Category Archives: Department of Defense

Private Powerbrokers Bankrolled Iran Diplomacy

Posted on by

Thomas Pickering, an anti-Israel steward of progressive bent was designated by Hillary Clinton to head up the task of the Accountability Review Board report to investigate the Benghazi deadly attack.

Being a powerbroker with lots of money, an agenda and the quest to create expanded business opportunity with the enemy is what the Iran Project is about.

Iran has been an rogue country for decades and a state sponsor of terror, yet to some that does not matter even when American have been killed. Shameful.

The deal being negotiated with Iran by the P5+1 comes down to lifting sanctions, funding and missiles. Through this the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is about to being even richer than the $8 billion in their control now. Does that even sound remotely acceptable?

Click here for the Iran Project summary and review the signatories.

Cunning Diplomacy Bubbles to the Surface

How Freelance Diplomacy Bankrolled by Rockefellers Has Paved the Way for an Iran Deal

Bloomberg:

Cutting a nuclear deal with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would be the easy part for President Obama, who must then persuade both houses of Congress to sign off on the pact. Republicans and many Democrats abhor the idea of lifting sanctions and readmitting oil-rich Iran to the global economy until it disavows all nuclear research and stops meddling through proxies in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen.

Advocating for an Iran truce is a loose coalition of peace groups, think tanks, and former high-ranking U.S. diplomats bound together by millions of dollars given by the Rockefeller family through its $870 million Rockefeller Brothers Fund. The philanthropy, which is run by a board split between family members and outsiders, has spent $4.3 million since 2003 promoting a nuclear pact with Iran, chiefly through the New York-based Iran Project, a nonprofit led by former U.S. diplomats. For more than a decade they’ve conducted a dialogue with well-placed Iranians, including Mohammad Javad Zarif, now Tehran’s chief nuclear negotiator. The Americans routinely briefed officials in the George W. Bush and Obama administrations, including William Burns, Obama’s former deputy secretary of state. Burns hammered out much of an interim nuclear agreement in secret 2013 talks with his Iranian counterparts that paved the way for the current summit in Vienna, where Secretary of State John Kerry leads the U.S. delegation.

The Rockefellers’ Iran foray began in late 2001, after the Sept. 11 attacks. Stephen Heintz, president of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, convened a board retreat at the Rockefellers’ Pocantico Center in Westchester, just north of New York City, to consider new approaches to the Islamic world at a time when the U.S. was focused on the threat from al-Qaeda. One invited speaker was Seyyed Hossein Nasr, an Iranian-American professor at George Washington University. “He got me thinking more and more about Iran, its geostrategic importance and its relationship to the Sunni world,” says Heintz.

The Rockefeller fund decided to create the Iran Project in cooperation with the United Nations Association of the U.S., a nonprofit that promotes the UN’s work then headed by William Luers, a career diplomat who served as ambassador to Venezuela and Czechoslovakia. Luers made contact with Zarif through Iran’s mission to the UN in New York. He also recruited career diplomats Thomas Pickering, who served as Ronald Reagan’s ambassador to Israel and George H.W. Bush’s ambassador to the UN, and Frank G. Wisner, who served as Reagan’s ambassador to Egypt and whose father was a high-ranking officer in the Office of Strategic Services and then in the CIA. “Each of us came from a special place on the compass,” Wisner says.

With encouragement from the Bush administration, says Heintz, the trio developed a relationship with Zarif, who was stationed in New York representing Iran at the UN. In early 2002, the Iran Project set up a meeting with Iranians affiliated with the Institute for Political and International Studies in Tehran, a think tank with close government ties. It was hosted by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute at a small hotel outside Stockholm. The Iranians came armed with talking points, Heintz says, and the meetings were stiff and unproductive. The initial goal of developing a road map to restoring relations between Washington and Tehran, along the lines of Nixon’s 1972 Shanghai Communique preceding U.S.-China relations, proved elusive, according to Pickering. After every meeting, Heintz says, Iran Project leaders would brief staffers at the State Department or White House, including Stephen Hadley, Bush’s national security adviser, and Condoleezza Rice, his secretary of state. “As we had no contacts at all with Iran at the time, their insights were very valuable,” says R. Nicholas Burns, who served as under secretary of state for political affairs under Bush.

