Report on MH 17, Shot Down at Russia/Ukraine Border

Posted on by

Anyone remember this tragedy that killed 283 passengers? German intelligence, the Ukraine government, the Dutch Safety Board, the Russian government all have a hand in the investigation. Who did order the BUK missile to shoot the plane down? Any consequences or reparations?

   

MH17 – Potential Suspects and Witnesses from the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade

Bellingcat: The report can be downloaded here stock_save_pdf

This report, MH17: Potential Suspects and Witnesses from the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade, presents information regarding the Russian brigade that we believe provided, and possibly operated, the Buk-M1 missile launcher that downed Malaysian Airlines Flight 17. In this post, we will summarize the role of the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade and “Buk 3×2” in the downing of MH17 before providing a summary of the report. At the bottom of this post, an index is provided of Bellingcat’s previously published major research projects on the MH17 disaster.

Introduction

From June 23 to 25, 2014, Russia’s 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade transported several Buk-M1 anti-aircraft missile systems to areas near the Russia-Ukraine border. Bellingcat has extensively covered this convoy of military vehicles over the past year and a half, including numerous reports on the 53rd Brigade’s most notable piece of cargo: Buk 3×2, the missile launcher that we believe downed MH17. You can trace the 53rd Brigade’s journey from its base in Kursk, Russia to near the Russia-Ukraine border on Storymap, through which you can watch the videos and photographs in which the convoy, including Buk 3×2, are captured.

There is no direct evidence indicating if it was Russian or separatist soldiers who operated Buk 3×2 when it was in Ukraine. However, considering the complexity of the Buk-M1 system, it is most likely that the Russian military did not transfer a Buk missile launcher to separatist commanders without some guidance or a Russian crew. In the likely case that the Buk 3×2 did come with a Russian crew, it is almost certain that they were from the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade, which was deployed at the border throughout the summer of 2014.

Bellingcat has published numerous reports indicating our confidence that the Buk-M1 system that most likely downed MH17 was the Russian Buk 3×2. In the six available photographs and videos of the Buk-M1 missile launcher in Donetsk, Zuhres, Luhansk, Torez, and Snizhne on the day of and after the airliner’s downing, numerous features on the Buk match uncommon features found on Buk 3×2. Many of these features can be seen in this comparison between Buk 3×2 (in Russia, June 2014) and the Buk seen in Donetsk, Ukraine on the day of the tragedy:

 

There are numerous other features on Buk 3×2 that match the Buk seen in eastern Ukraine on July 17 and 18, 2014 that indicate that it is definitely a Russian Buk, and more specifically 3×2. These features include:

  • H-2200 mark on the left side (a load-bearing code used in railways, and extremely common on Russian equipment, with only a few examples of it seen on Ukrainian tanks and none on Buks)
  • Cross hair symbol (gravity mark) next to H-2200, meant for stabilizing while loading onto railways
  • Visible unit designation, with a likely “3”, an obscured middle digit, and fairly clear “2”
  • Distinct marks on hull and side-skirt
  • Side-skirt damage pattern
  • Distinct white mark on right side-skirt, visible in July 18 Luhansk video and a June 23 video in Alexeyevka, Russia (see comparison here). The same white mark is visible on the other side skirt below the H-2200 mark, as seen in the above comparison video.

Summary of Report

The report contains five sections, each covering a different aspect of the 53rd Brigade and its activities in the summer of 2014.

The first section, “The 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade,” describes the role of the brigade within the Russian military and its structure, including the unit designations of Buk-M1 systems within the brigade.

The second section, “Mobilization of the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade,” provides a detailed account of the deployment of the brigade throughout the summer of 2014. By studying the makeup of the convoy that transported Buk-M1 systems from Kursk, Russia to near the Russia-Ukraine border on June 23-25, we have established that the 2nd Battalion of the 53rd Brigade was responsible for the transport of Buk 3×2. The missile launcher designated Buk 3×2 replaced the 2nd Battalion’s missile launcher numbered 222, thus indicating that the officers and soldiers normally responsible for Buk 222 were the most likely candidates to operate its replacement, Buk 3×2. This second section also details another convoy in which equipment from the 1st Battalion was transported in the days following the MH17 disaster.

