WH Nuclear Summit Details

3 countries by the way are ‘no-shows’ Iran, Russia and Pakistan.

The basis of the summit could and should begin with Western powers at UN seek meeting on Iranian missile tests

Washington, Paris, London and Berlin said as much in a letter dated Monday to the Spanish ambassador Roman Oyarzun Marchesi, who is in charge of the issue within the council.

The same powers last July signed an historic nuclear accord with Tehran to limit its nuclear programme in exchange for the lifting of crippling sanctions.

The letter obtained by AFP says the missile launches were “destabilizing and provocative” and defied a 2015 UN resolution, number 2231. Much more here.

FACT SHEET: The Nuclear Security Summits: Securing the World from Nuclear Terrorism

Progress Since Prague

The Obama Administration’s focus on nuclear security is part of a comprehensive nuclear policy presented by the President in Prague in 2009. In that speech, President Obama described a four-pronged agenda to pursue a world without nuclear weapons.  He laid out new U.S. policies and initiatives towards nuclear disarmament, nuclear nonproliferation, nuclear security, and nuclear energy.

President Obama in his Prague remarks identified the risk of nuclear terrorism as the most immediate and extreme threat to global security, and he called for a worldwide effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear materials in four years.  He also highlighted the need to break up black markets, detect and intercept materials in transit, and use financial tools to disrupt illicit trade in nuclear materials.

The Nuclear Threat

It is almost impossible to quantify the likelihood of nuclear attack by extremist groups.  But we know that roughly 2000 metric tons of nuclear weapons usable materials — highly enriched uranium and separated plutonium — are present in both civilian and military programs, and we know that terrorists have the intent and the capability to turn these raw materials into a nuclear device if they were to gain access to them.  A terrorist attack with an improvised nuclear device would create political, economic, social, psychological, and environmental havoc around the world, no matter where the attack occurs. The threat is global, the impact of a nuclear terrorist attack would be global, and the solutions therefore must be global.

The President’s call-to-action in Prague was intended to reinvigorate existing bilateral and multilateral efforts and to challenge nations to re-examine their own commitments to nuclear security. Given the global repercussions of such an attack, all nations have a common interest in establishing the highest levels of security and protection over nuclear material and strengthening national and international efforts to prevent nuclear smuggling and detect and intercept nuclear materials in transit.  World leaders have no greater responsibility than ensuring their people and neighboring countries are safe by securing nuclear materials and preventing nuclear terrorism.

Nuclear Security Summit Successes

The Nuclear Security Summit process has been the centerpiece of these efforts.  Since the first Summit in April 2010 in Washington, DC, President Obama and more than 50 world leaders have been working together to prevent nuclear terrorism and counter nuclear smuggling.  This Summit community has built an impressive track record in meaningful progress towards nuclear security, and on actions that back up our words.  Collectively, Summit participants have made over 260 national security commitments in the first three Summits, and of these, nearly three-quarters have been implemented.  These outcomes – nuclear material removed or eliminated, treaties ratified and implemented, reactors converted, regulations strengthened, “Centers of Excellence” launched, technologies upgraded, capabilities enhanced – are tangible, concrete evidence of improved nuclear security.  The international community has made it harder than ever for terrorists to acquire nuclear weapons, and that has made us all more secure.

In addition to national actions, Summits have provided opportunities for countries to step beyond the limitations of consensus to highlight steps they are actually taking as a group to reduce nuclear threats.  These so-called “gift baskets” have reflected joint commitments related to countering nuclear smuggling, radioactive source security, information security, transportation security, and many other topics.  It would be an overstatement to suggest that these national and collective commitments have come about exclusively as a result of the Nuclear Security Summits, but it is fair to say that they would almost certainly not all have transpired in the absence of the kind of high-level forcing effect that summits can have.

Across the four Nuclear Security Summits, we have maintained the momentum of tangible actions to reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism and to make progress towards strengthened international norms and standards for nuclear security.

  • The number of facilities with nuclear material continues to decline:  We successfully completed removals or confirmed the downblending of highly enriched uranium (HEU) and plutonium from more than 50 facilities in 30 countries — in total, enough material for 130 nuclear weapons.
    • In 2010, Ukraine committed to remove four bombs’ worth of HEU and completed that removal in 2012, fully eliminating all HEU from its territory – a particularly vital step in light of Russia’s subsequent breaches of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
    • Japan is on track to remove over 500 kilograms of HEU and separated plutonium from its Fast Critical Assembly. This is the largest-ever project by a country to remove nuclear material from its territory and we look forward to continued work with Japan on additional removals.
  • Fourteen countries and Taiwan highlighted the elimination of all nuclear materials from their territory; as a result, wide swaths of Central and Eastern Europe and all of South America can be considered free of HEU and therefore no longer targets for those seeking nuclear materials.
  • Security at sites and on borders is increasing: All Summit countries reported progress in enhancing nuclear security practices, including 20 countries committing to increase cooperation to counter nuclear smuggling efforts, and 13 countries pledging to improve nuclear detection practices at ports;
  • A majority of Summit states will implement stronger security practices: 36 countries pledged to implement stronger nuclear security practices in their countries by – among other things – incorporating international guidelines into national laws, inviting international peer reviews of their nuclear material, and committing to continuous review and improvement of their nuclear security systems.
  • The legal basis for nuclear security continues to be strengthened: additional countries are adopting binding legal commitments, such as the Amended Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, which will soon achieve entry into force with over 80 new ratifications since 2009, and the International Convention on Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.
  • Nuclear Security Training and Support Centers and other nuclear security Centers of Excellence have increased and become more connected: 15 states have opened centers since 2009 in support of national nuclear workforce training requirements, as well as international capacity building and research and development on nuclear security technologies.
  • Radioactive source security has been enhanced: 23 countries agreed to secure their most dangerous radioactive sources to levels established in international guidelines by 2016.