The secret meetings in European capitals were suspended after Mahmoud Ahmedinejad won Iran’s presidency in 2005. But the group’s relationship with Zarif proved key in helping to jump-start negotiations after he was made foreign minister in 2013 by Rouhani, the newly elected president. A State Department official says the administration welcomes back-channel efforts like the Iran Project’s because “it proves useful both to have knowledgeable former officials and country experts engaging with their counterparts and in reinforcing our own messages when possible.”

The Iran Project kept an eye on public opinion from the start. Among those invited to its events in New York was Robert Silvers, editor of the New York Review of Books, who found them “helpful in framing ideas for a workable nuclear treaty,” he says. The ideas floated at the meetings included letting the Iranians keep a limited capacity for enriching uranium to save face. “But everyone knew that a huge amount depended on how far the Iranians would go.” Silvers published multiple essays detailing the proposals by Pickering and Jessica Mathews, another Iran Project participant who preceded William Burns as president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The Iran Project’s briefing papers have provided a counterweight to criticism from pro-Israel groups, led by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, opposed to a deal.

For Wisner, breaking bread with Iranians exorcised a few ghosts. He was on Secretary of State Cyrus Vance’s senior staff during the Iranian revolution and the hostage crisis in 1979 and knew diplomats held at the embassy. “I lived that,” he says. He also remembers listening to his dad planning the military coup that removed Iran’s democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, from power in 1953 and replaced him with the U.S.-backed shah, Reza Pahlavi. “They don’t trust us, and we don’t trust them,” says Wisner. He says his father’s role in the Mosaddegh coup didn’t come up in any of the Iran Project meetings. “The Iranians, like us, have made a major political decision to engage,” he says.

The Rockefeller fund has given about $3.3 million to the Ploughshares Fund, a San Francisco-based disarmament group that has spent $4 million since 2010 to promote a deal with Iran and shepherded the peace groups and think tanks it supports to back Obama. “We’re trying to leverage our investments to play on our strengths,” says Joseph Cirincione, its president.

On June 23, when the New York Times ran an op-ed, “The Iran Deal’s Fatal Flaw,” Ploughshares coordinated its grantees’ responses to the claim that the deal would leave Iran capable of producing a nuclear weapon within three months. The Arms Control Association, a nonpartisan group established in 1971, published a rebuttal on its daily blog, which other Ploughshares-affiliated groups sent to their contacts in Congress. “The pro-deal side has done a very good job systematically co-opting what used to be the arms control community and transforming it into an absolutist, antiwar movement,” says Omri Ceren, senior adviser for strategy for the Israel Project, a nonprofit that opposes a deal. “Sometimes, if your goal is stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, you have to make the hard decision to take military action, or at least signal you’re willing to.” Cirincione says that mistakes the rationale behind the Iran Project. “Iran is the boulder in the road,” he says. “You have to resolve this issue to get to the rest of the nonproliferation agenda. That’s why we’re doing this.”

 

Thirteen Miles Away, Those are Russian Bombers

Posted on by

The US Air Force reportedly scrambled fighter jets to intercept two pairs of Russian bombers that flew off the coast of California and Alaska on July 4.

The first incident occurred off the coast of Alaska, forcing the Air Force to send two F-22 jets from their base in Alaska to intercept two Tupolev Tu-95 long-range nuclear bombers, Fox News reports, citing US defense officials.

The second incident happened off the central coast of California, where another pair of Tu-95 Bear bombers were intercepted by two F-15 jets.

A defense official said that neither pair of Russian bombers entered US airspace–12 nautical miles off the coast.

Such incidents are not an uncommon occurrence between Russia and the United States.

A US Air Force reconnaissance aircraft encountered with a Russian fighter jet over the Black Sea in May, American military officials said last month.

According to officials, the Russian Sukhoi Su-27 fighter jet, flying at high speed, flew alongside the US RC-135 reconnaissance aircraft at the same altitude, and shadowed the plane before leaving the area.

Also in May, the Russian military deployed Su-24 jets to ward off The US Navy destroyer USS Ross in the Black Sea after it was found heading into Russia’s territorial waters, according to several Russian media outlets.

The number of flights by Russian bombers over the US Air Defense Identification Zone doubled last year from their norm, according to data from the North American Aerospace Defense Command, known as NORAD.

Congressional hawks see the moves as a veiled message by Moscow over the conflict in Ukraine.

Meanwhile, Putin is KGB’ing Barack Obama:

While the two leaders have not had any communications since February, Putin allegedly reached out to the White House first in a phone call and then in a written communication.

Ultimatums abound, but who is listening.

Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama have reason to be disappointed after their telephone conversation on June 25.