The third section, “Soldiers of the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade,” details the soldiers within the 53rd Brigade and the information provided by their public postings on social media. The soldiers of the 2nd Battalion provided a wealth of information, including photographs and written notes, describing their time on the Russia-Ukraine border in June and July, 2014. More extensive details are provided regarding the soldiers who were normally responsible for the Buk missile launcher numbered 222, which was replaced by Buk 3×2, which we believe downed MH17. Additional details are provided on soldiers of the 1st and 3rd Battalions in order to demonstrate that they likely had no involvement or knowledge regarding the transfer or operation of Buk 3×2 in Ukraine. The identities of all of these soldiers have been anonymized in this public version of the report, with their names changed and faces blurred, though an uncensored version with their true identities has been provided to the Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team (JIT).

The fourth section, “Cadets at the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade,” describes a summer cadet training program at the Kursk base of the 53rd Brigade. Information provided by these cadets gives us additional understanding of the structure and operations of the brigade, in addition to ruling out numerous officers from any involvement with the MH17 disaster. The identities of all cadets have been anonymized, like with the soldiers in the previous section.

The final and most important section, “Commanders of the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade,” provides extensive information regarding the leadership structure of the brigade and battalion that provided and possibly operated the likely murder weapon in the downing of MH17. We provide partially anonymized information regarding 14 officers of the 2nd Battalion of the 53rd Brigade, including the commanders of the Buk unit vehicles within the battalion. Sergey Borisovich Muchkaev, the commander of the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade, is closely detailed, along with his superiors, including Aleksey Zolotov of the Air Defense of the 20th Guards Army and Andrey Kokhanov of the Air Defense of the Western Military District. Ultimately, responsibility for the downing of MH17 from a weapon provided and possibly operated by the Russian military lies with the Ministry of Defense and the Supreme Commander of the Russian Armed Forces, President Vladimir Putin.

Previous Major MH17 Investigations

Now China Deployed Fighter Jets to Disputed Islands

Posted on by

EXCLUSIVE: China sends fighter jets to contested island in South China Sea

FNC: EXCLUSIVE: In a move likely to further increase already volatile tensions in the South China Sea, China has deployed fighter jets to a contested island in the South China Sea, the same island where China deployed surface-to-air missiles last week, two U.S. officials tell Fox News.

The dramatic escalation comes minutes before Secretary of State John Kerry was to host his Chinese counterpart, Foreign Minister Wang Yi, at the State Department.

Chinese Shenyang J-11s (“Flanker”) and  Xian JH-7s (“Flounder”) have been seen by U.S. intelligence on Woody Island in the past few days, the same island where Fox News reported exclusively last week that China had sent two batteries of HQ-9 surface-to-air missiles while President Obama was hosting 10 Southeast Asian leaders in Palm Springs.

Wang was supposed to visit the Pentagon Tuesday, but the visit was canceled. It was not immediately clear which side canceled the visit. Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook said a “scheduling conflict” prevented the meeting, when asked by Fox News at Tuesday’s press briefing.

When asked about the earlier Fox News story in Beijing, Wang said the deployment of the missiles was for “defensive purposes.”

Woody Island is the largest island in the Paracel chain of islands in the South China Sea.  It lies 250 miles southeast of a major Chinese submarine base on Hainan Island. China has claimed Woody Island since the 1950s, but it is contested by Taiwan and Vietnam.

Ahead of Wang’s visit to Washington, a spokeswoman likened China’s military buildup on Woody Island to the U.S. Navy’s in Hawaii.

“There is no difference between China’s deployment of necessary national defense facilities on its own territory and the defense installation by the U.S. in Hawaii,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said Monday.

More than $5 trillion of worth of natural resources and goods transit the South China Sea each year.

Earlier Tuesday, the head of the U.S. military’s Pacific Command said China is “clearly militarizing” the South China Sea, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“You’d have to believe in a flat Earth to believe otherwise,” Admiral Harry Harris said.

