Category Archives: Cyber War

Saudi Arabia’s Anti-Iran Coalition Growing

Posted on by

Any kind of peace accords and efforts to deal with Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Afghanistan due to broken relationships in the Middle East is not for the most part impossible until at least late 2017. Estimations of terror matrix trends rising is impossible to predict but it is for sure likely in the region.

While the U.S. State Department under John Kerry and the Obama White House are still working to support the Iranian nuclear deal, the real result is Iran’s growing influence and power in the region. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States have had enough and are taking aggressive action. Finally…

Saudi Arabia paid the larger part of the expenses to Pakistan to acquire nuclear weapons with the option at obtaining a minimum of 10. Further, the U.S. maintains the U.S. Navy Fifth Fleet I Bahrain, which is a Shiite majority. The Fifth fleet is designed to operate and maintain the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean.

Bahrain has been a worry for the U.S. Navy going back to at least 2011 over Shiite uprisings which is still a major headache after the recent and escalating conflicted relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

New Saudi-Iran crisis threatens wider escalation

Reuters: The last time Saudi Arabia broke off ties with Iran, after its embassy in Tehran was stormed by protesters in 1988, it took a swing in the regional power balance in the form of Saddam Hussein’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait to heal the rift.

It is hard to see how any lesser development could resolve the region’s most bitter rivalry, which has underpinned wars and political tussles across the Middle East as Riyadh and Tehran backed opposing sides.

Riyadh’s expulsion of Iran’s envoy after another storming of its Tehran embassy, this time in response to the Saudi execution of Shi’ite Muslim cleric Nimr al-Nimr, raised the heat again, making the region’s underlying conflict even harder to resolve.

At the heart of the new crisis is Saudi Arabia’s growing willingness to confront Iran and its allies militarily since King Salman took power a year ago, say diplomats, choosing with his son, Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, to abandon years of backroom politics.

Last year, Riyadh began a war in Yemen to stop an Iran-allied militia seizing power in its southern neighbor and boosted support to Syrian rebels against Tehran’s ally President Bashar al-Assad. Its execution of Nimr, while mainly driven by domestic politics, was also part of that open confrontation with Iran, according to political analysts.

The interventions followed years of Riyadh complaining about what it regarded as unchecked Iranian aggression in the region. It has pointed to Iran’s support for Shi’ite militias and accused the country of smuggling arms to groups in Gulf countries – which Iran denies.

“We will not allow Iran to destabilize our region. We will not allow Iran to do harm to our citizens or those of our allies and so we will react,” Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir told Reuters on Monday, signaling Riyadh would not back down.

The Saudi decisions in Syria and Yemen were also partly a response to Iran’s nuclear deal with world powers, which lifted sanctions on Tehran, theoretically giving it more money and political room to pursue its regional activities.

The new crisis has had the effect of hardening a wider confrontation between the loose-knit coalitions of allies each can call upon in the region; some of Riyadh’s allies also cut diplomatic ties with Tehran after the embassy attack, while Iran’s warned of repercussions.

That chain reaction may now complicate complex political talks over the formation of a government in Lebanon, efforts to bring Syria’s warring parties to talks, stalled negotiations to end Yemen’s civil war and Riyadh’s rapprochement with Baghdad.

SIMMERING MISTRUST

Until the 1960s and 70s, Saudi Arabia and Iran were uneasy allies regarded as the “twin pillars” of Washington’s strategy to curb Soviet influence in the Gulf. Sectarianism was muted.

But rich on its new oil wealth, Saudi Arabia began to propagate its rigid Salafi interpretation of Sunni Islam which regards Shi’ism as heretical, in mosques around the region. And, after its 1979 revolution, Iran adopted – and exported – the doctrine of Velayat-e Faqih, which says ultimate temporal power among Shi’ites should reside with its own supreme leader.

That growing ideological divide set up a simmering mistrust that was soon matched by a geopolitical rivalry that has driven their fractious relations for the subsequent 37 years.

After Iran’s 1980-88 war with Iraq, when Saddam invaded, it developed a strategy of “forward defense”, seeking to use ties with Arab Shi’ites to build militias and political parties that could stop new enemies emerging and give it deterrent capability through proxy forces.

Riyadh regarded Tehran’s cultivation of Shi’ite groups with intense suspicion, fearing it would foment revolution in Saudi-allied states and destabilize the region.

It broke ties in 1988 when a diplomat died in the storming of its Tehran embassy following tensions over the death of hundreds of Iranian pilgrims in clashes with Saudi police during the haj. But when Saddam invaded Kuwait, Tehran and Riyadh set aside their hostility to make common cause against a shared enemy.

The toppling of Saddam in 2003 upturned the regional power balance, however, as Iran used its ties to the country’s large Shi’ite community to gain sway in Baghdad, pitting Riyadh and Tehran more openly against each other – a pattern repeated in Yemen and Syria after the “Arab Spring” uprisings.

Meanwhile, Iraq’s civil war had poured fuel on growing sectarian tensions as al Qaeda, which follows an extreme form of Salafism, sent suicide bombers against Shi’ite civilians, prompting murderous retaliation from Iran-linked militias.

FURTHER ESCALATION

Now there is some scope for further escalation, both in the various Middle East theaters where Iran and Saudi Arabia back opposing forces, and diplomatically as Riyadh taps Arab and Muslim channels to try to isolate Tehran, according to analysts.

“Since 1979 the two countries have fought numerous proxy conflicts throughout the Middle East and often exchange threats and insults. But they’ve stopped short of direct conflict and eventually agreed to a cold reconciliation,” said Karim Sadjadpour, senior associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Middle East program.

But he said that Iran might seek to stoke unrest among Saudi Arabia and Bahrain’s Shi’ite communities.