Strengthening the Architecture

Key aspects of the Summits’ success have included the personal attention of national leaders; a focus on tangible, meaningful outcomes; a regular event that elicits deliverables and announcements; and a forum that builds relationships that can help advance joint efforts.  We need to find ways to capture some of these attributes in more lasting vehicles to promote nuclear security progress.

The IAEA’s first-ever nuclear security ministerial held in 2013 is an important step towards strengthening the Agency’s role in promoting nuclear security, and we look forward to regularizing those high-level meetings, with the next one being held in December 2016. The 2012 special session at the UN on nuclear terrorism reflects the unique convening power of the United Nations in this arena. INTERPOL plays a unique role in bringing together law enforcement officials, as seen through its recent convening of the recent Global Conference to combat nuclear smuggling.  Other fora for collective action – the Global Partnership, the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism (GICNT), the Nuclear Suppliers Group – have all been invigorated in recent years.  The United States hosted the first Nuclear Security Regulators Conference in 2012, and Spain will host the second such meeting in May 2016.  The World Institute for Nuclear Security, professional societies and nongovernmental expert communities are also key components of this architecture and must continue to contribute to this mission as we move beyond Summits to nurture new concepts, build professional skills, and develop global connections.

The Summits were designed to enhance, elevate, expand and empower this architecture of treaties, institutions, norms and practices to effectively address the threats we face today and in the future.  As the 2016 Nuclear Security Summit represents the last summit in this format, we will issue five Action Plans in support of the key enduring institutions and initiatives related to nuclear security: the UN, the IAEA, INTERPOL, the GICNT and the Global Partnership.  These Action Plans represent steps the Summit participants will take as members of these organizations to support their enhanced role in nuclear security.

Another key component of the Summit’s success has been the effective network of “Sherpas” – the senior expert officials in each Summit country responsible for developing the outcomes of the Summits and for preparing their respective leaders.  These Sherpas cut across multiple agencies to form a tight-knit community of action.  This community will be carried forward after the 2016 Summit as a “Nuclear Security Contact Group” that will meet regularly to synchronize efforts to implement commitments made in the four Summit Communiqués, national statements, gift baskets, and Action Plans.  Recognizing the interest from those who have not been part of the Summit process, this Contact Group will be open to countries that wish to promote the Summit agenda.

Looking Ahead

As much as we have accomplished through the Summit process, more work remains.  We will continue to seek additional tangible results in nuclear material reductions and better overall nuclear and radiological security practices; we will look for ways to enhance the global nuclear security architecture; and, we will continue to promote an architecture that – over time – is comprehensive in its scope (including civilian and military material), is based on international standards, incorporates measures to build confidence that states are applying security responsibly in their countries, and promotes declining stocks of directly useable fissile material.

We all need to do more together to enhance nuclear security performance, to dissuade and apprehend nuclear traffickers, to eliminate excess nuclear weapons and material, to avoid production of materials we cannot use, to make sure our facilities can repel the full range of threats we have already seen in our neighborhoods, to share experiences and best practices, and to do so in ways that are visible to friends, neighbors, and rivals – and thereby provide assurance that we are effectively executing our sovereign responsibility. We also need to reflect the principle of continuous improvement, because nuclear security is never “done”.  As long as materials exist, they require our utmost commitment to their protection—we continue the march toward the goal of a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama, More Iran Concessions Coming

If you thought Obama was done making concessions to Iran — think again

WashingtonExaminer: One of the arguments critics of the Iran deal made during last year’s debate was that beyond the staggering immediate concessions to Iran, the deal paves the way for ongoing and future concessions. The reason is that the reality of the agreement leaves the U.S. hamstrung by fear that Iran can use anything as a pretext to pull out of the deal. We’re now starting to see this play out, as Obama administration officials are signaling that they may provide additional sanctions relief to address Iranian complaints, even though they promised Congress no such relief would ever be provided.

Specifically, the Associated Press reports that the U.S. government could be on the verge of a major capitulation: “The Obama administration is leaving the door open to new sanctions relief for Iran, including possibly long-forbidden access to the U.S. financial market.”

Last summer, as the deal was being debated, administration officials told Congress that this would never happen as a way of reassuring skeptics who feared that the entire sanctions regime against Iran was being unraveled. Plenty of layers of sanctions still remained to pressure Iran, the administration argued.

Treasury Secretary Jack Lew insisted to Congress that under the deal Iran would “be denied access to the world’s largest financial and commercial market.”

Additionally, the head of Treasury’s sanctions division said, “Iran will not be able to open bank accounts with U.S. banks, nor will Iran be able to access the U.S. banking sector.”

