Iran Gets GOLD

Posted on by

An Iran nuclear czar? Zarif and Kerry today, Friday said a deal was never closer.

Iran has had 13 tons of their gold stored in South Africa for at least 2 years and due to lifted sanctions, the gold has been released and delivery in a handful of shipments under high security is complete. The gold was delivered to the central bank.

Since 2013 under the Obama White House agreement, Iran has received $4.2 billion in unfrozen assets and was awarded another $2.8 billion by Obama just to stay at the table and committing to continued talks.

Iran Violations:

Iran has been found in non-compliance with its International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards agreement, and accordingly is in non-compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).1 Iran is continuing its uranium enrichment program and heavy water-related activities in defiance of Security Council resolutions calling for their suspension. The IAEA is trying to resolve a number of matters indicating a possible military dimension to Iran’s nuclear program, but Iran is not cooperating with the IAEA’s investigations. There are well-founded concerns that the Iranian enrichment and heavy water programs have a military objective – to give Iran the capability to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so. What is not clear is how far Iran intends to proceed down this path – will it cross the nuclear weapon threshold, or if not, how far short will it stop?

Amongst other issues, this paper addresses the commonly held belief that Iran is entitled to undertake uranium enrichment, and the closely related question whether nuclear hedging – establishing a nuclear weapon break-out capability in the guise of a civilian program – is a legitimate activity under the NPT. If a negotiated solution with Iran is achieved that allows for continued enrichment, this must also adequately address international concerns that Iran’s nuclear program has a military purpose. A “solution” that allows continued development of a military dimension would be pointless. Many more details in this report.

Going back a decade, it has been well known that Iran has been using the black market to skirt sanctions.  The audio discussion on the black market and violations is here. Additionally, you would be stunned at who does business with Iran and the value of that commerce.

What about the secret low enriched uranium? Glad you asked.

The controversy over the status of Iran’s newly produced low enriched uranium (LEU) hexafluoride under the Joint Plan of Action (JPA) initially surprised us at ISIS. We have been monitoring the various provisions of the JPA since its inception, including Iran’s pledge to convert its newly produced LEU hexafluoride stocks into uranium dioxide form during the JPA term and its extensions. We would have expected the public controversy to center on other issues, including the near 20 percent LEU stocks in Iran. These stocks are far too large, and if left in place, will undermine the administration’s central case that Iran would need 12 months to break out, if it reneged on a long term deal. Yet, upon reflection, this issue of the newly produced LEU is a microcosm of the legal, technical, and political challenges in the on-going negotiations with Iran. It is also another indication that U.S. secrecy is excessive and contributing to problems on its own. Finally, it is necessary to state that this case is a lesson in how difficult it is to understand all the issues in these negotiations, even for those of us who spend enormous amount of time following and assessing provisions in these negotiations.

Concessions

From CNN:

Concessions checklist

So what has the U.S. ceded so far? And what has it gotten in return? Supporters and opponents of the Iran talks are both keeping their checklists ready. They’re tallying the wins and losses and keeping a close eye on the remaining sticking points.

Breakout time

Breakout time is the amount of time it takes to amass enough weapons-grade uranium for one nuclear bomb. In the event of a final deal, if Iran were to dash toward weaponization, it would take 12 months to build a nuclear bomb, according to U.S. calculations.

That figure is a considerable improvement over the two- to three-month breakout time that Iran currently has.

Some worry, however, that one year is not enough to guarantee the U.S. and other countries could actually prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon should Iran decide to race toward one, given the number of diplomatic and verification steps that would precede the use of military force.

Centrifuges

Iran will be allowed to keep 6,104 centrifuges, and just over 5,000 of those will continue enriching uranium, based on the preliminary agreement.

That’s a far ways from where American officials initially said they wanted to end up, first demanding Iran cut its centrifuges to between 500 and 1,500 and then floating 4,000.

The agreement still cuts down most of the nearly 19,000 currently installed — about 10,000 of which are now used for enrichment — but even the additional centrifuges won’t be scrapped entirely. They’ll remain in Iran under the control of the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and will be freed up at the end of the period of constraints on its program.

Enrichment activity

Under the framework for negotiations, Iran has already significantly reduced the level to which it enriches uranium, capping those levels far below what is needed for a nuclear weapon.