Renewed protests among Saudi and Bahraini Shi’ites since the execution of Nimr, along with the bombing of two Sunni mosques in Iraq, may be regarded by Riyadh as evidence of Iranian incitement.

Riyadh has itself pushed allies to cut ties with Iran and pressed Muslim bodies like the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation to condemn the storming of the embassy. Theoretically, it could also ramp up support for Syrian rebel groups.

All-out conflict is something that even hawks in Saudi Arabia and Iran would likely try to avoid. However, the new escalation between the region’s main enemies shows how events can sometimes pre-empt strategic plans.

After the execution of Nimr, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard elite military force said a “harsh revenge” would strike Saudi’s ruling Al-Saud family in the near future.

“The Revolutionary Guard is part of the Iranian government and their threats should be taken seriously because they control militia in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen and I would not be surprised if they use it to act against the Saudis,” said Abdulaziz al-Sager, head of Jeddah-based Gulf Research Centre.

****

Where do the rest of the countries stand?

AP- SAUDI ARABIA — The kingdom severed ties to Iran after attacks on two of its diplomatic posts following its execution of a Shiite cleric last weekend; it also later cancelled all flights between the two nations.

IRAN — Since the attack on the diplomatic posts, Iran says it has made arrests and has criticized the violent protesters. However on Tuesday, President Hassan Rouhani took a slightly harder line, saying Saudi Arabia’s move to sever ties with his country couldn’t “cover its crime” of executing Shiite cleric Nimr al-Nimr.

COUNTRIES BACKING SAUDI ARABIA:

BAHRAIN — The tiny, Shiite-majority island kingdom off the Saudi coast, which long has relied on Saudi Arabia for support of its Sunni rulers, was the first to cut ties with Iran. Bahraini officials repeatedly have accused Iran of training militants and attempting to smuggle arms into the country, which hosts the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet.

SUDAN — The African nation cut its diplomatic ties to Iran and gave Iranian diplomats two weeks to leave the country. Sudan once tilted toward Iran, but has been looking to Saudi Arabia for aid since the secession of oil-rich South Sudan in 2011.

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES — The oil-rich country of seven emirates says it will reduce the number of diplomats in Iran, recall its ambassador and focus only on business relations. While backing Saudi Arabia, it may have chosen to reduce — rather than completely sever ties — because of a long trading history with Iran.

KUWAIT — The oil-rich country is recalling of its ambassador from Tehran, but it isn’t immediately clear how Kuwaiti-Iranian diplomatic ties will be affected. Tiny Kuwait is home to both Shiites and Sunnis living in peace and has the most free-wheeling political system among all Gulf nations.

JORDAN: Overwhelmingly Sunni Jordan is a close ally of Saudi Arabia in the region and a beneficiary of Gulf aid. Jordan’s government spokesman, Mohammed Momani, has condemned the attack on the Saudi Embassy in Iran.

THE MEDIATOR:

OMAN — The sultanate has long historical ties to Iran and served as the base for secret talks between Iranian and U.S. officials that jump-started the deal reached between Iran and world powers over the Islamic Republic’s contested nuclear program.

THOSE BACKING IRAN:

LEBANESE HEZBOLLAH MOVEMENT — Hezbollah was founded in 1982 with the help of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards after Israel invaded Lebanon. The group is one the main Iran-backed factions in the region.

SYRIA’S EMBATTLED PRESIDENT BASHAR ASSAD — Iran has been one of the biggest supporters of Syria since the 1980s and has stood by Assad’s government in his country’s grinding civil war. Saudi Arabia has been one of the biggest benefactors of those trying to overthrow him.

IRAQ’S SHIITE-LED GOVERNMENT IN BAGHDAD — Even as Iraq is embroiled in a major war against the militant Islamic State group, al-Nimr’s execution sparked outrage among the country’s majority Shiites who have taken to the streets in Baghdad and the south, calling for an end to ties with Saudi Arabia. The Shiite-led government has warmed Riyadh that such executions “would lead to nothing but more destruction.”

OTHER REGIONAL ACTORS:

ISRAEL — Israel considers Iran to be its greatest regional threat because of its nuclear program, its arsenal of long-range missiles, its support of anti-Israel militant groups and its repeated threats to destroy it. While Israel has no direct ties to Saudi Arabia either, the countries have come closer because of a shared concern over Iran’s growing influence.

THE PALESTINIANS — The Palestinian Authority issued a statement after the execution of al-Nimr saying that it stands alongside the Saudis in their fight against “terrorism.” The Saudis are the largest donor to the Palestinian Authority in the Arab world, providing them some $200 million annually. The PA, and the Fatah faction that leads it, has had a strained relationship with Iran because of its support of its rival, Hamas.

YEMEN — The Arab world’s poorest country is torn by a civil war pitting its internationally recognized government, backed by a Saudi-led coalition, against Shiite rebels known as Houthis, who are supported by Iran.

THOSE URGING CAUTION:

THE UNITED NATIONS — U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has urged Saudi Arabia and Iran to support peace efforts in Syria and Yemen and avoid escalating tensions.

EUROPEAN UNION: The 28-nation bloc, which opposes the death penalty, criticized Saudi Arabia’s mass executions and said al-Nimr’s case undermined freedom of expression and basic political rights in the kingdom. Since tensions flared between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the EU foreign policy chief has had phone contact with both sides, fearing an escalation would further destabilize the whole region.

THE UNITED STATES — The White House has urged Saudi Arabia and Iran to not let their dispute derail efforts to end the Syrian civil war, while President Barack Obama’s administration also hopes to see the Iranian nuclear deal through.