When asked if this was still the case, Lew said the U.S. may take future action to “make sure Iran gets relief.” The Treasury Department told the AP, “We will continue to analyze the sanctions lifting and its effects.”

To recap, in addition to $150 billion in sanctions relief, through the nuclear agreement, the administration caved into Iran on uranium enrichment, ballistic missiles, inspections, the duration of the deal’s restrictions and the maintenance of a facility under a bunker.

When the U.S. received nothing from Iran in terms of ending its sponsorship of terrorism or its human rights violations, the excuse from administration officials was always that there was a concerted effort to limit the negotiations to the Iranian nuclear program.

But the latest concession evidently under consideration by the administration would blow a hole in the entire sanctions regime. So it seems that in reality, it was only Iran’s concessions to the U.S. that were limited to the nuclear program — and even those were paltry. In reality, the U.S. will continue to make concessions that will make it easier for Iran to sponsor terrorism and make them a stronger bad actor throughout the Middle East.

As it is, since the deal was signed, the administration has been weak in responding to Iranian ballistic missile tests and it has accepted a prominent role for the radical regime in the Syrian peace process, even though Iran shares a lot of the blame for the situation in Syria.

In other words, the Obama administration’s concessions to Iran did not end in Vienna last summer. They merely started there.

*****

In part AP: Rep. Ed Royce, the House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman, expressed alarm in a letter this week to the president that the U.S. could grant Iranian businesses the ability to conduct transactions in dollars within the United States or through offshore banks. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said he is “deeply troubled” by the possibility.

The concession would go a long way to meet Iran’s complaints that it hasn’t been sufficiently rewarded by the West for taking thousands of uranium-spinning centrifuges offline, exporting its stockpile of the bomb-making material and disabling a facility that would have been able to produce weapons-grade plutonium.

Asked if such a move was being considered, the Treasury Department told The Associated Press in an emailed statement: “We will continue to analyze the sanctions lifting and its effects.”

The State Department wouldn’t comment.

Treasury Secretary Jack Lew told Congress after the July accord that Iran would still be “denied access to the world’s largest financial and commercial market.”

“Iran will not be able to open bank accounts with U.S. banks, nor will Iran be able to access the U.S. banking sector,” Adam Szubin, the department’s sanctions chief, told a House panel at the time. He said that would hold true even for simple transactions to “dollarize” a foreign payment.

But asked specifically about that commitment earlier this week, Lew allowed for future U.S. action to “make sure Iran gets relief.” More here.

Iran’s Weapons Program in Africa, King Abdullah

An investigation supports King Abdullah’s claims with 9 countries.

EXCLUSIVE: Jordan’s Abdullah claims Iran exporting weapons to Africa

Jordan’s King Abdullah has accused Iran of exporting weapons to Africa and lauded efforts by Saudi Arabia to curtail the influence of the Islamic Republic, Middle East Eye can reveal.The Jordanian king made the accusations in a meeting with US congressional leaders, a source close to the meeting told MEE on the condition of anonymity.In the meeting one unnamed congressman reportedly noted that “Iran is also exporting weapons to Asia and Africa, and there is a need for a strategy to draw the line”.

The King said he “agrees” and said that Jordan had also “noted this in Africa,” without mentioning specific countries.He added that “this is also happening in Afghanistan” warning that if the Islamic State (IS) was degraded in these countries, “Iran will come in to fill the gap,” according to MEE’s source.Jordan has backed Saudi Arabia in its long-running rivalry with Iran that was recently enflamed by the burning and looting of the Saudi embassy in Tehran in January.The Kingdom withdrew its ambassador to Iran and complained of “Iranian interference” in Arab affairs, according to the Jordanian state news agency Petra.The destruction of the embassy had come as an angry response to a decision by Saudi to execute a prominent Shia cleric, Nimr al-Nimr along with 46 other people on 2 January.

In the congressional meeting, Abdullah said that Shia Muslims had been “lumped in” with the executions carried out that day. To purely kill Sunnis would have “looked bad domestically,” he said.He added, however, that it was unfortunate that Nimr had been included among those executed, saying that as a result, the “action took [on a life of] its own and there is a potential that this could become a bigger problem”.Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh added that Saudi Arabia had been “very good at clipping the wings of Iran’s foreign activities, including Africa” and noted that the Saudis had “reengaged in Azerbaijan and in Asia so they can stand up against Iran”.He also said that Saudi Arabia had “put up with a lot” from Iran.Last week,

Jordan endorsed a statement by the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) that condemned Iran for the “terrorist” attacks on the Saudi embassy in Tehran and affirmed the sovereignty of three islands contested by the UAE and Iran in the Gulf.The relationship between Iran and Jordan has historically been lukewarm at best, particularly after the 1979 Islamic Revolution overthrew the Shah, a Jordanian ally.

The evidence is there for the world to see including the entire Obama administration going back to as recently as 2010.