Iran has agreed to restrict all of its enrichment activity to one reactor site — Natanz. This is reassuring to the U.S. and Israel because it would be easier for them to take effective military action to degrade Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

Furthermore, Iran will only use its first-generation centrifuges, which are slow to enrich uranium and are unreliable.

Duration of the deal

The restrictions that will keep Iran to a one-year breakout time will expire after 10 years.

President Barack Obama has conceded that “in year 13, 14, 15 … the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero.”

After the 10th year, Iran would be able to start upping its uranium enrichment. And after 15 years, the program would be completely unbridled.

There was always going to be a sunset — it’s inconceivable that Iran would accept restrictions and inspections on its nuclear program indefinitely — but the Obama administration’s starting ask was for restrictions lasting 20 to 25 years.

Even if political change doesn’t come to Iran in that period — which he hopes it will — Obama insisted this spring that the U.S. will have “much more insight into their capabilities” as a result of the rigorous inspections, and 10 to 15 years improves considerably upon the status quo.

But the sunset provision has experts like Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies worried that Iran will simply “go back to what they were doing before” — and without the limitations of sanctions.

“We think 10 to 15 years is a long time,” he said. “They think it’s a blip in history.”

Revealing past Iranian military activities

For years the United States and the rest of the international community has demanded that Iran come clean about suspected past efforts to militarize its nuclear program.

Tehran even pledged to the IAEA in 2007 that it would do so, and the fact that it hasn’t raises questions about the reliability of its commitments.

When Kerry was asked by PBS in April about Iran’s obligation to answer such questions, he said bluntly, “They have to do it. It will be done. If there’s going to be a deal, it will be done.”

Kerry, though, recently indicated such a “confession” was no longer essential to a deal.

“We’re not fixated on Iran specifically accounting for what they did at one point in time or another. We know what they did,” Kerry said last month.

Underground nuclear sites

Under an eventual deal, Iran would stop enriching uranium at Fordow, its fortified, underground nuclear site, for 15 years and only use the facility for research with some inactive centrifuges remaining onsite. It also won’t be able to store any fissile material at the site.

Though the West had originally called for Fordow to be shut down entirely, cutting off enrichment at the site is a relief not just for the U.S. but also for Israel, which was concerned its military arsenal would not be able to reach the site — buried deep in the side of a mountain.

The U.S. has a more powerful bunker-busting bomb than Israel, one that may be able to penetrate the site, though not with total certainty.

Heavy water reactor

Iran will significantly modify its heavy water reactor so it can no longer produce weapons-grade plutonium, a possible component for a nuclear bomb.

Iran has already begun redesigning the reactor to limit its capacity — a key change for a country that has repeatedly defended the reactor’s medical and scientific applications.

Israel had previously called for the reactor’s total dismantlement, but serious modifications have quelled many concerns about Iran’s ability to use the reactor for non-peaceful purposes.

Outstanding issues

Officials still have to determine whether Iran will dilute or export its eight-ton stockpile of highly enriched uranium and determine the parameters for Iran to use more highly enriched uranium for scientific research purposes.

But it’s the two other remaining issues that are the most contentious, and will ultimately determine for most experts whether they have confidence that the deal will keep Iran from getting a nuclear bomb.

Inspections

The West is insisting that Iran give inspectors unfettered access to any site they suspect of nuclear activity — military sites included. Without that, officials fear that Iran could try to sneak its way to a bomb by using a secret facility, especially given its history of cheating and concealing its nuclear work.

“The most likely form of cheating would be at undeclared or secret facilities, and so you’ve got to have strong inspections,” said Gary Samore, who previously served as Obama’s top arms control adviser.

Iranian officials, though, have insisted that they won’t relent on that point, certainly not when it comes to military facilities.

Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken insisted Thursday on CNN that the U.S. will “walk away” if Iran doesn’t agree to the rigorous inspections and verification regime the U.S. is seeking.

Negotiators have floated the idea of a commission of countries that would hear Iran’s objections to inspections requests. But if Iran still refuses to allow inspections at the site, international sanctions would be reimposed.

Ilan Berman, a skeptic of the deal, said that type of “managed access” could give the Iranians the chance to scrub evidence from a site while they stall for time.

“You want to do snap inspections, not ones where they can move things around,” said Berman, vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council.