UNITED KINGDOM — Britain and Iran reopened their respective embassies in 2015, four years after hard-line protesters stormed the British embassy in Tehran. Saudi Arabia is a key diplomatic and economic ally of Britain, though Middle East Minister Tobias Ellwood said Britain told the kingdom about its “disappointment at the mass executions.”

TURKEY — Turkey has urged both Saudi Arabia and Iran to ease tensions, saying the Middle East region is “already like a powder keg” and cannot withstand a new crisis.

GERMANY — Berlin has called on Saudi Arabia and Iran to work to mend their diplomatic ties, while condemning both the mass executions in the kingdom and the storming of the Saudi missions in Iran.

RUSSIA — State news agency RIA Novosti quoted an unnamed senior diplomat as saying Moscow is ready to act as a mediator between Iran and Saudi Arabia. It’s unclear whether Russian officials have made a formal offer to work with the two nations.

Russia: The Troll State

Posted on by

Saint Petersburg (AFP) – Lyudmila Savchuk says it was money that wooed her into the ranks of the Kremlin’s online army, where she bombarded website comment pages with eulogies of President Vladimir Putin, while mocking his adversaries.

“Putin is great,” “Ukrainians are Fascists,” “Europe is decadent”: Savchuk, 34, listed the main messages she was told to put out on Internet forums after responding to a job advertisement online.

“Our job was to write in a pro-government way, to interpret all events in a way that glorifies the government’s politics and Putin personally,” she said.

Performing her duties as an Internet “troll”, Savchuk kept up several blogs on the popular Russian platform LiveJournal, juggling the virtual identities of a housewife, a student and an athlete.

I could not be happier that a doctoral student at the University of California, Berkeley wrote this piece below as he is quite right and it must be understood. His study has validated the propaganda item noted above.

If you as a reader want to further understand Vladimir Putin and is mission leading Russia, to know his background is key. That is found here.

Russia has propaganda operations that literally troll events in the United States and in fact creates them causing alarm and worry for American citizens that pay attention. Well done to Andrew Kornbluth.

AtlanticCouncil: In the eighteen months since Russia annexed Crimea, the world has been alternately captivated and bewildered by the wild swings and sudden shifts that describe Russian foreign policy under President Vladimir Putin. Particularly alarming for those who fear a direct clash between Russia and the West has been Putin’s tendency to swerve between antagonism and conciliation, or—even more bizarrely—to pursue both simultaneously.

In an attempt to put a name to this behavior, a variety of epithets, from “rogue state” to “spoiler,” have been dusted off and applied to the present Russian government. But insofar as the current state of Putin’s Russia represents a new kind of autocracy, none of these labels do justice to its innovative nature. Perhaps a better indication of what drives this system can be found in the Russian government’s well-documented embrace of Internet “trolling,” which corresponds surprisingly well to the seemingly random and contradictory fluctuations of the country’s relations with the outside world.

In its most basic form, trolling refers to the phenomenon of Internet users who post inflammatory messages in online forums like comment sections and social media threads with the aim of antagonizing others. Although most trolling is idle provocation, the Kremlin was famously revealed in the last year to be paying large numbers of professional “trolls” to both write and up-vote posts praising Russia’s occupation of Ukrainian territory and condemning its critics. But how can trolling be a technique of rule?

To begin with, trolls, regardless of the anger they unleash online, are not people who want to definitively cut themselves off from the real world. Trolls seek instant gratification and attention by spreading vitriol on the Internet, but resume their normal lives offline. With this in mind, Russia’s sudden intervention in the war in Syria can be understood as the latest in a long line of trolling campaigns, beginning with the suspension of foreign adoptions three years ago. These acts were intended to needle the West and cheer Russians, but without risking an actual breakdown in foreign relations (in this respect, the war in Ukraine proved to be a serious miscalculation).

The label of “rogue state” is therefore misplaced when it comes to Russia, which clearly desires to win readmission to the “clubhouse” of world powers. Thus the bombing of Syrian rebels, for all the consternation it has caused, has been accompanied by thinly-veiled pleas for Western governments to lift the isolation imposed on Russia over the Ukrainian crisis.

Trolling is also an effective substitute for constructive activity. By tormenting others, trolls create the illusion of action and assuage their own nagging feelings of powerlessness. Likewise, Putin’s military adventures in Ukraine and Syria have been remarkably successful at distracting attention from the worsening decay of Russia’s human and economic capital.

But the satisfaction derived from trolling is inherently short-lived. To sustain their short attention spans, trolls must constantly find new and varied ways to bait their opponents. Hence the dizzying pivot from promoting the so-called “People’s Republics” of Donetsk and Luhansk, which were banished from the headlines almost overnight, to heralding the creation of an “anti-terrorist coalition” in Syria.

Unfortunately, trolling is a tactic that cannot serve as a platform for a long-term vision or strategy. In place of ideology-based opposition to the West, Russia’s troll state offers up only irascibility and schadenfreude, the glee derived from other people’s frustrations. Perhaps it could not be otherwise. After all, Russia’s elite depends on the West—for recreation, money-laundering, medical treatment, and the education of its children. In many ways, Russia’s rulers have more in common with the West’s upper class than they do with the pensioners scraping by in the Moscow suburbs.

The danger, of course, is that even bloodless trolling can unintentionally escalate into life-or-death confrontation, a risk that was made real when, after months of Russian incursions into foreign airspace from the Baltics to Japan, Turkey shot down a Russian bomber passing over its territory. But the state’s reliance on trolling in an ideological vacuum gives some cause for hope. After all, a sustained and sober response, both online and in real life, is often sufficient to curb trolling. In the commotion set off by Russia’s Syrian interlude, many seem to have forgotten that limited sanctions and diplomatic ostracism appear to have persuaded the Kremlin to restrain its forces in the Donbas region. Although the conflict in eastern Ukraine continues to claim lives on a daily basis and has flared back up, no major offensive has been launched since February 2015.