In part from TheTower: Iran scrapes for asymmetrical gains within a challenging diplomatic environment, and in spite of its own internally divided conventional diplomacy—repeated itself in Nigeria. In October of 2010, Nigerian authorities scored the largest seizure of an Iranian weapons shipment in African history, when a container ship carrying crates of rocket launchers and heavy mortars was impounded in the port of Lagos. This embarrassment hardly ended Iran’s efforts in the country. In June of 2013, a Hezbollah cell was uncovered in the northern Nigerian city of Kano. And Iran has an asset in Nigeria that’s arguably more valuable than a foothold for its Lebanese proxies: Sheikh Ibrahim Zakzaky, a radical Iranian-trained Shi’ite cleric and a promoter of Iranian state ideology in Sub-Saharan Africa’s most populous country. A must read full summary is here.

It comes down to at least Hezbollah, Iran’s terror proxy.

CSP: The Iranian terror proxy group, Hezbollah, has operated inside Africa for decades. Most notable are the group’s weapons smuggling activities in East and West Africa. Iran exploits the remoteness of Eastern Sudan and parts of Egypt to smuggle weapons into the Gaza Strip for Hamas militants. Iran has also used Hezbollah networks in Eastern Africa to transfer weapons into the hands of Kenyan and Somali militants in attempts to attack Israeli interests in the region. Hezbollah in Africa gives Tehran logistical reach and illicit income that can support overseas operations.i Official members of the Iranian Quds Forces carry out terrorist planning and operations in Africa and have received diplomatic protection from Iranian embassies in Nigeria and Kenya.
In addition to its proxy influence on the ground, Iran maintains a heavy maritime presence in the Red Sea — which is facilitated through its relationships with Sudan and Eritrea. This naval presence expands Iran’s power throughout the East African region and further allows the illicit transport of weapons.

Stalking Iran and bin Ladin with a Drone

We don’t have an intelligence problem, we don’t have a signit problem, not even a humint problem, we have a lack of will which translates to a lack of strategy and a mission objective. We did get Usama bin Ladin but what was the real gain?

At least for we weary Americans, we can take some confidence that we do have technology.

The Drone that Stalked Bin Laden

AirandSpace: In 2009, after two weeks of being embedded as an independent journalist with a small team of U.S. Marines in Afghanistan, I ended up at Combat Outpost Monti, a 14-acre camp of tents, plywood huts, a few concrete bunkers and makeshift guard towers, and a helicopter landing area, all ringed by collapsible barriers. At the outpost, one of hundreds built in Afghanistan during the 13 years of NATO combat operations, the Marines were training and fighting alongside Afghan National Army soldiers. COP Monti was less than 10 miles from the Pakistan border, near the Federally Administered Tribal Areas.

RQ-170

My time with the team was just about up when they were ordered to move up the Kunar River valley on a large combat operation. I stayed behind with the Afghan soldiers and, before I managed to find a ride out, weathered a mortar and rocket attack from combatants who had undoubtedly planned the attack and stockpiled the weapons for it at a site across the border, in Pakistan. Even if the Marines had still been there, they could not have pursued the attackers. Al-Qaeda, Taliban, and other belligerents have hidden from the U.S. military in Pakistan’s tribal areas, with varying success, since Americans entered Afghanistan in 2001.

“Everybody knows that the Taliban and other groups train, raise money, plan operations, and even recruit in the tribal areas of Pakistan,” says a retired U.S. infantry officer who served two tours in Afghanistan as well as a rotation in Iraq. (All of the sources quoted in this article spoke to me on the condition that I would not name them because they do not have permission to speak on the record.) “The insurgent leadership move men and materials into Afghanistan and attack American and coalition forces and assets.” Then, he says, they scurry back to Pakistan, where U.S. forces can’t follow.

At least, not on the ground.

Since 2004, the United States has followed insurgents into Pakistan, and has spied on and sometimes killed them there. The CIA flies Predator and Reaper unpiloted aerial vehicles over the tribal districts, often with the approval of Pakistani leaders, who have enemies of their own among the militants inhabiting the country’s northwest. Some missions though are conducted without approval from Pakistan’s authorities. For those missions, the CIA needed a different aircraft.

In late 2007, reporters and observers at Afghanistan’s Kandahar Airfield discovered that a new spy had joined the team. Grainy photographs emerged of what appeared to be an unmanned flying wing. Aviation reporter Bill Sweetman (who writes a column for this magazine) nicknamed the aircraft “the Beast of Kandahar,” and the name has stuck, though the airplane doesn’t have the ferocity or power of a beast. It is an unarmed, stealthy observer designed to glide silently over its targets and transmit photos, video, and other intelligence to a worldwide network of users. The Air Force acknowledged it in 2009 and revealed its official name: the Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel.

The RQ-170 is operated by the U.S. Air Force 432nd Wing, which also operates Predators and Reapers. The 432nd, stationed at Creech Air Force Base, northwest of Las Vegas, declined to speak about the Sentinel, and a spokesperson for Lockheed Martin would state only that it is a “low-observable Unmanned Aerial System” and that its “primary mission is Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance.”

