and-the-new-moscow-a-1088013.html
Third Republic: Germany Enters a Dangerous New Political Era (03/08/2016)
http://www.spiegel.de/international...sis-has-change-german-politics-a-1081023.html
The Hybrid War: Russia's Propaganda Campaign Against Germany (02/05/2016)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/putin-wages-hybrid-war-on-germany-and-west-a-1075483.html

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-north-korea-nuclear-commentary-idUSKCN0YM2I7

Tue May 31, 2016 3:56pm EDT

Commentary: How long before North Korea can nuke a U.S. city?

By Peter Apps

It’s the near future, and North Korea’s regime is on the brink of collapse. As rumors swirl of palace coups, forces on both sides of the world’s most militarized border are on heightened alert. The U.S. military faces a much bigger problem. Somewhere in the Pacific, a North Korean submarine is believed to be carrying nuclear warheads and the missiles to deliver them. And nobody knows where it is.

It sounds like the plot of a “Hunt for Red October”-style technothriller. But if Pyongyang’s technicians continue at their current pace, experts say it is becoming ever more likely.

One thing is certain: North Korea is plowing considerable resources into building its nuclear capability. And it is clearly making progress – even if Tuesday’s failed missile test shows it still has a long way to go.

Japanese officials said what appeared to be a conventional Musudan rocket, which theoretically has the ability to reach Japan and the U.S. territory and military base of Guam, exploded either as or shortly after it left its launcher. North Korea is estimated to have some 20 to 30 of the missiles – first deployed in 2007, but yet to be launched successfully.

What North Korean leader Kim Jong Un wants, most analysts believe, is simple – a rocket that can fire a nuclear warhead at least to regional targets. His ultimate ambition, however, is to be able to hit U.S. cities on the West Coast, most likely from a submarine that could hide itself at sea.

North Korea has been steadily improving its rockets – which can also carry conventional explosives – for decades. It detonated its first nuclear device in 2006 but most experts believe it has yet to build one small enough to be placed on a missile. Having the credible ability to do all of that and get the missiles to sea could take well over a decade, perhaps considerably more.

Once it happens, however, it will be a strategic game changer. At worst, U.S. cities on the West Coast would have to deal with the prospect, however remote, that they might be struck by a North Korean atomic weapon. At the very least, a North Korea armed with nuclear submarines would hugely complicate the calculus for any U.S. president handling a crisis on the Korean peninsula itself.

That, of course, is exactly the plan.

The fact that Pyongyang has conducted so many tests this year, some experts believe, suggests Kim is pushing his scientists harder than ever to deliver working rockets and warheads. North Korea is believed to have tagged the expertise of Russian Cold War-era scientists, and while its capabilities on both fronts lag well behind established nuclear states such as Russia and China, it is already believed to be well ahead of Iran.

In April, South Korean and U.S. officials said a North Korean submarine successfully launched a ballistic missile that traveled some 18 miles -- a major step forward.

Technical experts say TV footage appeared to show a solid fuel rocket successfully launching from underwater, essentially the same system used by Western forces to achieve the same goal.

When she testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in April, the incoming head of the U.S. Northern Command – responsible for defending the mainland United States – delivered a stark warning.

"The North Korean threat is real," U.S. Air Force General Lori Robinson – previously head of U.S. air forces in the Pacific – told lawmakers. "For now, it's a medium range but they are trying very hard to be able to hit the homeland."

It’s impossible to know exactly how much money and expertise the North Koreans are expending. The scale of the effort, however, is seen as large – in many ways, the same level of commitment the United States gave to the Manhattan Project to build the world’s first atomic bomb during World War Two. Pyongyang’s reason is clear: building that kind of credible ability to strike is seen as central to the long-term survival of the Kim dynasty and its ruling party.

Earlier this month, at the first meeting of its ruling party in 36 years, Kim said North Korea was a responsible nuclear weapons state and would never use its weapons – unless it were threatened. That seemed a clear warning to outside powers, particularly Washington, to steer clear of any attempts to destabilize or attack the regime.

Getting a submarine-based deterrent would be a very big deal – and not just because it might allow the North Koreans to move the launch point much closer to the target. Submarines are central to what nuclear weapons states call a “second strike” capability, the ability to launch missiles even in the aftermath of an overwhelming and perhaps surprise preemptive attack.

The United States, Russia, Britain and France all retain what they call a “continuous at sea deterrent,” at least one submarine offshore at all times ready to fight back even if the homeland and all other military forces are completely taken out. Israel is also believed to have the ability to mount nuclear cruise missiles on its Dolphin-class conventional submarines, while China is now moving quickly towards new ballistic missile submarines for its own at sea deterrent.

This technology isn’t new – the United States and Russia developed it in the late 1950s based in part on plans originally developed to hit Nazi German U-boats in the dying days of World War Two. There is no good reason it should not eventually work for North Korea, too.

If and when it does, Pyongyang is likely to try to keep its submarines very close to its coasts—and its home defenses--at first. Still, once the first nuclear-armed submarine exists, Japan and the United States might feel political pressure to destroy it.

That would come with considerable risks. The North is known to have huge volumes of conventional artillery based along the South Korean border, much of it in range of Seoul and its 10 million residents. The risk of those weapons inflicting massive casualties is one of the key factors that has deterred multiple U.S. administrations from considering the kind of preemptive strike on Pyongyang’s weapons programs that the United States has threatened against Iran.

The Korean War – frozen by its 1953 cease-fire but never otherwise resolved – may not be over yet.



(Peter Apps is Reuters global affairs columnist, writing about international affairs, globalization, conflict and other issues. He is also founder and executive director of the Project for Study of the 21st Century; PS21; a non-national, non-partisan, non-ideological think tank operating in London, New York and Washington. Before that, he spent 12 years as a reporter for Reuters covering defense, political risk and emerging markets. Since 2016, he has also been an officer in the British Army Reserve. Follow Peter Apps on Twitter)