China has sent fighter jets to Woody Island before. In November, Chinese state media published images showing J-11 fighter jets on the island, but this was the first deployment of fighter jets since the Chinese sent commercial airliners to test the runway at one of its artificial islands in the South China Sea.

The Pentagon sailed a guided-missile destroyer past a contested island in the South China Sea as a result.  Late last year, the U.S. military conducted a flight of B-52 bombers and another warship to conduct a “freedom of navigation” exercise.

The Chinese have protested the moves and vowed “consequences.”

On Monday, new civilian satellite imagery from CSIS showed a possible high frequency radar installation being constructed in late January.

The imagery shows radar installations on China’s artificial islands in the Spratley Island chain of reefs-Gaven, Hughes, Johnson South, and primarily on Cuarteron reefs—the outermost island in the South China Sea.

*** 

FNC: China apparently has been building radar facilities on some of the artificial islands it constructed in the South China Sea in a move to bolster its military power in the region, according to a report released Tuesday by a U.S.-based think tank.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) says the radars on the outposts of Gaven, Hughes, Johnson South and Cuarteron reefs in the disputed Spratly Islands “speak to a long-term anti-access strategy by China—one that would see it establish effective control over the sea and airspace throughout the South China Sea.”

The report was released one week after Fox News reported that China had deployed an advanced surface-to-air missile system as well as a radar system on Woody Island, part of the Paracel Island chain located north of the Spratlys.

The release of the report also coincides with the first day of a three-day visit to the U.S. by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, during which the issue of competing South China Sea claims is expected to be discussed, as well as North Korea’s latest nuclear test.

Hearing for Nominee to Replace Scalia? Nah

Posted on by

LETTER: ‘this Committee will not hold hearings on any Supreme Court nominee’ until 1/20/17

Republicans on Judiciary Committee Slam Door on Any Obama Supreme Court Nominee

DailySignal: All Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee promised Tuesday to block any candidate nominated by President Barack Obama to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

In an open letter to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, the 11 Republican senators said they plan “to exercise our constitutional authority to withhold consent on any nominee to the Supreme Court submitted by this president.”

Under the leadership of Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the group effectively has barred any Obama nominee to succeed Scalia from advancing to the Senate floor through the regular process.

After Scalia’s unexpected death Feb. 13, McConnell, R-Ky., and other GOP leaders quickly declared the Senate should not confirm anyone to fill the seat until after a new president takes office in January.

With the letter Tuesday, the 11 committee Republicans rallied to that position, writing:

Because our decision is based on constitutional principle and born of a necessity to protect the will of the American people, this committee will not hold hearings on any Supreme Court nominee until after our next president is sworn in on Jan. 20, 2017.

They said the current debate doesn’t present “a difficult or novel constitutional question.” As justification, they cited a statement made in 2005 by then-Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.:

“[The Constitution] says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote.”

Senate Democrats accuse Republican colleagues of a dereliction of their constitutional duty. Earlier Tuesday, Reid, now minority leader, called on Republicans to “do your job.”

He said: “Democrats [have] never stopped a Republican [Supreme Court] nominee from receiving a hearing and getting a vote on confirmation. Never.”

In their letter, the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee counter that there’s no modern historical precedent for the Senate to confirm a nominee during a year when the country casts ballots for the next president:

Not since 1932 has the Senate confirmed in a presidential election year a Supreme Court nominee to a vacancy arising in that year. And it is necessary to go even further back—to 1888—in order to find an election year nominee who was nominated and confirmed under divided government, as we have now.

Nine Democrats are on the Judiciary Committee, led by the ranking member, Rep. Patrick Leahy of Vermont.

Over the past 10 days, mostly while Congress was in recess, speculation mounted about a fracturing Republican conference when a few less conservative GOP senators said an Obama nominee should receive a committee hearing.

Hopes for that dimmed with the letter signed by Grassley and the 10 other Republican committee members: Orrin Hatch (Utah), Jeff Sessions (Ala.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), John Cornyn (Texas), Mike Lee (Utah), Ted Cruz (Texas), Jeff Flake (Ariz.), David Vitter (La.), David Perdue (Ga.) and Thom Tillis (N.C.).