Sanctions relief

Western officials have insisted that sanctions won’t be removed until Iran holds up its end of the bargain by reining in its nuclear activity as agreed.

Iran, on the other hand, at first demanded sanctions be lifted as soon as a final agreement is signed and sealed. Iranian officials now appear to be relenting somewhat and agreeing that sanctions could fall at a later date, after they make the necessary changes to their nuclear program.

Negotiators are now looking to iron out the details of the sequence for the removal of those sanctions.

But once those sanctions come off, it’s unclear how effectively the international community could snap them back into place — if it’s even willing to. While Iran’s economy has suffered because of the restrictions, so have many companies based in the countries that have imposed them.

 

 

ISIS New Targets Include Sphinx and Pyramids

Posted on by

ISIS has been destroying antiquities for more than a year. Some were more than 2000 years old. They include Palmyra, the Mosul Museum and Nineveh, the site of Nimrud.

Just this week, did ISIS launch a deadly attack in the Sinai. Islamic State is on the move and Egypt is in their sights for destruction.

For security measures in place and some historical perspective, click here.

Islamic State threatens pyramids, sphinx, as it begins attack on Egypt

ISLAMIC State has launched a bold new attack — this time in Sinai against Egypt. Are the Pryamids and Great Sphinx — along with countless other treasures — next on their hit list?

“When Egypt comes under the auspices of the Khalifa (Caliphate), there will be no more Pyramids, no more Sphinx, no more idolatry. This will be just”.

These are the chilling words recently spoken to presenter Dan Cruickshank by British Muslim activist Anjem Choudary.

Just days after his show, Civilisation Under Attack, went to air in the UK, Islamic State has taken steps to turn them into reality.

Egyptian warplanes are launching air strikes and troops going house-to-house in the troubled Sinai Peninsula as the jihadist militants conduct an unprecedented, coordinated attack.

It’s just the latest action in a chain of events that threatens to topple the cradle of civilisation into internal chaos on a scale similar to that of Syria and Iraq.

And Islamic State is ready to seize the moment.

New wave of unrest

The combat in Sinai, described as “war” by Egyptian media and officials, has heightened tensions across the country.

Since the popular “Arab Spring” uprising against the 30-year rule of President Hosni Mubarak, Egypt has gradually been sliding towards chaos.

Today the troubled nation marks the second anniversary of the military’s overthrow of democratically elected Islamist President Mohammed Morsi.

It was a move that fanned dissent throughout Egypt and the insurgency in north Sinai.

It also follows the dramatic assassination this week of the country’s chief prosecutor in a car bombing in Cairo, prompting general-turned-politician President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi to press for even harsher anti-terrorism laws targeting Islamic militants.

A special forces raid yesterday on a Cairo apartment killed nine members of Morsi’s outlawed Muslim Brotherhood.

The Brotherhood responded by calling for a “rebellion.”

It’s fertile ground for the Islamic State. It’s attempting to initiate exactly that.

The coordinated assault by scores of extremists on Wednesday focused on the town of Sheikh Zuweid. It included suicide bombings and an attack on its main police station, which also was shelled by mortars and rocket-propelled grenades in a firefight with police that lasted most of the day, the officials said.

The army said 17 troops and more than 100 militants were killed in the fighting.

It expects it to be just the start of a new military campaign.

Enormous heritage at stake

Islamic State has already telegraphed its attitude to Egypt’s rich cultural heritage.

They should be destroyed.

The dogma is simple: No object should be the subject of idolisation or worship.

According to a statement by preacher Ibrahim Al Kandari, as reported in the Egyptian Al-Watan daily, it is irrelevant that most of Egypt’s ancient monuments are cultural, not religious.

“The fact that early Muslims who were among prophet Mohammed’s followers did not destroy the pharaohs’ monuments upon entering Egypt does not mean that we shouldn’t do it now,” Al Kandari told the paper earlier this year.

Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has reportedly stated the demolition of historic monuments is a “religious duty”.

The jihadist extremists have already demonstrated its attitude towards relics of cultures other than its own. They point to Islamic prohibitions against depicting “living beings”: They are supposed to promote idolatry.

It has smashed statues in the museum of Mosul. It has brutally demolished the ancient cities of Hatra and Nimrud, and looted the city of Dur Sharrukin. It’s an extremist philospy reflected in the destruction of the enormous Bamiyan Buddhas in 2001 by Afghanistan’s Taliban.

