Saudi King Salman, a Reformer?

Posted on February 5, 2015February 5, 2015 by Denise Simon

Barack Obama visited the Saudi kingdom to pay respects for the passing of King Abdullah.

Let us remember when Hillary Clinton called Bashir al Assad, the tyrant Islamist ruler of Syria a reformer and many are calling King Abdullah’s replacement, King Salman the same thing. Head-scratch. Seems King Salman’s past and perhaps current nefarious connections need some real scrutiny.

“Yet Salman has an ongoing track record of patronizing hateful extremists that is now getting downplayed for political convenience. As former CIA official Bruce Riedel astutely pointed out, Salman was the regime’s lead fundraiser for mujahideen, or Islamic holy warriors, in Afghanistan in the 1980s, as well as for Bosnian Muslims during the Balkan struggles of the 1990s. In essence, he served as Saudi Arabia’s financial point man for bolstering fundamentalist proxies in war zones abroad.

As longtime governor of Riyadh, Salman was often charged with maintaining order and consensus among members of his family. Salman’s half brother King Khalid (who ruled from 1975 to 1982) therefore looked to him early on in the Afghan conflict to use these family contacts for international objectives, appointing Salman to run the fundraising committee that gathered support from the royal family and other Saudis to support the mujahideen against the Soviets.

Riedel writes that in this capacity, Salman “work[ed] very closely with the kingdom’s Wahhabi clerical establishment.” Another CIA officer who was stationed in Pakistan in the late 1980s estimates that private Saudi donations during that period reached between $20 million and $25 million every month. And as Rachel Bronson details in her book, Thicker Than Oil: America’s Uneasy Partnership With Saudi Arabia, Salman also helped recruit fighters for Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, an Afghan Salafist fighter who served as a mentor to both Osama bin Laden and 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.”

***

Saudi Arabia crowns new king who financed jihad

In 1978, the Saudi monarchy decided to expand the exportation of fundamentalist Wahhabi Islam across the world through the establishment of the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO). About 10 years later, IIRO’s Philippine branch was established by Osama Bin Laden’s brother-in-law, which subsequently funded Philippine terrorists. By the 2000s, IIRO’s branch in Indonesia began funding Al Qaeda training camps.

The Bush administration designated IIRO-Philippines and IIRO-Indonesia as terrorist entities in 2006. IIRO’s U.S. offices were closed at the time, although IIRO appeared to reopen an office in Florida 2010. IIRO is the fourth best-funded Islamic foundation in the world according to a 2011 study.

The man who selected the leadership of IIRO and approved its spending from its inception is the new king of Saudi Arabia, Salman bin Abdulaziz:

From the Washington Free Beacon:

…[T]hroughout his public career in government, Salman has embraced radical Muslim clerics and has been tied to the funding of radical groups in Afghanistan, as well as an organization found to be plotting attacks against America, according to various reports and information provided by David Weinberg, a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

In 2001, an international raid of the Saudi High Commission for Aid to Bosnia, which Salman founded in 1993, unearthed evidence of terrorist plots against America, according to separate exposés written by Dore Gold, an Israeli diplomat, and Robert Baer, a former CIA officer.

Salman is further accused by Baer of having “personally approved all important appointments and spending” at the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO), a controversial Saudi charity that was hit with sanctions following the attacks of September 11, 2001, for purportedly providing material support to al Qaeda.

Salman also has been reported to be responsible for sending millions of dollars to the radical mujahedeen that waged jihad in Afghanistan in the 1980s, according to Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer who is now director of the Brookings Intelligence Project.

“In the early years of the war—before the U.S. and the Kingdom ramped up their secret financial support for the anti-Soviet insurgency—this private Saudi funding was critical to the war effort,” according to Riedel. “At its peak, Salman was providing $25 million a month to the mujahedeen. He was also active in raising money for the Bosnian Muslims in the war with Serbia”…

Defense Intelligence Agency on Global Threats

Posted on February 5, 2015February 5, 2015 by Denise Simon

Worldwide Threat Scope, Complexity on the Rise

Taken in aggregate, recent political, military, social and technological developments have created security challenges more diverse and complex than any the nation has ever experienced, Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Vincent R. Stewart, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told Congress Feb. 3.