Trying to put together a picture of how the RQ-170 might have been used in the mysterious Afghanistan-Pakistan border region, I spoke to a U.S. military pilot who had flown in the 2003 Iraq war and who had later served in a senior position in an unmanned aerial vehicle unit. “At the start of [Operation Iraqi Freedom], one of our missions was to fly right up against the Iranian border, with our targeting pods slewed to the side to scan for border activity,” the pilot said. “We were right on the border, but we couldn’t cross it. Their radar had us. We were doing ISR work, trying to figure out just what, if any, activity was taking place on and as far inside their border as possible.” One type of activity the U.S. military was trying to follow and disrupt was the Iranian manufacture of devices called EFPs—explosively formed penetrators—and their distribution to enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Historically, insurgencies have required bases of support outside the contested country. “When discussing the RQ-170,” the pilot continued, “you have to understand that both Pakistan and Iran are outside of the ISR grasp of a targeting pod on an aircraft flying on the border, or of satellites. Sheer distance degrades certain aspects of a satellite’s ability to observe.”

The United States needed an intelligence-gathering platform that could avoid detection by Iranian and Pakistani radars. A retired military aviator who held a senior position at Kandahar Airfield during Sentinel operations pointed out that the UAV’s size and shape give it a low radar cross-section—the measure of the amount of energy a target reflects toward the radar that illuminated it. “It’s a large airfoil, roughly 65 to 70 feet in length,” he said. “Being a main wing only, with no fuselage and tail surfaces, drastically reduces both its radar signature and aerodynamic drag.” The Sentinel has the stealthy form of the 172-foot-span B-2 bomber, but is less than half its size.

Because the Sentinel is manufactured by the company that brought us the F-22 stealth fighter and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (and, before that, the F-117, SR-71, and U-2), we can assume that its skin uses radar-absorbent materials to further diminish radar return. Although its shape and materials keep it invisible to some radars, the aviator explained, others would be able to detect the aircraft but might not be able to track or target it.

At medium altitudes, the Sentinel’s light gray color enables it to blend in with the sky. It must also be quiet enough that it won’t be heard on the ground. An aviator who held a senior position at Kandahar Airfield during the Sentinel’s operation said its sound during takeoff wasn’t loud but distinctive—different from the propeller-driven UAVs and military jets that operated from the airfield.

Kandahar Airfield

An early image of the drone, at Kandahar Airfield before 2010. (Anonymous)

Engine noise or heat can never be eliminated but can be reduced. “[A stealth UAV] would use a high-efficiency turbofan engine, and its exhaust would be spread out as much as possible, masking both heat and noise,” the aviator said. A nozzle that spreads the exhaust eliminates concentrations of heat and helps mix hot exhaust with cooler ambient air.

An earlier, short-lived Lockheed Martin stealth UAV, the RQ-3 DarkStar, used a Williams-Rolls-Royce FJ44-1A turbofan, an engine favored for 1990s-era business jets, whose manufacturers claimed noise reductions. But those reductions were due partly to a change in the jets’ takeoff and landing profiles. Flight profile, according to an expert in unmanned aerial systems, is key to maintaining low observability. He explained that to fly low over a location of interest, an aircraft would most likely be put into a shallow descent, with its engine throttled back, so that it would essentially glide over the target. After one pass, “it will turn and gently increase power, but in a geometry such that nobody at or near the target could hear.” Once back at a higher altitude, the Sentinel would, if necessary, set up for another pass. This description suggests that maintaining continuous observation of a location would require two, possibly three, Sentinels flying overlapping patterns, not a sole craft orbiting.

**********

In December 2011, one or several of the Sentinel’s stealthy protections could have failed: An RQ-170 was taken prisoner in Iran. It had been on a reconnaissance mission and landed within the country, mainly intact, a few hundred miles from its home runway at Kandahar Airfield. The Iranians seized it, put it on display, and broadcast claims that they had spoofed its guidance system. Another possibility is that the UAV lost power or that its guidance system simply malfunctioned, an explanation that several Pentagon officials offered the press in the days after the incident.

“These systems have trip wires,” an aviator explained. “They’re meant to automatically return home, or at least to friendly airspace. But you have to consider: Was there a possibility of an oversight that the Iranians figured out they could exploit?” The guidance system, he noted, likely uses a combination of GPS and inertial navigation. With inertial navigation, highly sensitive accelerometers and gyros determine a craft’s route in three axes. Inertial systems cannot be fooled, though they can drift. GPS signals and guidance systems can be jammed or fooled; receivers can be sent signals making the onboard navigation system believe that the aircraft’s home airport is hundreds of miles from where the airport really is.

In 2008, at a Marine Aviation Weapons and Tactics training exercise outside Yuma, Arizona, a GPS guidance unit was accidentally spoofed, with a near-disastrous result. The unit was attached to a Containerized Delivery System, a pallet with stuff to resupply ground troops—food, ammunition, water—that had been released from a C-130 transport, and was tracking a GPS signal so it would arrive at a certain point on the ground. In the exercise with the C-130 were a number of airplanes and helicopters, many of them using electronic jamming equipment or testing electronic warfare systems. In the signal-rich environment, the CDS, instead of landing at its programmed landing point, was heading straight for the Chevy Suburban that was waiting to return the pallet to base. Seeing the CDS headed for him, the Suburban driver stepped on it, but he wasn’t fast enough; the cargo crashed into the back of the van. The driver was uninjured.