But Islamic State recently moderated its stance, promising to protect the Roman ruins of the city of Palmyra. It has since blown up several medieval mausoleums in the area.

It’s not the first time Egypt’s Great Pyramids and Sphinx have been threatened.

While often attributed Napoleon, the destruction of the Great Sphinx’s nose is believed by many to have been caused by Muhammad Sa’im al-Dahar in the 14th century. He believed local peasants may have been worshipping the ancient monument.

In 2012 a cleric of Egypt’s radical Salafi movement declared a fatwa against the World Heritage site — citing the Prophet Mohammed’s destruction of idols in Mecca as precedent.

Egypt’s tourism industry was akin to “prostitution and debauchery”, he said.

Egypt’s military response

Air raids yesterday killed 23 extremists just south of Rafah, a key Sinai border town near the Gaza strip, Sinai Egyptian security officials said.

They added that the army was searching for militants in the town of Sheikh Zuweid, where a string of army checkpoints were attacked a day earlier.

Soldiers were de-mining roads in and around the area that had been booby trapped with mines and improvised explosive devices, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorised to talk to the media.

The army also raided a house in Rafah, killing six armed Isanuc State militants wearing military uniforms, the officials said, adding that it had cleared the area around the Sheikh Zuweid police station of mines and IEDs.

A newspaper close to the Egyptian government said Thursday the militants behind the Sinai attacks used sophisticated weaponry, including Russian-made Kornet antitank missiles. The el-Watan daily also said they also used mortars, anti-aircraft guns and other guided missiles.

The main insurgent organisation operating in Sinai, which calls itself the Sinai Province of the Islamic State group, claimed its fighters struck 15 army and police positions and staged three suicide bombings, two against checkpoints and one that hit an officers’ club in nearby el-Arish, the area’s largest city. The authenticity of the claim could not be immediately verified but it was posted on a Facebook page associated with the group.

Militants in northern Sinai have battled security forces for years, but they stepped up their attacks after Morsi’s ouster on July 3, 2013, which followed mass demonstrations against his rule. El-Sissi led the ouster and was elected president last year.

Political opposition blamed

Egyptian authorities and pro-government media have blamed much of the recent violence on the Muslim Brotherhood, which has been branded a terrorist group.

The Brotherhood denies involvement, although it and other President Morsi supporters have faced a sweeping crackdown that has led to thousands of arrests, mass convictions and death sentences.

The democratically elected Preisdent is among those condemned to die, but he has appealed.

The Brotherhood has called for a “rebellion” and described the special forces killings as “a turning point that will have its own repercussions.”

“It will not be possible to control the anger of the oppressed,” the Brotherhood said in a statement.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned of the growing threat to the region from Islamic State militants and expressed condolences to Egypt over the deadly IS-linked attacks in Sinai.

“We see in front of our eyes IS acting with extraordinary cruelty both in our northern border and at our southern border,” he said. “Our hearts are with the Egyptian people, we send our condolences to the Egyptian government and the families of those who were killed in battle with the cruel terror.”

Obama Schedules Meeting with Communist Leader

Posted on by

There is a pattern being established, anyone paying attention? Cuba, Venezuela and now Vietnam?

From Wikipedia: The Secretariat of the Central Committee Communist Party of Vietnam (Vietnamese: Ban Bí thư Trung ương Đảng Cộng sản Việt Nam), replaced by the Politburo Standing Committee of the Central Committee in the period 1996 to 2001, is the highest implementation body of the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) between Central Committee meetings. According to Party rules, the Secretariat implements the decisions of the Politburo and the Central Committee.

The members of the Politburo are elected (and given a ranking) by the Central Committee in the immediate aftermath of a National Party Congress. The current Secretariat, the 10th, was elected by the Central Committee in the aftermath of the 11th National Congress and consists of 10 members. The first-ranked member is Nguyễn Phú Trọng, the General Secretary of the Central Committee.

Okay, read on if you dare.

Reuters:

Vietnam Communist Party chief to meet Obama on landmark U.S. trip

Vietnam’s Communist Party chief will visit the United States next week in a landmark trip that could prove pivotal in Washington’s bid to bolster its Asian alliances in the back yard of an increasingly assertive China.