If Republicans ultimately are successful at blocking an Obama nominee, the Supreme Court would operate without a full bench for at least 332 days, more than 10 months.

The eight justices then would not be joined by a ninth until the Senate confirms the nominee of Obama’s successor, who takes office Jan. 20.

Plan B for Gitmo? Plan A in Garbage Can

Posted on by

White House mum on Plan B after GOP rejects Gitmo plan

Examiner: A White House spokesman isn’t saying whether President Obama will try on his own to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in light of Republicans’ promise to ignore the closure plan he sent to Congress on Tuesday.

Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the administration wants to work with lawmakers on the details of closing down the facility built to hold suspected terrorists caught in the post-Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks dragnet. He underscored that Obama has already said that is his preference, rather than taking unilateral action.

“What we’re focused on right now is congressional consideration of a plan that they specifically asked for so that we can have a discussion about the best path forward,” Earnest said hours after the White House met the congressionally mandated deadline.

Earnest said the White House plan was lacking key details, such as where prisoners would be moved to, because Congress has barred the administration from spending money on seeking alternatives.

“What they have done thus far… is put in place barriers that have prevented the administration from moving forward,” Earnest lamented. “But by putting those barriers in place, they have led us down the path of a policy that wastes taxpayer dollars and makes the United States of America more vulnerable to terrorist organizations.”

Earnest said the immediate rejection of the administration’s plan by many Republicans is just the latest sign of the GOP’s unwillingness to work constructively on any issue.

“[T]here is this emerging trend … where Congress isn’t simply in a position of just saying, ‘No,'” he said. “Congress is actually refusing to engage … They’re refusing to do the basic function of their job,” Earnest said. He pointed to Republican intransigence on other matters, such as an authorization for use of military force against the self-proclaimed Islamic State, the president’s budget or expected inaction once he nominates someone to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

“They’re doing just about everything, except for fulfilling their basic constitutional responsibilities,” Earnest said.

****

BI: There’s nothing subtle about Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts’ reaction to President Obama’s idea to close the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Roberts literally threw it in the trash.

Pat RobertsVerified account ‏@SenPatRoberts 6h6 hours ago

., this is what I think of the “plan” to close and send terrorists to the United States.

***

Even Obama’s New Plan to Close Gitmo Can’t Say How It Will Happen

DailyBeast: The report states that detainees could be transferred to one of 13 U.S. other prisons, but it doesn’t say which ones. It also doesn’t explain how the administration calculated the $475 million price tag for building a new facility in the U.S. to hold detainees. Nor did it explain why moving detainees to U.S. soil reduce criticism across the world that the U.S. should stop holding such prisoners all together. Any construction of a new prison is unlikely to be completed in the next year, and any executive order would require funding and congressional approval. Moreover, none of the proposed costs associated with moving detainees to the U.S. are allocated in the current defense budget. For those reasons, the prison in Guantanamo is likely to remain open when Obama leave office in January 2017. Full article here.

Defense Department: The United States obtains two types of assurances from a receiving country: security assurances

(i.e., measures to sufficiently mitigate the threat posed by the detainee) and humane treatment

assurances (i.e., measures to ensure that the transfer comports with the U.S. Government’s

humane treatment policy). These assurances are obtained following consultations among

diplomatic, military, law enforcement, and intelligence professionals from the United States and

the receiving country.

This Administration works extensively with receiving governments to obtain their assurances

that appropriate security measures will be in place to substantially mitigate the risk that the

transferred individual will engage or reengage in any terrorist or other hostile activity that

threatens the United States or U.S. persons or interests. In particular, the Administration seeks

assurances from receiving governments that they will take certain security measures that, in the

U.S. Government’s experience, have proven to be effective in mitigating threats posed by former

detainees. The specific measures that are ultimately negotiated vary depending on a range of

factors, including the specific threat a detainee may pose, the geographic location of the

receiving country, the receiving country’s domestic laws, the receiving country’s capabilities and

resources, and, where applicable, the receiving country’s international legal obligations.