Testifying before the House Armed Services Committee on the subject of worldwide threats, Stewart was joined by Army Lt. Gen. William Mayville, Joint Staff director for operations, and Mark S. Chandler, acting director for intelligence for the Joint Staff.

“Our challenges range from highly capable near-peer competitors, to empowered individuals with nefarious intentions. Increasing demands, coupled with today’s challenging fiscal environment, have stressed our defense intelligence establishments and forced us to accept greater risk,” Stewart said.

The existing strategic environment isn’t going away any time soon, he said.

The increasing scope, volatility and complexity of threats are “the new normal,” Stewart said.

The Defense Intelligence Agency is focused on three areas of special concern, the general said.

Military Competitors

“Capable military competitors — Russian military activity, for example — [are] at historically high levels,” he said. “Moscow is pursuing aggressive foreign and defense policies, including conducting destabilizing operations in the Ukraine, conducting a record number of out of area naval operations and increasing its long-range aviation patrols.

“In addition,” Stewart continued, “Beijing is focused on building a modern military capable of achieving success on a 21st century battlefield and advancing its core interests — which include maintaining its sovereignty, protecting its territorial integrity and projecting its regional influence.”

Breakdown of Law and Order

Vulnerable and ungoverned territory is on the rise due to the erosion of moderate and secular Islamic states, Stewart said.

“While coalition strikes have degraded [the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’s] ability to operate openly in Iraq and Syria, the group retains the ability to conduct limited offensive operations and is seeking to expand its presence and influence beyond these two countries,” he said. “Governments in countries such as Egypt, Algeria, Jordan and Lebanon are under stress from a variety of sources, thereby reducing their capability as a region to confront the threat posed by violent extremists.”

And the breakdown of order in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Libya and northern Nigeria has created “fertile spawning grounds” for terrorist organizations with far-reaching influence, the general said.

Space, Cyber Threats

The space and cyber domains are increasingly threatened, he said. Russia and China are recognizing the strategic value of space and are focusing on diminishing the advantages held by the U.S. and its allies.

“Both countries are conducting anti-satellite research and developing anti-satellite weapons, with the intent of denying the U.S. the use of space in the event of conflict,” Stewart said.

For the Defense Department, the cyber threat is particularly alarming because of the interconnected nature of weapons, communications and networks, he said.

“At low cost, with limited technical expertise, our adversaries have the potential to cause severe damage and disruption to U.S. systems, leaving little or no footprint behind,” the general said. And the speed and influence of mobile communications and social media have the potential to magnify international crises and shorten an already compressed decision-making cycle, Stewart added.

Sequestration

The demand for intelligence has never been greater, he said, but sequestration and operational demands have forced the military intelligence community to accept increased risk.

This “will have a direct and lasting impact on our ability to provide high-quality, nuanced intelligence required by policy makers and war fighters. I fear that the true cost of these difficult choices today may be paid on the battlefield of the future,” the general said.

*** Is war between Hezbollah and Israel inevitable?

The delicate status quo, which has ensured peace between Hezbollah and Israel since the 2006 war, is rapidly unravelling. After that war, both Hezbollah and Israel subscribed to a deterrence theory, which stood the test of time. Until two weeks ago.

Now, tensions between the two sides are at their highest since the last ceasefire. Indeed, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said on Monday that a third Lebanon war is now inevitable.

On Jan. 18, an Israeli helicopter gunship hit a convoy of vehicles in the Syrian province of Quneitra. The attack killed six Hezbollah operatives, one of whom was Jihad Mughniyeh, the son of Imad Mughniyeh, who was assassinated by Israel in an operation involving the Israeli Mossad and the CIA, as the Washington Post revealed last week.

The hope on the Israeli side must have been that Hezbollah would not seek immediate retaliation for the Jan. 18 attack. It was not to be. On Jan. 28, Hezbollah attacked an Israeli convoy in broad daylight in the Shebaa Farms, an area long occupied by Israel but claimed by Lebanon. Two Israelis were killed, a major and a sergeant of the Israel Defence Forces.