It was the first direct communication between these leaders since February, and both the Kremlin and the White House reported that the conversation ranged over the Ukraine crisis, the civil wars in Syria and Iraq and the NATO buildup in Eastern Europe, as well as the impending conclusion of the talks with Iran over suspect nuclear weapons.

Putin initiated the exchange, but Obama did all of the asserting and exhorting that, in the end, came to a standoff in all the threatened regions. Chiefly, Obama is said to have insisted upon actions by Putin without offering anything in exchange. Obama’s conduct, according to Kremlin informants, was a premeditated performance of ultimatum.

Demands and provocations

First, Obama pressed Putin with the claim that Russia must withdraw from Ukraine, including the Crimean peninsula.

The White House reported Obama’s remarks in terms of last February’s Minsk agreement between the so-called Normandy Four, Ukraine, France, Germany and Russia: “President Obama reiterated the need for Russia to fulfill its commitments under the Minsk agreements, including the removal of all Russian troops and equipment from Ukrainian territory.”

At no point before or after that agreement has the Kremlin acknowledged there are Russian troops or weapon systems inside Ukraine in support of the Donbass separatists. There is no language in the agreement saying that there exist Russian armed forces in Ukraine to be withdrawn. There is mention of “foreign armed formations, military equipment, and also mercenaries.” Since then, the U.S. has deployed both military units and military equipment into Ukraine in support of the Kiev government. Kiev claims it has deployed 60,000 troops along the Donbass cease-fire line. The U.S., Great Britain and Canada speak of sending trainers for the elite national guard units (though not the neo-fascist Azov Battalion).

Obama’s remarks to Putin about Ukraine took the form of a diktat. From the Russian point of view, Obama sounded peculiarly unrealistic. There was the suggestion of desperation in Obama’s demands in order to create a foreign policy legacy despite the disorder in Europe, the Middle East and East Asia.

Obama also demanded that Russia support the pending deal between the P5+1 powers — the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany — and Iran over Tehran’s suspected secret nuclear weapons program. Russia, a party to the negotiations, has not voiced its opinion of a deal yet to be concluded. Obama told Putin that Russia must go along with the deal because this is what the international community demands.

Read more details here.

Bunker Busters vs. Kerry’s Pro-Iran Lobby

Posted on by

Sanctions and Ballistic Missiles

From Reuters:

A dispute over U.N. sanctions on Iran’s ballistic missile program and a broader arms embargo were among issues holding up a nuclear deal between Tehran and six world powers on Monday, the day before their latest self-imposed deadline.

“The Iranians want the ballistic missile sanctions lifted. They say there is no reason to connect it with the nuclear issue, a view that is difficult to accept,” one Western official told Reuters. “There’s no appetite for that on our part.”

Iranian and other Western officials confirmed this view as the foreign ministers of the six powers – Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States – gathered in Vienna to try to strike a deal with Iran by Tuesday night.

“The Western side insists that not only should it (ballistic missiles) remain under sanctions, but that Iran should suspend its program as well,” an Iranian official said.

“But Iran is insisting on its rights and says all the sanctions, including on the ballistic missiles, should be lifted when the U.N. sanctions are lifted.”

Lobbying on Behalf of Tehran

From Reuters:

It’s always awkward to defend your enemies. But that’s the position U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration has found itself in with Iran as it pushes for an historic accord that would end a 12-year nuclear standoff.

Tehran and Washington, which have called each other the “Great Satan” and a member of the “Axis of Evil” during 36 years of hostility, are more used to exchanging insults than defending each other. The two foes cut diplomatic ties after Iranian revolutionaries seized 52 hostages in Tehran’s U.S. embassy during the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Yet for a month now the U.S. State Department has been defending Iran from suggestions that it was on the verge of violating a requirement to reduce its low-enriched uranium stockpile under a 2013 interim nuclear with major powers.

Offensive Measure, Bunker Busters

From LA Times:

As diplomats rush to reach an agreement to curb Iran’s nuclear program, the U.S. military is stockpiling conventional bombs so powerful that strategists say they could cripple Tehran’s most heavily fortified nuclear complexes, including one deep underground.

The bunker-busting bombs are America’s most destructive munitions short of atomic weapons. At 15 tons, each is 5 tons heavier than any other bomb in the U.S. arsenal.

In development for more than a decade, the latest iteration of the MOP — massive ordnance penetrator — was successfully tested on a deeply buried target this year at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. The test followed upgrades to the bomb’s guidance system and electronics to stop jammers from sending it off course.