Reporters have surmised that the Sentinel was in Iran to gather information about Iranian progress in developing nuclear weapons. Satellites can detect nuclear detonations, but to passively sniff for isotopic and other signs of uranium enrichment, analysts would need a platform much closer to the ground. Although reporters have also speculated that the Sentinel, to keep from being heard, flies upwards of 50,000 feet, it probably flies much lower—to be closer to its targets of observation. “Most aircraft are inaudible above 8,000 feet,” says a Department of Defense UAV expert. He explains that if a sensor is operated at a high altitude, it needs to be much larger and heavier to obtain the same degree of accuracy as smaller, lighter ones operating at low altitudes.

He also used intelligence from the MC-12 Liberty, another King Air, this one stuffed with a more exotic sensor suite than the Predator or Guardrail has, including a “complete collection, processing, analysis and dissemination system,” according to its U.S. Air Force fact sheet. The Liberty is brought to bear when commanders want to know what’s going on inside a building, whether people are “manufacturing explosives, packaging opium, or something else,” the officer said. The MC-12 “can sniff things out based on their chemical or metallurgical signatures. They’re incredibly accurate.”

But they aren’t stealthy and can fly only in airspace where the enemy has no radar. So is the purpose of the RQ-170 to carry any combination of the instruments deployed on the Predator, Guardrail, and Liberty into places where those three aircraft can’t go? A former unmanned aircraft systems commander answered: “Yes, definitely.”

The expert pointed out the two bumps on the top of the craft: “Not one antenna but two, so it can be serving multiple, distinct tasks, simultaneously, for users all over the world.”

**********

When I left Combat Outpost Monti—on a blue and white Bell B412 helicopter flown not by the U.S. military but by a Canadian contracting company working for the military (with the call sign “Molson Air,” for the Canadian beer)—we flew for roughly 15 minutes, then landed in a field next to a compound outside a small village. I checked my GPS; we were idling about a half-mile from Pakistan. Two U.S. military personnel, wearing camouflage and helmets unfamiliar to me, climbed aboard the helicopter. We then continued the journey to Asadabad.

A model of the RQ-170, which Iran claimed to have reverse-engineered, on display in Tehran (The Office of the Supreme Leader, Iran)

After returning home, I got an inkling of what those guys in unfamiliar camouflage might have been doing there near the Pakistan border and how they may have used the RQ-170. I learned about counter-terrorism units in a program called Omega, which combined special forces with CIA teams for missions into Pakistan to conduct raids on Taliban and other insurgent and terrorist targets. Putting this information together with what my sources had described, I had little doubt that intelligence about those targets was gathered in part by Sentinels.

The joint CIA–special operations forces mission that would best show off the RQ-170’s surveillance capabilities was conducted years later, in support of the SEAL team who, on the night of May 1, 2011, flew into Pakistan on two modified Black Hawk helicopters, entered a compound in Abbottabad, and killed Osama bin Laden. U.S. government officials told Washington Post reporter Greg Miller that stealth drones had flown dozens of missions to monitor the Abbottabad compound.

My own experience in Afghanistan suggests other missions the RQ-170 might have flown. I often heard intelligence officers or patrol commanders request “a pattern of movement” or a “pattern of life” for targets and enemy forces. To provide that information, analysts would draw data from a number of types of surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft. Learning about the capabilities of these aircraft helped me understand the kind of surveillance the Sentinel might perform.

One of the most important reconnaissance aircraft collecting data for the coalitions in Iraq and Afghanistan is also one of the least known: the Northrop Grumman RC-12 Guardrail. “The Guardrail is probably the most boring-looking airplane in the Department of Defense, but in my opinion, it brings some of the most important capabilities to ground forces,” said the retired infantry officer. The RC-12 is a Hawker Beechcraft Super King Air sprouting antennas to collect signals intelligence. “Looks like a flying porcupine, with all the antennas dangling off it,” the officer said. He regularly requested the Guardrail’s listening capabilities to identify, locate, and track insurgents and to help develop ground operations. The Guardrail does not process the data it collects; instead, it transmits it via a secure satellite link to locations in the United States or, according to a U.S. Army fact sheet, in Germany or Korea, where the data is processed and the results beamed back to the aircraft, which transmits it to the commanders who requested it. It happens fast. Within a second, the system can identify an individual’s or a group’s precise location. It takes a little longer to record and analyze their transmissions.

“I’ve tasked all sorts of assets, manned and unmanned, to look at ground targets and areas of interest,” said the infantry officer. For imagery intelligence, he said, “we used Predator a lot.”

“The beauty of how intelligence gets disseminated with the systems we have in place is that you just request an intelligence product, and you get it based on classification level and need-to-know,” says the aviator who served in a senior position at Kandahar Airfield. “You don’t ask for a platform, just a product. Much of the time intelligence users won’t know they are seeing something that was sourced from a Sentinel.”

The Sentinel is one platform in a complex intelligence system that collects information from every U.S. military command around the world. Analysts at various centers process 20 terabytes of data, of all intelligence types, every day. “Once each type is processed into a product, then it gets fused together with other intelligence products to give a multidimensional picture,” the aviator says.

“Think of a compound, say in Abbottabad, Pakistan, one with some walls that imagery shows to be 16 feet high. Combine that knowledge with signals collections of those in and around the structure, learn the pattern of life, maybe pick up a tall guy walking around, and maybe do some sniffing for weapons in the compound, soak up computer noise that can be analyzed, and then put that together with some human intelligence gathered on the ground about who that tall guy is.” He laughs. “There you go.”