This escalation is happening at a time of important shifts in the relationship between Iran, Hezbollah and Israel.

One development, of concern to Israel, is the deepening of relations between Hezbollah and Iran in recent weeks. One day before Hezbollah’s attack on Israeli forces, Hezbollah’s leader, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, met with the Iranian Major General Qasem Suleimani, the legendary commander of the Iranian al-Quds force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. Although the two men had met many times before, this is the first known meeting in Lebanon that has been publicized.

The meeting was all the more remarkable because of the publicity given to it. Suleimani paid respects to Hezbollah fighters killed by Israel and also visited the grave of Jihad Mughniyeh.

Hezbollah has also declared, in a recent statement, that it no longer recognizes the rules of engagement with Israel that were mediated, on an informal basis, by the United Nations in order to prevent clashes. Hezbollah’s declaration is a tacit rejection of the de facto understanding between the two bitter foes that has existed for years and has, up until now, ensured peace.

In a defiant statement after Hezbollah’s attack, Nasrallah reiterated Hezbollah’s rejection of previous the rules defining Hezbollah’s policy towards Israel. It was this status quo that had, for example, allowed for the group to negotiate a swap of its prisoners in exchange for Israeli war dead in 2008. In a clear departure from the past, where Hezbollah would not take revenge on Israeli attacks, Nasrallah stressed that the group has the right to respond in any way or time it deems fit.

“If Israel is banking that we fear war, then I tell it that we do not fear war and we will not hesitate in waging it if it is imposed on us,” he continued. “We did not hesitate in making the decision that Israel should be punished for its crime in Quneitra even if it meant going to an all-out war,” he revealed, an admission he may regret.

“The Israeli people discovered that their leadership put them on the brink of war, jeopardizing their economy and security,” he added in the wake of the operation. “Israel learned that it should not test us again given the Quneitra strike and Shebaa Farms operation,” he warned.

Not surprisingly these are not the conclusions that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government in Jerusalem are likely to draw.

There has been a dangerous deterioration in Israel’s strategic position because of the open boast by Nasrallah that it is now fighting Israel not only from the Blue Line with Lebanon, but, also, on Syria’s frontline with Israel in the Golan. In other words, Hezbollah’s front with Israel now extends from the Mediterranean all the way to the disputed Golan on the Syrian border. Israel is unlikely to leave a threat like that unanswered. Moreover, Israel never shrinks from retaliation when its soldiers are killed, and especially when one of them is a middle-ranking officer.

But the strategic options before Netanyahu are limited. A further strike at Hezbollah will lead to a major war that would probably eclipse that of 2006 in its severity. Moreover, the prime minister will be conscious of the fact that elections are to be held in Israel on March 17. He may not want become embroiled in a war right now for that reason.

Despite these difficulties, some new realities would work in Israel’s favor. Netanyahu knows that, unlike during the 2006 war, Hezbollah would not find much support from the Arab world in the eventuality of a conflict with Israel. Deep sectarianism between Sunni and Shi’ites across the region means that few Arab states would be upset today by an Israeli offensive against Hezbollah, the stalwart defender of the hated Assad regime.

Hezbollah, in other words, is playing a dangerous game. It may yet find itself wishing to return to the days of stability and peace, which it is abandoning with such troubling rapidity.

WH/State Dept. Begging Iran for Deal

Posted on February 5, 2015February 5, 2015 by Denise Simon

A top Iranian military leader claims that U.S. officials have been “begging us” to sign a nuclear deal during closed door negotiations with Tehran over its contested nuclear program, according to recent comments made to the Iranian state-controlled media.

Mohammad Reza Naghdi, the commander of the Basij, a paramilitary group operating under the wing of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC), recently claimed that the “Americans are begging us for a deal on the negotiation table,” according to comments published in Persian and independently translated for the Washington Free Beacon.

Naghdi added that American officials routinely “plea” with Iran in talks and that the United States is negotiating from a position of weakness, according to his comments, which follow earlier reports claiming that Iran’s leading negotiator “frequently shouts” at U.S. officials.