To think of Russia as a troll state is not to assume that it has no real goals or that its targets are chosen purely on a whim. It does, however, help to explain a style of statecraft that might otherwise seem increasingly irrational and unpredictable. Certainly, the Russian public delights in the spectacle of their President poking Western leaders in the eye. And Putin does seem to have hit on something fundamental about the age we live in. As the unexpected popularity of Donald Trump’s run for the American presidency has demonstrated, trolling is a political technique perfectly suited to more than one easily-bored, confrontation-hungry modern society.

2016 Journalists Predictions in Foreign Affairs

Posted on by

Not too sure anyone can argue with the 2016 predictions below except the one pertaining to climate change. Sheesh. There are in fact a couple of items missing with particular note hacking by rogue foreign regimes.

What Will Be the Big Story of 2016?

ForeignPolicy: From new flu strains to refugees to Obama’s final moments as U.S. president, FP’s Voices predict a year of big change and challenges.

The world is melting

Thomas E. Ricks

My guess is that global warming will become the top story of 2016.

This will happen because we will face a series of anomalous and odd weather events — big storms in unusual places, storm surges in cities that historically have not been flooded, shifts in ocean currents, and such. One effect of this will be to sweep away the lingering skepticism about global warming. Another short-term bottom line: I wouldn’t invest in Florida banks or real estate anytime soon.

A year of borrowed time

Stephen M. Walt

Trying to predict the “big story” of 2016 is a mug’s game, because surprises are inevitable and vivid events — like a terrorist attack — receive too much attention, while subtler but more important developments are often neglected.

The big story for 2016 is how much will remain unchanged. The U.S. economy will continue its modest recovery. The European Union will struggle with an array of intractable challenges. The Islamic State will still be a problem. Russia’s power will wane, and China’s influence will continue to rise, along with global sea levels. The nuclear deal with Iran will remain in force, but there won’t be significant thaw between Tehran and Washington. Venezuela, Brazil, South Africa, Turkey, and Argentina will continue to disappoint. China, Great Britain, Russia, and the United States will dominate next year’s Olympics. There will be no progress toward “two states for two peoples” in Israel/Palestine and no lasting peace agreement in Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Yemen, or Ukraine. Terrorist attacks will kill more innocent people but in all likelihood not very many. Despite the Paris agreement, atmospheric temperatures will continue to rise, with alarming long-term implications.

In short, the global agenda a year from now will look a lot like the one we see today.

But one event looms large: The world’s most powerful nation will elect a new president. U.S. President Barack Obama’s foreign-policy record is far from perfect, but everything we know about the people vying to replace him suggests they are likely to be far worse. My advice for the New Year: Enjoy it while you can.

America, a country divided

Bruce Stokes

The biggest news story of 2016 will be the deep partisan divide in the American public’s perception of the U.S. role in the world and the way this affects the tenor of debate in the U.S. presidential election campaign.

Nearly a third — 29 percent — of Americans cite terrorism, national security, or the Islamic State as the most important problem facing the country today, according to the most recent Pew Research Center survey. One year ago, just 4 percent of the public, when asked the same question, cited any of these international affairs-related issues. And there are wide partisan differences over such challenges.

83 percent of the Republicans are very concerned about the rise of Islamic extremism around the world, but only 53 percent of Democrats agree.

Such differing perceptions shape public views on what the next president should do. Two-thirds of Republicans (66 percent) favor sending U.S. ground troops to Iraq and Syria. But 64 percent of Democrats oppose such an effort.

Whoever is the next president, he or she may face seemingly unbridgeable divides in public opinion over how Washington deals with global challenges. And these partisan differences may well do more to influence the next administration’s posture in the world than any discrete event.

Obama’s push for North Korean diplomacy

Jeffery Lewis

There is no point in predicting the big story for the coming year unless you are willing to be fantastically wrong. After all, no one will remember this blurb unless I predict something very unlikely (in which case, I’ll be able to dine out on these 200 words for years). I am tempted to predict that 2016 will finally be the year when we screw up and drop the Big One, but that’s too dark for the holiday season. So, with some leftover Christmas spirit, let me predict a surprise diplomatic engagement with North Korea.

Things are probably going to take a turn for the worse in the spring, but that only means they will have nowhere to go but up. And every two-term president gets a little greedy once the toadies and boot-lickers start mapping out exhibits for the presidential library. Bill Clinton, in 2000, had simultaneous peace deals in the works in North Korea, Northern Ireland, and Israel/Palestine. (Clinton was, of course, a man of enormous appetites.) Barack Obama, too, will be tempted in his more modest way to launch a surprise, but ultimately unsuccessful, late-term push to eliminate North Korea’s nuclear weapons.

The year of strange flu

Laurie Garrett

I think 2016 could be the year when at least one of several disturbing trends finally hits its critical tipping point, taking on newfound urgency. These are the sorts of global issues smart folks have scratched their heads over for years, but leaders have kicked down the road in favor of seemingly greater emergencies and exigencies. Examples include antibiotic resistance: Now that two genes have appeared that effectively render all our anti-bacterial drugs useless, will 2016 see them spread globally? Sea levels: With 2015 the warmest year on record and Greenland’s melting surging, will 2016 be the year that critical islands and shores are overrun by rising waters? Virulent influenza: More strange strains of flu are circulating now in birds, swine, and people than ever before, prompting concern about a breakthrough strain — could 2016 be the year? El Niño: The Horn of Africa is in its worst drought in decades, due to global rainfall change, and climate experts predict 2016 will witness severe storms, droughts, and heat waves thanks to the overheated eastern Pacific Ocean. Will El Niño serve as a tipping point that destabilizes already fragile areas?