U.S. officials say the huge bombs, which have never been used in combat, are a crucial element in the White House deterrent strategy and contingency planning should diplomacy go awry and Iran seek to develop a nuclear bomb.

Obama has made it clear that he has no desire to order an attack, warning that U.S. airstrikes on Iran’s air defense network and nuclear facilities would spark a destabilizing new war in the Middle East, and would only delay Iran by several years should it choose to build a bomb.

“A military solution will not fix it,” Obama told Israeli TV on June 1. An attack “would temporarily slow down an Iranian nuclear program, but it will not eliminate it.”

Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, speaking to reporters Thursday at the Pentagon, sought to downplay the likelihood or the utility of an attack. He said no plan under consideration, including use of the bunker-busters, could deliver a permanent knockout blow to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and enrichment plants.

What Now For Cuba

Posted on by

Cuba’s economic freedom score is 29.6, making its economy one of the world’s least free. Its overall score is 0.9 point higher than last year, with a slight deterioration in monetary freedom outweighed by improvements in three of the 10 economic freedoms, including trade freedom, fiscal freedom, and freedom from corruption. Cuba is ranked least free of 29 countries in the South and Central America/Caribbean region, and its overall score is significantly lower than the regional average.

In recent years, the government has made measured concessions to encourage more entrepreneurship and private-sector growth. Communist Party–endorsed reforms to cut government payrolls and expand approved professions have not been broad enough to ensure any meaningful advancement in overall economic freedom. The state continues to interfere in most economic activity. Price controls are pervasive, and the two-tiered exchange rate regime continues to distort prices.

Despite membership in the World Trade Organization, the economy remains relatively cut off from the international marketplace. Only state enterprises are allowed to engage in international trade and investment. The state uses an oppressive regulatory environment to suppress entrepreneurial activity and controls most means of production. Shallow credit markets impede access to credit for business activities.

Cuba is demanding the return of Guantanamo Base, stating it is illegally occupied. The military base goes far beyond being a detention center since 1907. It should be noted that many Cubans not only work at Base Guantanamo but live there as well, under the American flag.

U.S. Cuba Policy: Where Things Stand Now

WSJ:

President Barack Obama announced in December that the U.S. was moving to normalize relations with Cuba after over 50 years of Cold War enmity. That moment was both symbolic and practical, as he took steps to begin removing restrictions on travel and trade. On Wednesday, Mr. Obama announced that the U.S. will formally restore diplomatic ties and reopen its embassy in Havana.

What exactly has changed since December and where are we now? The Wall Street Journal explains:

Can I travel to Cuba now?

That depends. Traveling to Cuba from the U.S. as a tourist is still illegal. But 12 categories of people, including close relatives of Cubans, academics, journalists, people participating in educational programs, and people on humanitarian or religious missions can go to the island provided they say their trip falls within one of those categories. Airlines can fly to Cuba without obtaining special licenses, but flights to Cuba are charters—not yet commercial flights. Several U.S. ferry companies have received licenses to operate routes between ports in Florida and Cuba, but the proposed ferry services must receive Havana’s approval.

Can U.S. companies do business there?

Mr. Obama also took steps to loosen financial restrictions, but most trade remains illegal and will require congressional action before changing. Mr. Obama eased some rules to permit increased exports of U.S. telecommunications and other technological goods to the island, as well as building materials. Mr. Obama also made it easier for exports of agricultural and medical supplies and goods to Cuba’s nascent private sector.

U.S. banks are allowed to establish correspondent accounts in Cuba, and U.S. citizens now can use credit and debit cards there. But activity under Mr. Obama’s measures are slow-going, in part due to a lack of clarity about the regulations. U.S. officials have said they’re likely to be updated as more people try to use them.

What have been the big milestones so far?

The first big moments, of course, were the announcements by Mr. Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro in December that the former Cold War foes would renew relations, the culmination of 18 months of secret talks.

Then, in January, loosened travel and trade regulations went into effect, and the U.S. and Cuba began negotiating reopening embassies and restoring diplomatic ties.

In April, Messrs. Obama and Castro met at the Summit of the Americas, the first substantive discussion between U.S. and Cuban presidents since 1956.

In May, the Obama administration lifted Cuba’s designation as a state sponsor of terrorism. That was a critical step toward restoring diplomatic relations, but didn’t have much practical effect, as Congressional sanctions still ban Cuba from arms exports and sales, from receiving U.S. economic assistance and from conducting most trade.