The military leader’s remarks appear to jibe with new reports that the United States is conceding ground to Iran in talks and will now allow it to “keep much of its uranium-enriching technology,” according to the Associated Press.

Iran, the AP reported, “refuses to meet U.S.-led demands for deep cuts in the number of centrifuges it uses to enrich uranium, a process that can create material for anything from chemotherapy to the core of an atomic bomb.”

Regional experts say that the Iranians feel that they are in a position of power in the talks and believe that the Obama administration is desperate to ink a deal.

“Iran feels the administration needs the deal, and this belief is supported by the way the administration is acting,” said Saeed Ghasseminejad, an Iranian dissident and associate fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

America’s “hostility toward its traditional allies in the region, Israel and Saudi Arabia, is at its historical peak and the Obama administration either supports Iran to expand its influence in the region or at least does not oppose it at all,” Ghasseminejad explained. “Iran feels as long as the negotiation is going on, it has a green light to do whatever it wants in the region, so why should they bother to sign a deal?”

Sen. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.) said a bad nuclear deal would endanger the security of America and its allies.

“The Iranian terror state continues to show its true nature as it sidesteps the international sanctions regime during negotiations, and expands its threat into Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Worse, the administration’s reported nuclear concessions to Ayatollah Khamenei will only keep Iran at the threshold of getting nuclear bombs. A bad nuclear deal will further empower Iran and endanger the security of America, Israel, and other allies in the Middle East.”

As the nuclear talks continue, Iranian leaders have stepped up their rhetoric against the United States, with top officials declaring that “Iran prepares itself for war with global powers.”

Hossein Salami, the deputy commander of the IRGC, celebrated a recent attack on Israel by the Iranian-backed terror group Hezbollah and promised that Tehran is readying itself to go to war with America.

“Iran prepares itself for war with global powers, and the Israeli’s are much smaller than them,” Salami was quoted as saying by the state-controlled Fars New Agency (FNA).

“The response of Hezbollah to the Zionist regime shows a quick reaction, clear will, and their iron-like strength, resistance, and power,” he added. Salami also reiterated Iran’s commitment to fund and arm Palestinian terror groups. “Opening up a new front across the West Bank, which is a major section of our dear Palestine, will be certainly on the agenda, and this is part of a new reality that will gradually emerge,” Salami said in a recent television interview. Similar remarks were made by Mohammad Ali Jafari, the IRGC’s commander, who celebrated Hezbollah’s “martyrdom” and vowed that the “fight against Zionists would not be brought to a halt.” While U.S. officials have claimed multiple times in recent months that progress is being made in the talks, Iranian officials deny that this is the case. Abbas Araqchi, a top Iranian negotiator, said in recent days that it is too early to say that progress has been made. “We still are not in a position where we can say we have had progress,” Araqchi was quoted as saying by the FNA. “It is still too early to judge.” “If the counterpart shows realism, political resolve, and good will, we believe we are not so far from reaching an agreement,” he said.

*** But there is more to understand.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — Tehran and P5+1 mediators will make all possible efforts to establish a general political framework for Iran’s nuclear deal in March, the head of Iran’s expert team at talks on Iran’s nuclear program said Wednesday.
Iran and the P5+1 group of international mediators, comprising Russia, China, the United States, Britain, France and Germany, are in talks to clinch a comprehensive agreement to end more than a decade of impasse over Tehran’s controversial nuclear program.

“All efforts will be made to develop the political framework of the agreement in March,” Iranian Foreign Ministry’s Director General for Political and International Security Affairs Hamid Baeidinejad told reporters in Moscow after meetings with Russian officials to coordinate Iran-Russia cooperation in talks.
Baedinejad added that the date for the next round of Iran nuclear talks had not been determined yet. *** Yet Iran has other attitudes towards to United States.

A senior Iranian commander has dismissed as “meddlesome” the recent US claims that Tehran’s defense might would be part of the nuclear talks with six world powers, saying Iran’s missile capability is non-negotiable.

“Iran’s missile programs and defense capability, irrespective of their purpose, are not negotiable in any foreign circle,” Deputy Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces Brigadier General Massoud Jazayeri said on Wednesday.