 

The demise of Western values

James Traub

When Hungary’s prime minster, Viktor Orban, declared in a 2014 speech that “illiberal democracy” was the wave of the future, he was dismissed as a right-wing crank. Now it seems he may be right. With Europe and the United States reeling before the linked phenomena of Islamic terrorism and massive refugee flight, 2016 could be the year when the West loses its grip on its own core values.

Right now, a few countries — Germany, Sweden, Canada — embody the belief that “the West” is a community of values, including the obligation to accept refugees embedded in such core Western documents as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Hungary, Poland, and others that have closed their borders to the refugees seem to regard the West, like East Asia or Latin America, as a common culture: white, Christian, and democratic (but not necessarily liberal, especially toward the non-white and non-Christian).

Which side will win this immense, if evanescent, battle? Elections in Poland, France, Austria, and elsewhere show that right-wing nativist parties have more adherents than mainstream parties of the left or right. The nationalist Sweden Democrats is now the most popular party in Europe’s most liberal nation. In the United States, Republican candidates for president vie to show who will most ardently defend “the homeland” against terrorists and Syrian widows and orphans. More terrorist attacks like the one in France could decisively tip the scales toward anti-liberalism.

Is this our common future? If so, the Islamic State will have gained a victory of incalculable proportions.

 

A trend in terror

Aaron David Miller

In 2016 there’s only one story that will sit at the nexus of U.S. foreign policy as well as domestic and election politics, and that’s jihadi terror.

In the latter part of 2015 it was terrorism and Donald Trump that dominated the conversation. In 2016 it’s likely to be terror—and I’m not entirely sure about the Trump part. No other issue carries the power, resonance, media interest, or the capacity to destroy a presidency or buoy or sink the hopes of presidential aspirants. It will be the dominant story of 2016, in large part because of the strong possibility, perhaps even probability, of another Islamic State inspired or even directed attack. Indeed, the recent success of Iraqi and American forces in Ramadi may actually increase the odds of IS terror as the jihadis seek to strike out.

It matters not a wit that as of Dec. 2, during 209 of the 336 days that had passed so far this year, “there was at least one shooting per day” that, as the New York Times reported, “left four or more people injured or dead.” Nor does it resonate much that ordinary gun violence claims many more lives a year than jihadi terror. September 11th and the rise of jihadi groups created a new prism through which Americans view violence related to jihadi terror as far more frightening and consequential than gun violence which is actually far more deadly.

The tragic story of 2016 could play out in one of three ways: 1) a series of San Bernardino-type attacks carried out by some network of American born jihadis; 2) an IS-directed or IS-orchestrated attack that attempts to mimic or rival Paris in its coordination and precision; or 3) the downing of a U.S. commercial airliner by IS or an al-Qaeda affiliate. For all our sake, I’m desperately hoping my predictions here prove unfounded.

The year the world forgets refugees, again

Lauren Wolfe

On Dec. 18, the United Nations refugee agency (UNHCR) predicted that the number of people forcibly displaced in the world in 2015 is going to smash all previous records, with more than 60 million people forced to flee their homes. As UNHCR put it, that’s one in every 122 people on Earth. (That doesn’t even include many cases of protracted displacement, says the Internal Displacement Monitoring Center in Geneva.)

Intensive pushback in the EU and the United States is only part of the story — 40 million of these people are displaced within their own countries, with about 8 million of those inside Syria alone as of July. And despite what U.S. politicians have been saying about single male Syrian refugees being potentially dangerous, more than half of those displaced are women and a third are under age 17.

With neither the Syrian war nor the stream of people leaving other countries in conflict (Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq) showing any indication of slowing, I predict that 2016 will become the year the world allows — yet again — millions of families and people in need to continue to suffer through no fault of their own. With a lack of funds allocated to properly feed, house, and school those fleeing war, in my opinion, the global refugee crisis will yet again be the story we can’t ignore, but somehow do.

 

The long reach of limiting civil rights in Europe

Leela Jacinto

France is ushering in 2016 in a state of emergency that has its roots in the bloody 1950s Algerian War of Independence. The measures, approved by the National Assembly after the deadly Nov. 13 Paris attacks, are set to expire on Feb. 26. But the government has already backed a plan to enshrine a state of emergency provision in the constitution — including a controversial measure that would strip dual nationals convicted of terrorism of their French citizenship. The familiar tussle between increased security and decreased civil rights will dominate France — and much of Western Europe — as the continent grapples with the threat of domestic radicalization, the migrant crisis, and the increasing allure of right-wing politics. It will be the most important underreported story of the year.

Mounting security threats will always outweigh declining liberties in the headlines and the public imagination. But as hundreds of Europe’s citizens are being arrested without warrants in extrajudicial raids that officials often say are “linked to the Paris attacks” and newsrooms with finite resources let the official versions pass unchallenged or lightly questioned, the continent’s sizable, already aggrieved Muslim population — which is being disproportionately affected by the measures — will increasingly feel like second-class citizens. This will not help the long-term security of a continent on the front lines of the international fight against radicalization.

As the U.N.-sponsored political road map to peace in Syria, set to be unveiled this year, looks increasingly like a deal hammered out by President Bashar al-Assad with his friends, Russia and Iran, there is a real fear of rising Sunni disenfranchisement across the world.

As French courts get clogged with legal challenges against the excesses of tightened security measures, this is a story that cannot — must not — be ignored.

The fall of the House of Europe

James Stavridis

The three obvious big stories of 2016 are going to be: 1) the fight against the Islamic State; 2) deepening tension in the South and East China Seas; and 3) Russian obstructionism in Ukraine and beyond. But big doors swing on seemingly small hinges, and the story for which 2016 may well be remembered will be a bureaucratic unwinding: the beginning of the end of the European project.