Importantly, the Administration will transfer a detainee only if it determines that the transfer is in

the national security interest of the United States, the threat posed by the detainee will be

substantially mitigated, and the transfer is consistent with our humane treatment policy. The

security assurances obtained from receiving countries generally cover:

  • restrictions on travel, which can include the denial of travel documents and other

measures to prevent transferred detainees from leaving the country (or specific cities or

regions in the country) for a specified period of time;

  • monitoring of the detainee, which may include physical and electronic monitoring, or

other measures available under the receiving country’s domestic laws;

  • periodic sharing of information concerning the individual with the U.S. Government,

including any information regarding attempts to travel outside of the receiving country;

and

  • other measures to satisfy the United States’ national security interests and to aid the

detainee in reentering society, such as medical support, skills training, language training,

enrollment of the detainee in a reintegration or rehabilitation program, family relocation,

and assistance in accessing a variety of public services.

 

In each case, the specific security assurances negotiated take into account the individual facts

and circumstances of the transfer, including the detainee’s specific threat profile, as well as the

capabilities and domestic legal authorities of the receiving government.

Approach to Transfers. Of the 147 detainees transferred during the current Administration: 81

have been transferred to countries in the Middle East, Africa, and the Arabian Peninsula; 47 have

been transferred to countries in Europe and Asia, 13 have been transferred to the Americas; and

6 have been transferred to the South Pacific. The Administration generally aims to transfer

detainees to their home countries. Where that is not feasible, the Administration seeks

resettlement opportunities in third countries. The Administration intends to continue working to

secure transfer and security commitments from countries around the world, including transfers to

rehabilitation programs, so long as these arrangements satisfy security and humane treatment

requirements.  Full Pentagon summary here.

 

Iran Winning Syria with $50 Billion?

Posted on by

Kerry: Iran is getting less than $50 billion in cash after nuclear deal

Reuters/BI: U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Tuesday that the amount of cash Iran will receive due to the implementation of the nuclear agreement is below the $50 billion level.

“It’s below the $50 billion (level),” he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, when he was asked about varying reports about how much money Iran would receive.

Iran gained access to about $100 billion in frozen assets when an international nuclear agreement was implemented last month, but much of it already was tied up because of debts and other commitments.

Earlier reports had said Tehran would receive as much as $150 billion.

Iran is on track to achieve its objectives in Syria

MEE: Iran has been able to create a large paramilitary base in Syria that aims to hold a few key areas, primarily Damascus. It doesn’t need Assad

The kinship between Iran and Syria dates back to the dawn of the victory of the Iranian Revolution in 1979. The unfailing relationship between the two states was formed not because Iranians were Shia Muslims and the Alawites, an offshoot of Shia Islam, were the dominant power in Syria.

Rather, it was because the two states had similar strategic security interests. They were both hostile toward, and threatened by, three powerful arch enemies: the United States, Israel and Iraq. In fact, the Syrian Baathist government was completely secular in nature, basically founded on Arab nationalism and pan-Arabism.

Perhaps the factor most responsible for the strategic bond between Iran and Syria was the two states’ hostility toward Israel. Syrians under the rule of Hafez al-Assad, the father of current Syria President Bashar al-Assad, were humiliated during the Six-Day War in 1967 and lost territory – the strategic Golan Heights – to Israel, which to this date remains under Israeli occupation. And since its inception, the Islamic Republic of Iran has, for a number of reasons, defined hostility toward Israel as one of the pillars of its foreign policy.

In the 1980s, the Hezbollah of Lebanon militia emerged. It was funded by Iran, and its forces were trained and organised by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Iran sought to change the balance of power in favour of the minority Shia in Lebanon and keep Israel’s unchallenged hegemony in the area in check.

Most importantly, Iran sought to utilise Hezbollah as a proxy force that would threaten the security of Israel in the context of a deterrence doctrine. This development gave Syria supreme strategic importance in its relationship with Iran, as Syria was able to provide safe passage through which weapons could be supplied to Hezbollah.

Iran’s doctrine of the creation of Hezbollah proved a success. During the so-called 33-Day War of Israel against Hezbollah in 2006, the militant group emerged as the only Arab military power able to counter and defeat Israeli aggression.