Nguyen Phu Trong will meet U.S. President Barack Obama at the White House as the former war enemies mark two decades of calibrated engagement since the normalization of ties that have expanded rapidly in the past year.

That meeting would skirt protocol because party boss Trong is not part of a government, but a senior state department official said Obama saw the visit as crucial and was expecting a “very big picture conversation”.

“He is the top guy… It’s a pretty big event,” the official told reporters.

“There was a broad agreement that it made sense to treat him and treat the visit as the visit of the top leader of the country.

“We don’t view the meeting as a reward for the Vietnamese. We view it much more as continuing engagement.”

The July 6-10 trip follows a year-long charm offensive by the United States launched as a fierce row over sovereignty erupted in May 2014 between communist neighbors Vietnam and China, which saw relations sink to their worst in three decades.

Washington capitalized, shifting gear in its diplomacy after China parked an oil rig unannounced in what Vietnam considers its domain.

“The relationship with Vietnam has moved to a very different place and part of that has been actually energized by China’s actions,” Deputy Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, said last week.

“We now have more countries in Southeast Asia looking to the United States and striking stronger relationships with us than we’ve ever had, less because of what we’ve done than because of what China has done.”

LINGERING SUSPICION

A lot is riding on a visit that the United States hopes will build more trust. Experts say progressives in Vietnam favor closer U.S. ties, but suspicion lingers among conservatives about Washington’s end-game.

The United States has been courting the communist leadership with visits to Vietnam by some of the biggest names in Washington: top General Martin Dempsey, Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Ash Carter, Senator John McCain, Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell and several legislators.

Former President Bill Clinton met Trong, 71, on Thursday and was guest at an Independence Day celebration in Hanoi, where he described the 1995 normalization of ties as “one of the most important achievements of my presidency.”

A lot has changed since.

Vietnam is Southeast Asia’s biggest exporter to the United States, with which it shares annual trade of $35 billion. Both countries are among 12 negotiating a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) accord covering combined GDP of $28 trillion.

A lethal arms embargo on Vietnam was eased in October, allowing joint military exercises and $18 million in loans for U.S. patrol boats. It also allowed consultations on defense procurement, as Hanoi seeks to build up a deterrent to counter Beijing’s expansionism in the South China Sea.

Vietnam has been speaking to Western defense companies, including U.S. firms Lockheed Martin Corp and Boeing, according to informed sources.

But scope for deals could be limited until the embargo is fully lifted. Washington says that requires greater improvements in Vietnam’s human rights record.

Ernest Bower, a Southeast Asia expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said Trong’s visit was “historic and timely” and aimed to break down trust barriers.

“The two countries … are about to enter a new era of deeper cooperation in areas such as security, political and diplomatic alignment,” he said.

“The countries’ political leaders must develop a level of trust and mutual respect. That is what this visit is about.”

Senator Dodd Scandals DC to Hollywood Favors

Posted on by

The 2009 financial crisis included a few other people with brewing scandals that included AIG and Countrywide. Senator Chris Dodd was the most corrupt and is now living the life of glamour and glitz. In Hollywood, the dark favors continue, where Chris Dodd roams and where Hillary Clinton winked often.

From Pro Publica:

As Hollywood Lobbied State Department, It Built Free Home Theaters for U.S. Embassies

Four U.S. Embassies got upgraded screening rooms last year, paid for by the lobbying arm of the big studios. The industry and the government say there were no strings attached.

This story was co-published with The Daily Beast.

Hollywood’s efforts to win political clout have always stretched across the country, from glitzy campaign fundraisers in Beverly Hills to cocktail parties with power brokers in Washington.

Last year, the film industry staked out another zone of influence: U.S. embassies. Its lobbying arm paid to renovate screening rooms in at least four overseas outposts, hoping the new theaters would help ambassadors and their foreign guests “keep U.S. cultural interests top of mind,” according to an internal email.

That was the same year that the Motion Picture Association of America, which represents the six biggest studios, reported it was lobbying the State Department on issues including piracy and online content distribution. Hollywood’s interests – including its push for tougher copyright rules in the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact – often put the industry at odds with Silicon Valley.

The only public indication of the embassy-theater initiative was a February 2015 press release from American officials in Madrid, titled “U.S. Embassy Launches State-of-the-Art Screening Room.” It credited “a generous donation” from the MPAA.