“We don’t allow the US and others to interfere in the country’s defense affairs,” he added.

The commander underlined that Iran will use its defense might against bullying powers whenever it deems necessary.

He said Iran’s military might serves to defend the nations, adding that if the US oversteps the red lines, then it will have to be worried about Iran’s missiles.

“Gone are the days when the US was a superpower, but some still haven’t realized it,” he said.

Jazayeri’s comments came in reaction to the Monday remarks by US State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki, who claimed that Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities are part of the ongoing talks between Tehran and the P5+1 group of world powers over Tehran’s nuclear energy program.

In relevant remarks on Tuesday, Iran’s top nuclear negotiator Abbas Araqchi rejected Psaki’s claims, saying that Tehran’s “missile program has a completely defensive nature and the Islamic Republic of Iran does not regard the country’s defense issues as negotiable and will not hold such negotiations with any foreign side.”

Araqchi, who is also Iran’s deputy foreign minister for Legal and International Affairs, said that in line with Tehran’s nuclear talks with the P5+1 countries, no permission has been or will be issued in the future to hold negotiations on Iran’s defense and missile capabilities.

Iran and the P5+1 group – Russia, China, France, Britain, the US and Germany – are in talks to secure a final comprehensive deal over Tehran’s nuclear work.

Since an interim deal was agreed in the Swiss city of Geneva in November 2013, the negotiating sides have missed two self-imposed deadlines to ink a final agreement.

Iran and the P5+1 countries now seek to reach a high-level political agreement by March 1 and to confirm the full technical details of the accord by July 1.

Libya: Hillary’s Gift to Herself and Qatar

Posted on February 2, 2015February 2, 2015 by Denise Simon

Libya was designed by Hillary Clinton during her time as Secretary of State. She manufactured the crisis and worked countless back-channels to remove Qaddafi for the sake of her ties to Qatar. The al Thani clan has years of ingratiating itself within the circles of power in the Obama administration while back scratching was done in covert circles. Hillary is an accessory to the deaths of Ambassador Stevens of three others of the diplomatic security services.

Barack Obama bought into the plot along with those of the National Security Council when the Pentagon fought back hard against the early part of Hillary’s mission but to no avail. Congressman Kucinich worked diligently to get facts from several placeholders in the Middle East as at the time, no Republicans were in power in Congress. There was never any authorization for war in Libya.

Of particular note, the weapons Hillary Clinton in cadence with Qatar were not bound and did not in any quantity end up in Syria. Sadly, they ended up in several other locations, but not Syria as widely chattered and believed.

Part 1 of 3 of the WT Hillary Clinton Libya matter is found here. The recorded tapes can be heard here as part of 2 of 3 of the Washington Times expose on Hillary and Libya. Part 3 of 3 is below. It is an intensive read but cannot be missed.

In the documents and separately recorded conversations with U.S. emissaries, Libyan officials expressed particular concern that the weapons and training given the rebels would spread throughout the region, in particular turning the city of Benghazi into a future terrorist haven.

Those fears would be realized a little over a year later when a band of jihadist insurgents attacked the State Department diplomatic post in Benghazi and a related CIA compound, killing four Americans including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. Today, more than three years after Gadhafi fell from power and was killed, Benghazi and much of the rest of Libya remain in chaos, riddled with violence among rival tribes and thriving jihadi groups.

Mrs. Clinton, now considering a run for president, was the moving force inside the Obama administration to encourage U.S. military intervention to unseat Gadhafi in Libya. The latest documents and audio recordings are likely to give her Republican critics on Capitol Hill fresh ammunition to question whether she had an adequate plan and whether her efforts led to the tragedy in Benghazi a year later and the general lawlessness and chaos that have gripped Libya since. The Times reported last week that U.S. intelligence did not support the story that Mrs. Clinton used to sell the war in Libya, mainly that there was an imminent danger of a genocide to be carried out by the Gadhafi regime. The intelligence community, in fact, had come to the opposite conclusion: that Gadhafi would not risk world outrage by killing civilians en masse even as he tried to crush the rebellion in his country.