The highly touted six-decade idea of a unified Europe that is safe, democratic, borderless, and an active global partner for the United States is under significant challenge. While Europe enjoys many advantages — wealth, values, culture, and education — it is increasingly prey to significant challenges that make it unlikely the grand vision will be achieved, despite the courage and brilliance of German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

The rise of far-right parties will continue; Britain will increasingly look for an exit; the Greek damage to the EU — both economically and psychologically — will continue; the number of Syrian refugees will double; Russia will continue to do all it can to undermine the transatlantic bridge; NATO will show insufficient will to affect the course of events; and the ongoing recession will settle into Europe like a cough it can’t shake. And looming over it all is the downward spiral in demographics, which saps the vitality and energy of society and will only emphasize the inability of Europe to successfully integrate migrants. All of this will occur in the last year of the Obama administration, which is essentially running out the clock and unwilling to lean in forcefully to help.

For the United States, the long-term implications of this are significant and unfortunate. Europe, despite all our frustrations with the continent at times, represents the best global pool of partners we can find. The debate will crystalize over the year ahead, with two German chancellors on either side of the argument.

More than a century ago, Otto von Bismarck said scornfully, “Whoever speaks of Europe is wrong: It is only a geographical expression.” More recently Merkel said, “Europe only succeeds if we work together.” Chancellor Merkel is, as usual, correct, but the challenges are enormous.

Obama’s last chance

Rosa Brooks

2016 will be U.S. President Barack Obama’s last year in office, and we should expect to see him focus on establishing his legacy. Expect news coverage to focus on whether he’s getting it right. Domestically, can he preserve the core provisions of the Affordable Care Act in the face of legal challenges, implementation headaches, and bad press? Can he leave his successor an economy that helps those at the bottom as well as those at the top? Can he restore American faith that “e pluribus unum” is more than just a slogan on a coin at a moment when both race relations and immigration are driving wedges between communities?

Internationally, Obama needs to decide if he’s comfortable leaving multiple unresolved conflicts to his successor — and if he cares about the legal precedents his administration has been setting. Will he succumb to political pressure from hawks and aim for a decisive military victory against the Islamic State, even if it means dramatically ramping up U.S. military efforts in the Middle East, or will he decide that unresolved conflicts are better than risking another ground war? Will he leave his successor to deal with Guantánamo and with legal and policy precedents that embrace indefinite detention on grounds of abstract “dangerousness” and that permit the United States to kill suspected terrorists in any country on earth, in secret and without external checks and balances?

When Obama took office in 2009, he had a mandate and a window of opportunity to correct the Bush administration’s excesses and mistakes. He didn’t take advantage of the window, and he risks going down in history as a president who never lived up to his promise. With one year to go, attention will — and should — focus on whether or not it’s too late.

 

The tremors of the refugee crisis

Gordon Adams

The world will be inundated by more refugees in 2016, swelling the historically unprecedented 60 million people already forced from their homes around the globe. The ripple from this flow will hit the political and economic systems of a significant number of countries.

In the United States, the fear of terrorists among the refugees will play a significant role in the 2016 presidential campaign and, if Donald Trump or Ted Cruz wins the nomination, on the election itself. In Germany, Austria, France, Hungary, Poland, and other EU countries, the refugee issue will become central to political debates, the rise of right-wing politicians, and a partial unraveling of the EU itself, as borders are closed and mistrust and fear grow.

Refugee flows will roil the politics of Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan.

Turkey will seize on the instability at its border to deploy forces that will violently repress its internal Kurdish minority. And in Russia, fears of a terrorist influx spurred by refugees and returning, well-trained extremists will accelerate its rapprochement with the United States, Europe, and the Middle East, in order to end the Syrian civil war and defeat the Islamic State.

In Maine, where I live, Somali migrants are reviving the aging industrial town of Lewiston. Despite fears of terrorism, industrial countries will begin to figure out what Germany has already recognized: that refugees are a key element helping reverse the economic impact of aging populations. They will start to welcome refugees as a next-generation labor force that can revive economic growth.

An eye on the House of Saud

Kim Ghattas

I’ll be watching a key geopolitical trend with impact beyond the Middle East: the continuing Iranian-Saudi rivalry and the internal dynamics in each country.

In February, Iranians will vote for a new parliament and a new Assembly of Experts, the only body that has the power to choose or dismiss the supreme leader. The tussle for influence between hard-liners and moderates will play out, and though the parliamentary election changes nothing about the overall Iranian system, the outcome will shape the tone of Tehran’s dealings with the outside world.

In Riyadh, the deputy crown prince and the king’s son, Mohammed bin Salman, continues to consolidate power in his hands and work on big reforms in the military. There have been many predictions about the downfall of the House of Saud and though this isn’t one of them, watch for a potentially dangerous escalation of the rivalry between Mohammed bin Salman and the crown prince, Mohammed bin Nayef.

Both of these developments feed into Saudi Arabia and Iran’s respective efforts to gain the upper hand in the region. After the Iran deal, Riyadh felt the balance of power in the region tipping away. The closer we get to a potential solution in Syria, the more the fighting is likely to intensify, with Riyadh and Tehran feeding the fires. This is going to be a yearlong trend; there will be no clear victor or vanquished regionally, though there could be casualties from internal power struggles. The first six months will set the tone with the Iranian elections in February and a crescendo of violence in Syria, which will lead to a spike in the number of refugees heading to Europe in the spring.

 

The shale conundrum

Emile Simpson

Will U.S. shale die or hibernate in 2016? The answer provides a bellwether for the geopolitics of 2016. If oil prices remain low over the long run, there are two basic possibilities: violence and repression in petro-states facing fiscal chaos and popular unrest, and a potential oil price shock should a reconfigured version of OPEC emerge out of necessity.