Asked about its gifts to the State Department, the lobby group declined to say how many embassies got donations or how much they were worth.

“Because film is a great ambassador for U.S. culture around the world, MPAA assisted with the upgrade of some embassy theater facilities,” said spokeswoman Kate Bedingfield. “All gifts complied with the law as well as with State Department ethics guidelines.”

Nicole Thompson, a State Department spokeswoman, said at least three embassies besides Madrid received between $20,000 and $50,000 in entertainment upgrades last year – London, Paris and Rome. The revamped screening rooms, she said, aren’t intended to entertain U.S. officials, but rather to help them host screenings to promote an American industry and sow goodwill.

Thompson said the donations were proper and that all gifts to the department are reviewed to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. “The department has explicit authorities to accept gifts made for its benefit or for carrying out any of its functions,” she said.

The State Department routinely accepts gifts from outside groups, Thompson said. She couldn’t provide any other examples of major gifts from groups that simultaneously lobby the agency. Thompson declined to list the items given by the MPAA or their total value, and wouldn’t say whether the group had made similar gifts in the past.

There was at least one precedent. A spokesman for Warner Bros. Entertainment said the studio helped pay for the refurbishment of the screening room at the U.S. ambassador’s home in Paris in 2011. “This donation was coordinated with the State Department and complied with all appropriate rules and regulations,” the spokesman said.

State Department policies posted online specifically permit gifts from individuals, groups or corporations for “embassy refurbishment, ” provided that the donors are vetted to ensure there’s no conflict or possible “embarrassment or harm” to the agency. The posted policies include no caps on the value of donations, nor any requirements for public disclosure of foreign or American donors. The rules also say that the donations can’t come with a promise or expectation of “any advantage or preference from the U.S. Government.”

Obtaining an advantage, albeit a nonspecific one, sounded like the goal when a Sony Pictures Entertainment official wrote to the studio’s chief executive officer, Michael Lynton, to relay a request to fund the screening rooms from Chris Dodd, the former U.S. senator who heads the MPAA. The executive writing the note – Keith Weaver – sought to assure the CEO that such a donation wouldn’t be improper.

“The rationale being that key Ambassadors will keep U.S. cultural interests top of mind, as they screen American movies for high level officials where they are stationed,” reads the message, included in a cache of emails hacked from Sony and which were posted online by the website WikiLeaks.

“The cost implication is estimated to be $165k (aggregate of $$$/in-kind) per embassy/per studio. Apparently, donations of this kind are permissible.”

Besides Sony, the MPAA represents Disney, Paramount, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal Studios and Warner Bros. Entertainment. The e-mails suggest that Sony executives decided against contributing to the project for budget reasons.

The MPAA has long been a powerful presence in the nation’s capital, spending $1.34 million on federal lobbying last year, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. One of its flashier tools has been to host exclusive gatherings at its Washington screening room, two blocks from the White House, where lawmakers get to watch blockbuster films, rub elbows with celebrities, and up until several years ago, enjoy dinner – a perk scuttled because of stricter rules on congressional lobbying.

Hollywood studios depend on foreign markets for much of their profit but the MPAA’s interests don’t always align with those of other major American constituencies. For example, Hollywood studios have moved some film production to Canada to cut costs. American film workers have tried to get the federal government to stop the outsourcing of jobs, but have been met with resistance from the MPAA.

The trade group has also pushed federal officials to pressure foreign governments into adopting stricter copyright laws. An MPAA-funded study found that in 2005 worldwide piracy cost American studios $6.1 billion in revenue. That number has been disputed by digital rights advocates.

For the TPP trade deal, the MPAA has discouraged the American government from exporting “fair use” protections to other countries. In a hacked message from Dodd to the U.S. Trade Representative, the MPAA chief warned that including such provisions, which in American law allow limited use of copyrighted materials without permission, would be “extremely controversial and divisive.” Digital rights activists have characterized the efforts as overzealous.

“They’re basically encouraging other countries to adopt the most draconian parts of U.S. copyright law and even to reinterpret U.S. copyright law to make it more stringent,” said Mitch Stoltz, an attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “Broadly speaking broadening copyright law harms free speech in many cases by creating a mechanism for censorship.”