The Times also reported that the Pentagon and a key Democrat so distrusted Mrs. Clinton’s decision-making on Libya that they opened their own secret diplomatic conversations with the Gadhafi regime, going around the State Department.

In one conversation recorded in summer 2011 between Libyan officials and an intelligence asset dispatched by the Pentagon as a back-door channel, the asset told Mr. Ismael, who served then as Gadhafi’s chief of staff, that U.S. officials were considering taking some of the Libyan dictator’s frozen money assets and sending it to the rebels.

“I’m in contact with some of the people over in Benghazi and they’ve told me point blank that their first use of this money is, is to buy military training, weapons and mercenaries,” the Pentagon intelligence asset told Mr. Ismael on July 24, 2011.

In a separate conversation with Dennis J. Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat serving in the House, Gadhafi’s eldest son, Seif, told the congressman that Libyan intelligence had observed Qatar, a major U.S. ally in the region, facilitating weapons shipments. Qatar has steadfastly and repeatedly denied arming the rebels.

“The Qataris have spent more than $100 million on this, and they have an agreement with the rebels that the moment you rule Libya you pay us back,” Seif Gadhafi told Mr. Kucinich in a conversation recorded in May 2011.

“So, it’s your position that your government has been trying to defend itself against an insurrection brought about by jihadists who were joined by gangsters, terrorists and that there’s basically about 1,000 people who were joined by NATO?” Mr. Kucinich asked. Attempts to contact the Qatari Embassy in Washington for comment Sunday were unsuccessful, but the classified Libyan intelligence report indicates that Qatar sent tanks, missiles, trucks and military advisers to the rebels.

Distrust between Libya and Qatar had simmered for years before the civil war in Libya erupted. Mr. Ismael told The Times in an interview that the Qataris had a grudge against the Gadhafi regime because it did not give them natural gas and oil concessions that were promised in 2007.

The Libyan intelligence reports provided to the Pentagon’s emissary detailed specific weapons shipments they said came from Qatar.

“On 15th of March the ship loaded with arm[s] arrived to the seaport of Tobruk. On 4th April 2011 two Qatari aircraft laden with a number of tanks, [ground-attack] missiles and heavy trucks was arranged. On 11th April 2011 a number of boats departed Benghazi for Misrata, the shipment comprised assistance including SAM-7 [anti-aircraft] missiles. On 22nd April 2011, 800 rifles were sent from Benghazi to Misrata,” the report said.

Whether such shipments were supposed to stay with NATO or go to the rebels remains in dispute. But academic analysts say the Libyan concerns that arming the rebels would benefit terrorists were shared widely.

NATO allies knew of the dangerous jihadi elements operating in Benghazi before the 2011 intervention began, according to Noman Benotman, president of the British-based Quilliam Foundation, a think tank dedicated to combating Islamic extremism.

Mr. Benotman also was a leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group but left the organization prior to the 2011 revolution.

“You’re saying that this relates to internal matters, matters internal to the region relating of a power struggle in which they then turned their attention to Libya to try to engulf Libya in their own desire for increasing their power?” Mr. Kucinich asked.

“For the Qataris, they are doing this with every country, with every country,” Mr. Gadhafi said. “This is their plan, I mean in public. This is their own agenda. I mean, it’s not something hidden, or something, you know, private. But now, we have, and plus the French and British have also have their own agenda, you know, commercial interests, political interests, they have their own interests. They told us, especially the French, and the Qataris and the British: We want those people to share the power with you, our own people, the heads of rebels.”

The recorded conversations also included concerns that the U.S. might try to arm the rebels despite a U.N. arms embargo on Libya.

On March 27, 2011, days after the intervention began, Mrs. Clinton argued that the arms embargo could be disregarded if shipping weapons to rebels would help protect civilians, but defense officials in the United Kingdom disagreed with her interpretation of international law.

“We’re not arming the rebels. We’re not planning to arm the rebels,” British Defense Secretary Liam Fox told the BBC the day Mrs. Clinton hinted otherwise.