The most efficient U.S. shale producers have battled through tumbling oil prices this year to reach a break-even price of below $40 a barrel. But many more need oil at $50-$70 a barrel. In short, much of the industry is unsustainable in a world where crude prices hit $36 a barrel earlier this month.

In 2016, if Iran comes back to the market, Chinese demand slows, OPEC remains too riven by distrust to enforce any production cut, and Fed interest rate hikes continue, the run of bankruptcies in the U.S. shale industry will likely accelerate.

If that’s right, oil prices could rise as much U.S. production comes off the market. However, higher prices would once again make core U.S. shale profitable. The question, then, is whether the industry is merely in hibernation, and the tap turns back on; or whether it’s dead, and the tap stays shut. If the tap comes back on, oil prices will simply fall again. This mechanism effectively locks in low prices, all else being equal.

I’m a hibernationist: U.S. shale is more resilient than Riyadh thinks, which should worry old King Salman.

 

Saudi Arabia settles down

Elizabeth Dickinson

In the part of the world I write about — the Gulf states — I expect Saudi Arabia’s increasing assertiveness to be a major story in 2016. New leadership under King Salman and his young son and deputy crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, appears keen on asserting a new role in direct opposition to regional rival Iran. Saudi Arabia is already leading a now nine-month air and ground campaign against Iran-allied Houthi rebels in Yemen. The country is also escalating assistance, both military and political, to Syrian rebel groups opposed to Tehran’s longtime ally, President Bashar al-Assad.

None of this is new, but 2016 will be the year in which we see the necessary transition from attacking to stabilizing. As the United States has learned in Afghanistan and Iraq in recent years, bringing calm to countries such as Yemen and Syria is likely to prove far more challenging, expensive, and time-consuming than any active combat. Particularly in Yemen, Saudi Arabia is likely to be bogged down for the foreseeable future — and failing to stay on the ground could yield the tumultuous ground to extremist forces. Saudi Arabia will face significant challenges in transforming battlefield victories into regional stability. Military operations in the region have relied on local allies and proxies — regional separatist militias in Yemen, rebels in Syria, and so forth — who may or may not pursue Riyadh’s interests once the dust settles. Saudi forces have little experience in peacekeeping or civilian policing. The Saudi budget is also starting to feel the strain of falling oil prices, something that could eventually put a damper on expensive adventures overseas. Still, the country does have some advantages over Western or other forces, including long-standing local relationships and know-how, and a willingness to deploy aid quickly and generously.

This Saudi assertiveness will pose challenges for the United States, which has grown increasingly concerned by the civilian toll of the campaign in Yemen. Keeping Riyadh on Washington’s good side will mean balancing a mini-detente with Iran with Saudi Arabia’s desire to suppress Tehran’s regional influence.

The (many) crises yet to come

Whitney Kassel

Despite slow-boil conflicts with very real potential for escalation, like the territorial dispute in the South China Sea, Russian meddling in its own “backyard,” and the Mexican drug trade, the biggest story of 2016 will almost certainly be the horrific situation in Syria and Iraq, its radiating effects across Europe, and, to a lesser extent, its impact on the United States.

The moral crisis in which the world has found itself after nearly five years of watching as innocent civilians are massacred by their own government and a band of insane extremists must come to a head in 2016. Increased action, whether through sustained intervention in the form of no-fly zones, greatly enhanced assistance to local forces (including those fighting President Bashar al-Assad in Syria), robust political intervention in Iraq, or all of the above, will quickly cease to be optional, especially as the refugee crisis in Europe shows no signs of slowing and the threat of violence in Europe and possibly the United States continues to escalate.

The United States is facing its own moral demons with the xenophobic and un-American rhetoric spewing from the early days of the presidential campaign, something its people will need to confront and hopefully combat in the name of their country’s fundamental values and founding principles. 2016 will be a year of reckoning for all who have sat and hoped the newest crisis in the Middle East would somehow solve itself and for saner heads to prevail by deploying reasonable and morally defensible solutions.

 

 

Drug Traffickers Hacking Surveillance Drones

Posted on by

DefenseOne; The drug cartels aren’t just buying golden Uzis anymore. As the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency, or CBP, has upped its drone patrols along America’s Mexican border, narcotics traffickers have responded with expensive technology of their own.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security and local law enforcement confirmed that Drug Traffickers are hacking surveillance drones on the border.

Small drones are another powerful tool used by the US Department of Homeland Security to monitor its borders, but drug traffickers already adopting countermeasures. In order to avoid surveillance, drug traffickers are hacking US surveillance drones used to patrol the border.

US surveillance drones

According to Timothy Bennett, a Department of Homeland Security program manager, drug traffickers are using technology to spoof and jam the US surveillance drones.

“The bad guys on the border have lots of money. And what they are putting money into is spoofing and jamming of GPSs, so we are doing funding to look at small UAS that we can counter this,” Bennett said during a panel at the Center for Strategic & International Studies. 

The principle behind the GPS spoofing attack is that sending to control system of the drone fake geographic coordinates it is possible to deceive the onboard system hijacking the vehicle in a different place for which it is commanded. Non-military GPS signals are not encrypted, this makes drones vulnerable to this kind of attacks.

Using jamming techniques against drones, it is possible to interrupt the GPS receiving transmitted to the UAVs. In this scenario the aircraft could potentially lose the capability to monitor its route and to calculate its location, altitude, and the direction in which it is traveling.

Both attack techniques are adopted by drug traffickers that belong to well-funded organizations that has access to modern advanced hacking technology.

DHS hasn’t provided further details on the attacks, but Bennett confirmed that the attacks are interfering with the operations conduced by members of the law enforcement.