The state-of-the-art screening rooms are a relatively minimal investment by Hollywood as it works to strengthen connections abroad.

This spring, the U.S. ambassador to Spain, James Costos, brought a group of foreign officials to Los Angeles for a meeting hosted by the MPAA. Among them were representatives from the Canary Islands, who came prepared to discuss filming opportunities and tax incentives for American studios in the Spanish territory. The State Department touted the trip as an opportunity to “expand bilateral trade and investment, including through ties between the entertainment industries.”

It’s not known whether the path to that particular meeting was eased by the new screening room in Madrid. At the theater’s debut in February, the ambassador’s guests were treated to a dark tale of corruption, lobbying and double-dealing in Washington – the Netflix series “House of Cards.”

 

 

The Words in General Dempsey’s Swan Song

Posted on by

Si Vis pacem, para bellum

GW Bush said it was going to be a long war when the top enemy was al Qaeda. Defeat was realized until the rules of engagement and strategy were altered dynamically month by month beginning in 2009.

There is Russia and Ukraine as noted by the Institute for the Study of War.

Then there is the Baltic Balance as summarized by the Rand Corporation.

There is Islamic State throughout the Middle East region where the caliphate is beyond incubation.

An outcome of the Iran P5+1 talk on the nuclear program is eminent and that could spell an armed conflict that includes Saudi Arabia and or Israel.

The forgotten region is the South China Sea.

Dempsey’s Final Instruction to the Pentagon, Prepare for a Long War

By: Marcus Weisgerber

Non-state actors, like ISIS, are among the Pentagon’s top concerns, but so are hybrid wars in which nations like Russia support militia forces fighting on their behalf in Eastern Ukraine threaten national security interests, Dempsey writes.

“Hybrid conflicts also may be comprised of state and non-state actors working together toward shared objectives, employing a wide range of weapons such as we have witnessed in eastern Ukraine,” Dempsey writes. “Hybrid conflicts serve to increase ambiguity, complicate decision-making, and slow the coordination of effective responses. Due to these advantages to the aggressor, it is likely that this form of conflict will persist well into the future.”

Dempsey also warns that the “probability of U.S. involvement in interstate war with a major power is … low but growing.”

“We must be able to rapidly adapt to new threats while maintaining comparative advantage over traditional ones. Success will increasingly depend on how well our military instrument can support the other instruments of power and enable our network of allies and partners,” Dempsey writes.

The strategy also calls for greater agility, innovation and integration among military forces.

“[T]he 2015 strategy recognizes that success will increasingly depend on how well our military instrument supports the other instruments of national power and how it enables our network of allies and partners,” Dempsey said Wednesday.

The military will continue its pivot to the Pacific, Dempsey writes, but its presence in Europe, the Middle East, Latin America and Africa will evolve. The military must remain “globally engaged to shape the security environment,” he said Wednesday.

The Russian campaign in Ukraine has military strategists questioning if traditional U.S. military force as it is deployed globally is still — or enough of — a deterrence to hybrid and non-state threats like today’s terrorism. “If deterrence fails, at any given time, our military will be capable of defeating a regional adversary in a large-scale, multi-phased campaign while denying the objectives of – or imposing unacceptable costs on – another aggressor in a different region,” Dempsey writes.

The chairman also criticizes Beijing’s “aggressive land reclamation efforts” in the South China Sea where it is building military bases in on disputed islands. In the same region, on North Korea, “In time, they will threaten the U.S. homeland,” Dempsey writes, and mentions Pyongyang’s alleged hack of Sony’s computer network.

Dempsey scolds Iran, which is in the midst of negotiating a deal with Washington to limit its nuclear program, for being a “state-sponsor of terrorism that has undermined stability in many nations, including Israel, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen.”

Russia, Iran, North Korea and China, Dempsey writes, are not “believed to be seeking direct military conflict with the United States or our allies,” but the U.S. military needs to be prepared.

“Nonetheless, they each pose serious security concerns which the international community is working to collectively address by way of common policies, shared messages, and coordinated action,” Dempsey said.

Prepare for a long war. General Dempsey is retiring as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and will likely move on to academia. Meanwhile, on July 9, the Senate Armed Services will hold a confirmation hearing for General Joseph Dunford.