 

Court: Iran Ordered to Pay $10.5 Billion

This should have been part of the Iran nuclear talks, yet nothing was to convolute the matter including missiles, prisoners and historical terror. Today, Europe recognized the Iranian violations but refuse to do anything. A world further divided.

Netanyahu demands world  powers punish Iran for ‘Israel must be wiped out’ missile tests

DN: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday called on world powers to punish Iran after the country test-fired two ballistic missiles emblazoned with the phrase “Israel must be wiped out” in Hebrew.

Netanyahu said he instructed Israel’s Foreign Ministry to direct the demand to the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany — the countries that signed the deal lifting sanctions on Iran in exchange for Tehran curbing its nuclear program.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guard test-launched the ballistic missiles last week, the latest in a series of recent tests aimed at demonstrating Iran’s intentions to push ahead with its missile program after scaling back its nuclear program under the deal reached last year.

Following last week’s missile launches, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called on Iran to “act with moderation,” and the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said the launches were “provocative and destabilizing.” Meanwhile, Russia says no new UN sanctions on Iran over missile tests.

Now to the 9-11 case:

Iran Told to Pay $10.5 Billion to Sept. 11 Kin, Insurers

Bloomberg: Iran was ordered by a U.S. judge to pay more than $10.5 billion in damages to families of people killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and to a group of insurers.

U.S. District Judge George Daniels in New York issued a default judgment Wednesday against Iran for $7.5 billion to the estates and families of people who died at the World Trade Center and Pentagon. It includes $2 million to each estate for the victims’ pain and suffering plus $6.88 million in punitive damages.

Daniels also awarded $3 billion to insurers including Chubb Ltd. that paid property damage, business interruption and other claims.

Earlier in the case, Daniels found that Iran had failed to defend claims that it aided the Sept. 11 hijackers and was therefore liable for damages tied to the attacks. Daniels’s ruling Wednesday adopts damages findings by a U.S. magistrate judge in December. While it is difficult to collect damages from an unwilling foreign nation, the plaintiffs may try to collect part of the judgments using a law that permits parties to tap terrorists’ assets frozen by the government.

The case is In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 03-cv-09848, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

In case you did not read the 9-11 Commission Report:

Read below about Iran/Hezbollah & 9/11 hijackers’ travels, see pp. 240-241 of the 9/11 Commission Report.

For a deeper dive and for sure the reprehensible decisions by Barack Obama and John Kerry to legitimize Iran, keep reading below if you dare.

CIS: On July 23, 2001, a former senior Iranian intelligence officer,Abolghasem Mr. Mesbahi,learned that Iran’s plan to strike the United States had been activated. Mr. Mesbahi knew it was important and real because he had worked on this plan previously, when he had helped set up Iran’s intelligence service, the MOIS, as far back as the mid-1980s. Mr. Mesbahi – known outside Iran as one of a core of “Assassins”- told German intelligence, which had given him protected status as a key witness in German prosecutions of brutal Iranian assassinations of dozens of dissidents.

On Aug. 13, 2001, Mr. Mesbahi received greater specificity as to the plot. The coded messages from former colleagues inside Iran revealed that the longtime plan to crash civilian airliners into American cities had been activated. Again, the officer told his German handlers, who responded that they would convey the information – we do not know if they did or to whom or exactly what information they might have passed on – and the Germans would let Mr. Mesbahi know if there were any developments. On Aug. 27, 2001, Mr. Mesbahi once more received confirmation that the plan was in motion, and the messages indicated a German connection. The 9/11 Commission would later confirm that key 9/11 liaison Ramzi Binalshibh and pilots Mohammad Atta and Ziad Jarrah were all German residents leading up to Sept. 11.

After Sept. 11, Mr. Mesbahi approached an American he knew was well-versed in Iranian affairs and told him of his foreknowledge of the Sept. 11 plan and how the plot to crash the then existing Boeing 747 aircraft into New York, Washington and Chicago had evolved in Iran years prior. The Pentagon, White House and World Trade Center had been on the hit list. Back in the 1980s, Iran had decided, he said, that to defeat the United States, it needed to engage in asymmetric warfare.

Mr. Mesbahi is one of three Iranian defectors in a case that took eight years to develop. His affidavit remains under seal in a case in which a judgment was signed late last month in New York federal court, Havlish v. Iran,which establishes that the joint enterprise of Iran, Hezbollah and al Qaeda were responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks. His testimony has been deemed credible by former CIA Middle East undercover officers and supervisors Clare Lopez and Bruce Tefft, also experts in the case representing Sept. 11 victim’s families. Mr. Mesbahi had direct contact with Iran’s leaders during the 1980s and early 1990s, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani. Mr. Mesbahi held many positions in Iran’s intelligence service, including running espionage out of the Iranian Embassy in France (France expelled him) and later for all of Western Europe. It was Mr. Mesbahi’s good friend, Saeed Emami, also a top official in the MOIS, who warned Mr. Mesbahi that he was slated for assassination in the mid-1990s upon his falling out with hard-liners.