Then came the March 2011 pro-democracy protests that erupted throughout Syria. The Syrian government used violence to suppress demonstrations, and by 2012 the conflict had expanded into a fully fledged multi-sided armed conflict. The struggle drew numerous actors ranging from secular and jihadi Syrian opposition groups to foreign jihadists, as well as regional and international states.

As the war evolved in Syria, Iranians found themselves faced with major security threats: the rise of the anti-Shia Salafist group, Daesh (also known as ISIS, ISIL, and IS), and the involvement of its Sunni regional rivals, led by Saudi Arabia and Turkey, in the war, seeking wholeheartedly to topple Iran’s ally, President Bashar al-Assad. Assad’s collapse could be a monumental blow to Iran’s aforementioned deterrence doctrine against Israel which took them more than two decades to establish.

As the situation deteriorated and Assad lost grip on power and territory in Syria, Iran developed a two-fold strategy. The first aim was to prevent the establishment of an anti-Iran government – be it supported by the West or its regional rivals – that would rule the whole of Syria.

Iran’s support of Assad’s regime must be viewed in this context. In other words, by fiercely propping up Assad’s regime, modelled after what they accomplished in Lebanon and Iraq, Iran seeks to convince the world that it cannot be ignored in any future power-sharing in Syria through the participation of its allies. The second aim is to establish its own stronghold in Syria, given that Assad’s fall is an inevitability.

To materialise the first strategic objective, Iran heavily invested in Syria. Staffan de Mistura, the UN special envoy to Syria, has been quoted as saying that he estimates that Iran spends $6 billion annually on Assad’s government. Some researchers estimate that “Iran spent between $14 and $15 billion in military and economic aid to the Damascus regime in 2012 and 2013.”

To achieve the second objective, Iran organised the paramilitary National Defence Forces (NDF), which, according to some reports, is by far the largest militia network in Syria. IRGC officials are explicit about their active role in the creation of the NDF. According to some independent reports, there are an estimated 100,000 National Defence Force fighters under arms in Syria.

In this respect, Iran primarily counts on two groups. The first is the Alawites, whom Iran has supported during this bloody multi-actor war. Given that 74 percent of the Syrian population is Sunni, the Alawite religious group logically became the natural client of Iran, as Iranians are seen as their sole protector against the Sunni majority and their backers.

The second group includes a number of smaller but highly religiously motivated militias that fight wars in defence of the Shia ideology, chief among them The National Ideological Resistance in Syria (NIR – in Arabic: al-muqawama al-wataniya al-‘aqa’idiya fi Souria.) This group is considered a Syrian version of Hezbollah of Lebanon.

Iran’s strategic goals have almost been achieved. Although they were ignored in the Geneva I and Geneva II peace conferences on Syria, they now participate in the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) talks to bring the Syrian war to an end. They are now recognised as a key player both on the ground and in the diplomatic struggle over Syria. It is inconceivable that Iran will not have a representative similar to Hezbollah in Lebanon or the Badr Organisation in Iraq in the future power-sharing that will unfold in Syria.

On the other front, i.e., establishing a militia proxy, Iran knows well that Assad will not remain in power forever. By following the model of the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, and its proxies in Iraq, Iran has been able to create a large paramilitary base in Syria that aims to hold a few key areas, primarily Damascus. It now seeks to expand into Aleppo.

In addition to helping Iran dictate its presence and influence regardless of what sort of government may appear once the Syrian civil war ends, this militia base could play a double role. First, to appear as another deterrent force against Israel. And second, to keep a corridor open for supplying weapons to Iran’s Lebanese ally, Hezbollah.

To achieve its objectives, Iran does not require a Bashar al-Assad or a pro-Iranian government to rule the whole of Syria.

– Shahir Shahidsaless is a political analyst and freelance journalist writing primarily about Iranian domestic and foreign affairs. He is also the co-author of “Iran and the United States: An Insider’s View on the Failed Past and the Road to Peace”. 

– See more at: http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/iran-track-achieve-its-objectives-syria-674162107#sthash.Ggxl3DAH.dpuf