As General Dempsey is making his farewell rounds, his words speak to some liberation in saying what needs to be said in his swan song.

In a new National Military Strategy, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff warns the Pentagon to reorganize its global footprint to combat prolonged battles of terrorism and proxy wars.

The U.S. military needs to reorganize itself and prepare for war that has no end in sight with militant groups like the Islamic State and nations that use proxies to fight on their behalf, America’s top general warned Wednesday.

In what is likely his last significant strategy direction before retiring this summer, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at the Pentagon that “global disorder has trended upward while some of our comparative advantages have begun to erode,” since 2011, the last update to the National Military Strategy.

“We are more likely to face prolonged campaigns than conflicts that are resolved quickly… that control of escalation is becoming more difficult and more important… and that as a hedge against unpredictability with reduced resources, we may have to adjust our global posture,” Dempsey writes in the new military strategy.

Dempsey, the president’s senior military advisor, criticizes Russia, Iran, North Korea and China for aggressive military actions and warns that the rapidly changing global security environment might force the U.S. military to reorganize as it prepares for a busy future.

The military has been shrinking since 2012, when the Obama administration announced plans to pivot forces to the Asia-Pacific region as troops withdrew from Afghanistan and Iraq. But since then, Obama slowed the Afghanistan withdrawal as fighting continues there, and thousands of American military forces have found themselves back in the Middle East and North Africa conducting airstrikes, gathering intelligence and training and advising Iraqi soldiers that are battling ISIS. Since U.S. forces are not deployed to Iraq in a combat role, significantly fewer numbers are needed compared to the hundreds of thousands troops that were sent to Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade. Still, U.S. commanders have repeatedly said it will take decades  to defeat ISIS, and a stronger nonmilitary effort to defeat the ideology that fuels Islamic extremist groups.

Non-state actors, like ISIS, are among the Pentagon’s top concerns, but so are hybrid wars in which nations like Russia support militia forces fighting on their behalf in Eastern Ukraine threaten national security interests, Dempsey writes.

“Hybrid conflicts also may be comprised of state and non-state actors working together toward shared objectives, employing a wide range of weapons such as we have witnessed in eastern Ukraine,” Dempsey writes. “Hybrid conflicts serve to increase ambiguity, complicate decision-making, and slow the coordination of effective responses. Due to these advantages to the aggressor, it is likely that this form of conflict will persist well into the future.”

Dempsey also warns that the “probability of U.S. involvement in interstate war with a major power is … low but growing.”

“We must be able to rapidly adapt to new threats while maintaining comparative advantage over traditional ones. Success will increasingly depend on how well our military instrument can support the other instruments of power and enable our network of allies and partners,” Dempsey writes.

The strategy also calls for greater agility, innovation and integration among military forces.

“[T]he 2015 strategy recognizes that success will increasingly depend on how well our military instrument supports the other instruments of national power and how it enables our network of allies and partners,” Dempsey said Wednesday.

The military will continue its pivot to the Pacific, Dempsey writes, but its presence in Europe, the Middle East, Latin America and Africa will evolve. The military must remain “globally engaged to shape the security environment,” he said Wednesday.

The Russian campaign in Ukraine has military strategists questioning if traditional U.S. military force as it is deployed globally is still — or enough of — a deterrence to hybrid and non-state threats like today’s terrorism. “If deterrence fails, at any given time, our military will be capable of defeating a regional adversary in a large-scale, multi-phased campaign while denying the objectives of – or imposing unacceptable costs on – another aggressor in a different region,” Dempsey writes.

The chairman also criticizes Beijing’s “aggressive land reclamation efforts” in the South China Sea where it is building military bases in on disputed islands. In the same region, on North Korea, “In time, they will threaten the U.S. homeland,” Dempsey writes, and mentions Pyongyang’s alleged hack of Sony’s computer network.

Dempsey scolds Iran, which is in the midst of negotiating a deal with Washington to limit its nuclear program, for being a “state-sponsor of terrorism that has undermined stability in many nations, including Israel, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen.”

Russia, Iran, North Korea and China, Dempsey writes, are not “believed to be seeking direct military conflict with the United States or our allies,” but the U.S. military needs to be prepared.

“Nonetheless, they each pose serious security concerns which the international community is working to collectively address by way of common policies, shared messages, and coordinated action,” Dempsey said.