On May 14, 2001, the overseer of Iran’s intelligence apparatus, Ali Akbar Nateq-Nouri, wrote to the head of Iran’s intelligence operations on behalf of Iran’s supreme leader about the pending plot that became Sept. 11. The document shows the following: (1) direct connectivity between Iran’s supreme leader’s intelligence apparatus and al Qaeda; (2) knowledge and support for a large upcoming operation connecting Iran, Hezbollah and al Qaeda to the planned attack; and (3) the Iranian government’s goal to “damage America’s and Israel’s economic systems, discredit [their] institutions … as part of political confrontation, undermining [their] stability and security.” Specifically, the document states “support for al-Qaeda’s future plans,” cautioning “to be alert to the negative future consequences of this cooperation [between Iran and al Qaeda]” and the “expanding the collaboration with the fighters of al Qaeda and Hezbollah … no traces must be left that might have negative and irreversible consequences.”

The document is an attachment in the Havlishcase in the expert affidavit of Israeli journalist Ronan Bergman, who has written extensively on Mr. Mesbahi, Iran and Hezbollah and has deep connections to Israeli intelligence. Before Mr. Bergman, Iran expert Ken Timmerman also made this document public.

How did Iran get involved with al Qaeda? According to the Lopez-Tefft affidavit and other expert affidavits in the case, as well as convicted former Osama bin Laden bodyguard Ali Mohamed, the alliance began in 1993 in Khartoum, Sudan, in a meeting between Iranian and Hezbollah leadership with al Qaeda leadership to bridge the Shiite-Sunni gap and address common goals of defeating Israel and the United States. A direct working relationship was created between Iran’s MOIS; Hezbollah’s operational chief and key liaison with Iran, Imad Mughniyah; Osama bin Laden; and other senior al Qaeda leadership. Mughniyah himself was responsible for more than 100 terrorist incidents until his assassination in Syria in 2008.

Much of the al Qaeda training was carried out in camps in Iran run by MOIS and Mughniyah. In addition to training, al Qaeda received blueprints and drawings of bombs, manuals for wireless equipment, intelligence training, travel facilitation, operational guidance and much more. Hezbollah was a role model for al Qaeda, with more direct attacks and diversity of attacks against American property and Americans than any other terrorist organization, from the 1983 Marine barracks and American Embassy bombings in Lebanon to the torture deaths of senior CIA officials. Inside Iran, al Qaeda was directed carefully, providing all varieties of material support in the successful attacks in the late 1990s on the USS Cole, Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia and U.S. embassies in Africa. (Iran and Hezbollah’s involvement in these other incidents has been referenced previously in federal prosecutions in U.S. courts. Khobar Towers, for example, was conducted by Saudi Hezbollah with direct support from Iran and knowledge of al Qaeda. The USS Cole and African bombings were carried out by al Qaeda with support and direction from Iran and Hezbollah.) The more al Qaeda proved its ability, the more attention Iran gave.

Iran already had conceived the Sept. 11 plot. al Qaeda became the perfect proxy. Not only was terrorist travel facilitation provided to al Qaeda by Iran generally, as described by the 9/11 Commission in its final report, but Mughniyah himself accompanied at least some Sept. 11 hijackers into Iran after the hijackers obtained the U.S. visas that would assure their entry into America, as I describe at length in my affidavit in the Havlish case. Yet Iran needed credible deniability. The May 2001 memo acquired by Mr. Bergman shows that Iran’s operational strategy clearly delineated that its leadership demanded a “hands off” approach about any involvement in terrorist acts committed against the United States. Iran knew a direct assault against America could mean a devastating U.S. response.

In the mid-1980s, the supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, labeled the plot “Shaitan dar Atash”meaning “Satan in Fire” or “Satan in Hell.” “Satan” was the code word for the United States. Plots included the use of chemical bombs, “dirty” bombs; attacks on power plants, gas stations, and oil tankers; as well as the plot that became Sept. 11. According to Mr. Mesbahi, at least one hijacker, Majid Moqed, who supported the terrorist operation on American Airlines Flight 11 (north tower of the World Trade Center) was housed at the Hotel Sepid, a MOIS safe house in Tehran. Mr. Mesbahi also relates that Iran was able to obtain an Airbus simulator and Boeing software from China for exactly the type of plane that eventually was used in the plot.

For the past 10 years, our foreign policy has been skewed toward heading off al Qaeda terrorist activities and dealing with the regimes of Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet we now know, after all these years, that al Qaeda might never have carried out the Sept. 11 attacks but for Iran and Hezbollah. The 9/11 Commission gave America the details on how Iran’s proxy, al Qaeda, managed to carry out the Sept. 11 plot and detailed what it could of Iranian involvement – having come across relevant intercepts indicating Iranian involvement at the National Security Agency two weeks before the statutory close of the commission. The commission recommended a further look into Iran and Sept. 11 on Page 241 of the final report, stating: “After 9/11, Iran and Hezbollah wished to conceal any past evidence of cooperation with Sunni terrorists associated with al Qaeda. A senior Hezbollah official disclaimed any Hezbollah involvement in 9/11. We believe this topic requires further investigation by the U.S. government.” But it was never done.

Rep. Peter T. King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, would like to reconvene a 9/11 Commission. He has a point. Answers are essential, however embarrassing they may be. As Iran gets cozy with South America, is said to be months away from nuclear warhead capability and is known to continue to plot against the United States, nothing less grave than our national security is at stake.

Further reading on the case is here also.