Wednesday’s announcement that the two countries are formally restoring diplomatic ties was another big step.

The next milestones will be reopening ceremonies for embassies in both countries. Cuba announced it would host its event in Washington on July 20 and its delegation will be led by Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez. The U.S. hasn’t set a date for its flag raising, but said Secretary of State John Kerry will be there to do the honors.

Now what?

The U.S. and Cuba will begin lots of bilateral talks and efforts to cooperate in areas including law enforcement, development, human rights, counterterrorism and antinarcotics. Talks will also begin on property claims and the Cuban government’s claims against the U.S. The U.S. has also said Cuba has agreed to talks about extraditing fugitives, though it’s unclear what will happen with some of the higher-profile ones, including JoAnne Chesimard, now known as Assata Shakur, who is on the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists list for killing a New Jersey state trooper in 1973. Cuba granted her asylum after she escaped from prison in 1979.

The spotlight moves to Congress now, where lawmakers must act to lift bans on travel and trade. Church groups, agricultural groups, business groups and others are supportive of lifting the ban. The White House is counting on these independent stakeholders to pressure Congress to act. It’s likely to be a long battle, with supporters of normalization taking a piecemeal approach to chipping away at the embargo.

The White House backs that strategy, and a move to lift the travel ban is likely to be the first step in the process.

 

July 4, 1976, Entebbe

Posted on by

Operation Thunderbolt, the military name for the raid on Entebbe was a terror hostage rescue mission. If you can, watch the movie.

The whole event included Benghazi, Libya, Uganda, France, Greece, Israel and two Americans.

Israel just declassified the documents surrounding the operation, a chilling story which is quite poignant today. The summary of the full operation is found here.

The 1986 movie “Delta Force” was based on this operation.

From The Times of Israel:

The Israeli army archive released the hand-written operations log of the dramatic 1976 hostage rescue in Entebbe on Thursday, including the 1:55 a.m. note that the commander of the mission, Yoni Netanyahu, had been wounded.

“From the radio [communications] it’s become clear that there’s another wounded, name of Yoni (apparently the familiar one),” the soldier wrote in real time.

Netanyahu, the older brother of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, was wounded on the tarmac on July 4, 1976 while leading troops into the terminal and died shortly thereafter.

An additional soldier was wounded and paralyzed and three Israeli hostages were killed during the initial exchange of fire. An elderly woman, Dora Bloch, had been evacuated to hospital earlier and was killed in revenge after the Israeli forces left Uganda.

Nonetheless, Israeli troops managed to liberate 101 people, held hostage by Palestinian and German terrorists, some 3,800 kilometers from Israel – an unprecedented feat that became a cornerstone of the Zionist ethos, particularly after it became known that the German terrorists, from the Baader-Meinhof gang, helped separate the Jews from the non-Jews.

“This operation will certainly be inscribed in the annals of military history, in legend and in national tradition,” prime minister Yitzhak Rabin said in the Knesset later that day.

The decision to send Israeli troops into Uganda had been an agonizing one, with defense minister Shimon Peres pushing for a military option and Rabin, the old general, cognizant of the fact that suggesting daring military plans and authorizing them were two entirely different matters.

On July 2 Peres wrote to Rabin that “the final twist” in the plan was that the most forward squad would leave the plane in a flag-bedecked Mercedes, masquerading as the Ugandan strongman Idi Amin, who was due back from Mauritius. “I don’t know if it’s possible, but interesting,” Peres wrote in the note, published by the IDF Archive.

Rabin responded: “1. When is Idi Amin due back from Mauritius? 2. Why a Mercedes?”

He signed the note, “Yitzhak.”

The following day, according to the archival information, Peres wrote to Rabin: “How does an operation start? 1. They say it’s impossible 2. The timing is wrong 3. The government won’t authorize it. The only question I’ve seen, and still see, is ‘how will it end.’”

At 2:30 in the afternoon on July 3, Rabin told the security cabinet, for the first time since the hostage situation developed on June 27, that he was in favor of the military option. “Not out of an idealization, far from that, but with knowledge toward what we are heading, toward wounded, toward dead… nonetheless, I recommend that the government to authorize this,” he said, according to Michael Bar-Zohar’s account in “Peres: A Political Biography” (Hebrew).

Peres, later that evening, with the planes airborne, wrote, “The planes are on their way and with them the fate of Israel.”