Likewise, Qatari officials sent a letter Feb. 2, 2012, to the United Nations about the Libyan uprising, “categorically” denying that they had “supplied the revolutionaries with arms and ammunitions” as some had reported. Attempts to contact the Qatari Embassy in Washington for comment Sunday were unsuccessful, but the classified Libyan intelligence report indicates that Qatar sent tanks, missiles, trucks and military advisers to the rebels.

The Libyan intelligence reports provided to the Pentagon’s emissary detailed specific weapons shipments they said came from Qatar.

Mr. Benotman also was a leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group but left the organization prior to the 2011 revolution.

“A lot of jihadists that had been locked up by the regime were released after the revolution started. They picked up many of the guns that were coming into the country and fought, but they were not fighting for democracy — they were fighting their own revolution, trying to build a state based on a vicious, violent, radical, Islamic ideology. They took advantage of the situation,” he said. “There were pro-democracy demonstrators participating in the revolution, of course, but there was also crystal-clear evidence of jihadists and jihadist tactics in Benghazi before the NATO intervention started, so no one can say there were no jihadists there,” he said. *** Thank you Washington Times.

Arm Ukraine Against Russia? Yes, No, Maybe

Posted on February 2, 2015February 2, 2015 by Denise Simon

If you think executing the war against militant Islam is in flux in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Lebanon, Yemen and North Africa you are quite right. Yet when it comes to forward and offensive measures against Soviet loyalists in Ukraine, the Baltic States, Poland and beyond, there is as much confusion and a strategy is still undecided. Imagine the policy and war gaming desks at the Pentagon and at NATO when it comes to action plans and they continue to be in full opposition to the NSC chief, Susan Rice. Some action was taken last year placing some hard military assets in key locations as well as troops, but as of this writing they are static. Read on to see the United States is nowhere on the matter of Russian aggression, leading to the real question as to why.

The Ukraine is an ally and has not been able to rely on the West. An official decision was to call up 1000,000 troops, perhaps coming from within and elsewhere. Question is where do the weapons come from?

U.S. Taking a Fresh Look at Arming Ukraine’s Forces, Officials Say

WASHINGTON — With Russian-backed separatists pressing their attacks in Ukraine, NATO’s military commander, Gen. Philip M. Breedlove, now supports providing defensive weapons and equipment to Kiev’s beleaguered forces, and an array of administration and military officials appear to be edging toward that position, American officials said Sunday.

President Obama has made no decisions on providing such lethal assistance. But after a series of striking reversals that Ukraine’s forces have suffered in recent weeks, the Obama administration is taking a fresh look at the question of military assistance.

Secretary of State John Kerry, who plans to visit Kiev on Thursday, is open to new discussions about providing lethal aid, as is Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, officials said.

In recent months, Susan E. Rice, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, has resisted proposals to provide lethal assistance, several officials said. But one official said that she was now prepared to reconsider the issue.

Fearing that the provision of defensive weapons might tempt President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to raise the stakes, the White House has limited American aid to “non-lethal” items, including body armor, night-vision goggles, first aid kits and engineering equipment.

But the failure of economic sanctions to dissuade Russia from sending heavy weapons and military personnel to eastern Ukraine is pushing the issue of defensive weapons back into discussion.

“Although our focus remains on pursuing a solution through diplomatic means, we are always evaluating other options that will help create space for a negotiated solution to the crisis,” said Bernadette Meehan, a spokeswoman for the National Security Council.

Fueling the broader debate over policy is an independent report to be issued Monday by eight former senior American officials, who urge the United States to send $3 billion in defensive arms and equipment to Ukraine, including anti-armor missiles, reconnaissance drones, armored Humvees and radars that can determine the location of enemy rocket and artillery fire.

Michèle A. Flournoy, a former senior Pentagon official who was among those considered to replace Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, joined in preparing the report. Others include James G. Stavridis, a retired admiral who served as the top NATO military commander, and Ivo Daalder, the United States ambassador to NATO during Mr. Obama’s first term.

“The West needs to bolster deterrence in Ukraine by raising the risks and costs to Russia of any renewed major offensive,” the report says. “That requires providing direct military assistance — in far larger amounts than provided to date and including lethal defensive arms.”