“You’re out there looking, trying to find out this path [they’re] going through with drugs, and we can’t get good coordinate systems on it because we’re getting spoofed. That screws up the whole thing. We got to fix that problem,” Bennett told Defense One.

Putin Announces U.S. as a Threat to Security

Posted on by

Heh….Obama is no threat to anyone except Christians,legal gun owners and to taxpayers. But in case you are inclined to do some copying and pasting, here is the document. The United States under Barack Obama has refused to remain on a global stage and work to find peace through diplomacy or even militarily. Putin continues to challenge NATO and Putin will continue to be aggressive towards NATO members.

The document outlines the national interests and strategic priorities of the nation. Putin signed the executive order Thursday, establishing a new posture toward the NATO bloc, which has seen its relationship with Russia deteriorate since the crisis in Ukraine, which began in 2014.

Russian news agency Tass quotes the strategy, which cites a NATO military buildup, and “the alliance’s approach to Russia’s borders,” as a threat to Russia’s national security. The document says the organization is illegally extending its reach.

Putin Names US As Threat To Russian National Security In New Strategy Document

Durden/Zerohedge: It’s no secret that relations between Moscow and the West have deteriorated the post-Cold War lows.

The annexation of Crimea and the conflict in Ukraine have pushed the two sides to the brink of a Baltic battle while Russia’s intervention in Syria changed the West’s calculus when it comes to pushing for regime change in the Mid-East.

Earlier this year, in a hilariously accurate assessment of US foreign policy, Vladimir Putin’s Security Council issued a statement entitled “About The US National Security Strategy“. Here are some notable excerpts (translated):

The armed forces are considered as the basis of US national security and military superiority is considered a major factor in the American world leadership. While maintaining the continuity of the plants to use military force unilaterally and anywhere in the world, as well as to maintain a military presence abroad…

 

Significant efforts by the US and its allies will be directed to the formation of anti-Russian policy states, with which Russia has established partnership relations, as well as to reduce Russian influence in the former Soviet Union.

 

Continue the policy of preserving the global dominance of the United States, increasing the combat capabilities of NATO, as well as to strengthen the US military presence in the Asia-Tihokeanskom region. Military force will continue to be considered as the primary means of ensuring national security and interests of the United States. 

 

Becoming more widespread to eliminate unwanted US political regimes acquire advanced technology “color revolutions” with a high probability of their application in relation to Russia.

Thus, the strategy was developed on the basis of American exceptionalism, the right to take unilateral action to protect and promote the interests of the United States in the world and bears the active anti-Russian charge.

In other words, Moscow views US foreign policy as decidedly Russophobic and The Kremlin pretty clearly sees Washington as a threat to Russia’s security. Well on New Year’s Eve, Vladimir Putin made it official by signing a new appraisal of his country’s national security which, for the first time, lists the US as a threat. Here’s Reuters:

The document, “About the Strategy of National Security of Russian Federation”, was signed by President Vladimir Putin on New Year’s Eve. It replaces a 2009 version, endorsed by then- President Dmitry Medvedev, the current prime minister, which mentioned neither the United States not NATO.

 

It says Russia has managed to heighten its role in solving global problems and international conflicts. That heightened role has caused a reaction by the West.

 

“The strengthening of Russia happens against the background of new threats to the national security, which has complex and interrelated nature,” the document goes on to note.

 

Conducting an independent policy, “both international and domestic” has caused “counteraction from the USA and its allies, which are striving to retain their dominance in global affairs.”

 

That in turn is likely to lead to “political, economical, military and informational pressure on Russia.”

The document also implicates Washington in staging “anti-constitutional coup d’etat in Ukraine”, which is of course true. The result: a protracted civil war and a US puppet government that is less popular than its Russia-backed predecessor.

The document also reiterates Russia’s concerns about the expansion and strengthening of NATO. Here’s an excerpt:

The buildup of the military potential of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and vesting it with global functions implemented in violations of norms of international law, boosting military activity of the bloc’s countries, further expansion of the alliance, the approach of its military infrastructure to Russian borders create a threat to the national security.”

The references are to the multiple war games and snap drills NATO has conducted near Russia’s borders over the past nine months and to the inclusion of Montenegro in the alliance (documented here).

Of course one doesn’t necessarily have to interpret the document in the way the Western media has. Compare and contrast the following two headlines, the first from Reuters and the second from Sputnik:

Those two pieces refer to the very same document although you wouldn’t know it by what’s implied. Here are some excerpts from the Sputnik piece:

The strategy defines main venues of Russia-US partnership on the global arena as the improvement of mechanisms of arms controls, the strengthening of mutual trust measures, joint efforts in the area of WMD non-proliferation, expanded cooperation in the fight against terrorism as well as in the resolution of regional conflicts.

 

“Russia supports the strengthening of mutually-beneficial cooperation with the European countries, the European Union…with the goal of developing a transparent system of collective security in the Euro-Atlantic region based on clearly-defined legal agreements,” the text of the document, posted on Thursday on the government’s legal information portal, says.

 

According to the document, Russia continues to view NATO expansion and military activities near Russian borders as a major threat to its security and a violation of international laws, but is ready to develop relations with the Alliance in the interests of the European security.

The takeaway here probably isn’t whether or not the US is listed as a “threat” to Russia’s national security but rather that The Kremlin if officially recognizing Russia’s role in a kind of new world order wherein all matters of geopolitical significance are no longer decided in Washington.

In other words, the era of unipolarity and US hegemony (which has lasted nearly a quarter century) has come to an end and Russia’s discussion of the backlash from the US and NATO isn’t so much an effort to cast aspersions (i.e. to call this country or that country “a threat”) as it is to outline and assess the new reality.