In his State of the Union address last month, Mr. Obama noted that the economic sanctions imposed by the United States and its allies had hurt the Russian economy.

But American officials acknowledge that Russia has repeatedly violated an agreement, reached in Minsk in September. The agreement called for an immediate cease-fire in Ukraine, the removal of foreign forces and the establishment of monitoring arrangements to ensure that the border between Ukraine and Russia would be respected.

In recent weeks, Russia has shipped a large number of heavy weapons to support the separatists’ offensive in eastern Ukraine, including T-80 and T-72 tanks, multiple-launch rocket systems, artillery and armored personnel carriers, Western officials say.

Some of the weapons are too sophisticated to be used by hastily trained separatists, said a Western official who, like others discussing the issue, declined to be identified because he was discussing intelligence reports and internal policy debates. NATO officials estimate that about 1,000 Russian military and intelligence personnel are supporting the separatist offensive while Ukrainian officials insist that the number is much higher.

Supported by the Russians, the separatists have captured the airport at Donetsk and are pressing to take Debaltseve, a town that sits aside a critical rail junction.

All told, the separatists have captured 500 square kilometers — about 193 square miles — of additional territory in the past four months, NATO says. The assessment of some senior Western officials is that the Kremlin’s goal is to replace the Minsk agreement with an accord that leaves the separatists with a more economically viable enclave and would be more favorable to the Kremlin’s interests.

A spokesman for General Breedlove declined to comment on his view on providing defensive weapons, which was disclosed by United States officials privy to confidential discussions.

“General Breedlove has repeatedly stated that he supports the pursuit of a diplomatic solution as well as considering practical means of support to the government of Ukraine in its struggle against Russian-backed separatists,” the spokesman, Capt. Gregory L. Hicks of the Navy, said.

But a Pentagon official who is familiar with the views of General Dempsey and Adm. James A. Winnefeld Jr., the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said they believed the issue of defensive weapons should be reconsidered.

“A comprehensive approach is warranted, and we agree that defensive equipment and weapons should be part of that discussion.” the Pentagon official said.

Russian casualties remain a delicate political issue for Mr. Putin, who has denied that Russian troops have been ordered to fight in Ukraine.

The report by Ms. Flournoy and the other former officials argues that the United States and its allies should capitalize on this fact to dissuade the Russians and the separatists from expanding their offensive.

“One of the best ways to deter Russia from supporting the rebels in taking more territory and stepping up the conflict is to increase the cost that the Russians or their surrogates would incur,” Ms. Flournoy said.

The current stock of Ukrainian anti-armor missiles, the report notes, is at least two decades old, and most of them are out of commission.

So the report recommends that the United States provide the Ukrainian military with light anti-armor missiles, which might include Javelin antitank missiles.

“Providing the Ukrainians with something that can stop an armored assault and that puts at risk Russia or Russian-backed forces that are in armored vehicles, I think, is the most important aspect of this,” she added.

The Obama administration has provided radars that can locate the source of mortars. But the report urges the United States to also provide radars that can pinpoint the location of rocket and artillery fire. Enemy rocket and artillery attacks account for 70 percent of the Ukrainian military’s casualties, the report says, citing statistics provided by a Ukrainian officer.

Ukraine, the report notes, also needs reconnaissance drones, especially since the Ukrainian military has stopped all flights over eastern Ukraine because of the separatists’ use of antiaircraft missiles supplied by Russia.

The report also urged the United States to provide military communications equipment that cannot be intercepted by Russian intelligence and recommended the transfer of armored Humvees and field hospitals.

Poland, the Baltic States, Canada and Britain, the report says, might also provide defensive weapons if the United States takes the lead.

The report was issued jointly by the Atlantic Council, the Brookings Institution and the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. The other officials who prepared it are Strobe Talbott, who served as deputy secretary of State in the Clinton administration; Charles F. Wald, a retired Air Force general who served as deputy commander of the United States European Command; Jan M. Lodal, a former Pentagon official; and two former U.S. ambassadors to Ukraine, John Herbst and Steven Pifer.

Saudi Arabia crowns new king who financed jihad

Ukraine Crisis in Maps