THAAD vs. North Korea weapon test

Posted on January 7, 2016January 7, 2016 by Denise Simon

I was asked today if the facts told by North Korea launching a thermonuclear weapon was accurate. My response was kinda sorta. The matter of North Korea performing this launch test was no surprise for those paying attention as North Korea warned of this last month.

One would think that after this recent North Korea test and the three previous tests, the National Security Council, the White House and the Pentagon would announce the placement of all offensive measures with respect to North Korea and Iran…so far…nothing announced at all. Hummmm.

This test appears to be a hybrid weapon of sorts or a primary test launch for that they are designing and building. Either way, there are many widespread implications and it is necessary to put China and Iran into the blame equation. The Obama White House as well as the John Kerry State Department immediately threw cold water on the whole notion of accuracy in the successful post launch announcement. Of course they did given this administration is not equipped or opposed enough to condemn the action except to pass it off to the United Nations for a lame and feeble isolation resolution.

What never does get mention is what are the defenses against a successful more destructive launch either by Iran or North Korea? We DO have them.

Missile Defense

Learn about THAAD. Perhaps a courtesy of Ronald Reagan and his ‘star wars’ mission.

THAAD = Terminal High Altitude Area Defense

Gertz/FreeBeacon: Preliminary U.S. intelligence estimates have concluded that North Korea’s fourth underground nuclear test on Tuesday involved a small explosion that could be a component of a larger-scale thermonuclear device.

U.S. officials familiar with intelligence reports of the underground test estimated the low yield of the detected blast to be between 5 kilotons to 7 kilotons—far less than would be detected in a two-stage thermonuclear blast, or hydrogen bomb.

The Pyongyang government announced that the test that took place Wednesday morning local time at a nuclear testing site in northeast North Korea and that it was a successful “first H-bomb test.”

The test was announced in two official statements broadcast on state-run radio and television.

Unlike the past three nuclear tests, the regime conducted the test with no advance notice. Past tests were preceded by stern public warnings in state-run media.

Also in a break with practice, the two official North Korean statements asserted the test was directly ordered by North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. A copy of Kim’s written order was shown on North Korean television, and he was shown signing the order.

Another unusual feature in the handling of the nuclear test were statements indicating the blast was carried out “safely and flawlessly” without harming the environment. The statements noted that North Korea is a responsible nuclear power and would not be the first to use nuclear arms in a conflict and would not transfer nuclear technology unless “hostile forces infringe upon its sovereignty.”

Initial U.S. intelligence analysis of the official statements indicates the test had two goals.

One key objective for the underground blast was to bolster statements last month by North Korean leader Kim Jong Un that the North has developed a hydrogen bomb.

By conducting the test, Kim is seeking to cement his position within the regime. The supreme leader turns 33 on Friday and is widely viewed by intelligence analysts as inexperienced, compared to his father and grandfather, Kim Jong Il and Kim Il Sung.

A second objective of the test was to persuade China, North Korea’s main patron, to back off pressuring the regime to abandon its nuclear program.

The harsh language used in the official statement—including a threat to adopt a more hostile posture in the coming months—were interpreted as a sign that the current tense relations with China over its opposition to the nuclear program was a main driver behind the surprise nuclear test.

“Initial reports indicate the North Koreans may be bragging a little bit too much,” said one official of the claims of a hydrogen bomb test.

The test was widely reported on social media shortly after it took place based on detection of a 5.1 magnitude seismic event Tuesday evening near a nuclear test site called Punggye-ri, in Kilju, North Hamgyong Province.

The test prompted international condemnation but a limited reaction from the Obama administration, which sought to play down the latest nuclear provocation.

In New York, the United Nations held an emergency meeting during which additional sanctions on North Korea were discussed. Sanctions were imposed after earlier nuclear tests in 2006, 2009, and 2013.

At the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Ash Carter, who was briefed on the test by Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, commander of U.S. Forces in Korea, spoke by telephone to South Korean Defense Minister Han Min Koo. Both officials agreed the test was an “unacceptable and irresponsible provocation” as well as a “flagrant violation of international law and a threat to the peace and stability of the Korean Peninsula and the entire Asia-Pacific region,” according to a statement.

Carter stressed in the call the United States was committed to maintaining U.S. extended nuclear deterrence protection for South Korea.

The White House said the United States and regional allies would take up the test at the United Nations, which sanctioned North Korea for past nuclear and missile tests.

“What is true is that North Korea continues to be one of the most isolated nations in the world and their isolation has only deepened as they have sought to engage in increasingly provocative acts,” spokesman Josh Earnest said.

On Capitol Hill, senior Republican leaders criticized the Obama administration for weak policies toward the rogue state.

House Speak Paul Ryan said the increasing nuclear threat posed by North Korea grew out of the failed nuclear agreement with North Korea reached by the Bill Clinton administration.

“This is exactly what happens when we appease and embolden rogue regimes,” Ryan said, noting the test had not been confirmed.

“President Obama has been guilty of this on more than one occasion,” he added, noting failed policies in Syria and Iran.

“The world is a safer place when we stand up to brutal regimes like those in Tehran, Damascus, and Pyongyang—and that’s not happening under our current president,” Ryan said.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry said the test shows “the world is rapidly growing more dangerous, and the United States cannot afford to focus only on ISIS or Iran or Russia.”

“We must be prepared to protect our national security against many threats,” Thornberry said. “Unfortunately, the view around the world is that U.S. leadership is in decline while the administration’s inaction only fuels those concerns.”

Thornberry called for deployment of the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense anti-missile system in South Korea and for strengthening the U.S. nuclear deterrent.

Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the Armed Services subcommittee on strategic forces, criticized the president’s policies.

“We are watching seven years of President Obama’s failures play out—this is what ‘leading from behind’ has wrought,” said Rogers (R., Ala.)

“While the president has wasted his two terms in office, North Korea has continued to develop its ballistic missile and nuclear weapons capabilities,” Rogers added.

Former Pentagon nuclear forces official Mark Schneider said the reported low yield of the test indicates the blast was not a thermonuclear device.

“It could be a fission trigger or primary for a thermonuclear weapon,” he said.

Schneider said nuclear specialists at Los Alamos National Laboratory are betting at estimating nuclear yields than U.S. intelligence agencies, which during the Cold War consistently underestimated Soviet thermonuclear tests.

“If the yield is significantly higher than the 6-kt estimated in [news reports], it could be more than a primary test,” Schneider added.

North Korea is estimated to have a stockpile of between one and several dozen missile-deliverable warheads.

Rep. Mike Pompeo, a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said the North Korean nuclear threat is “a frightening vision of a future with President Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran.”

“This is yet another example of how President Obama and former secretary [of state Hillary] Clinton’s policy of ‘strategic patience’ with North Korea has led the U.S. down a perilous path, and we are in urgent need of a new approach,” said Pompeo (R., Kan.)

“We cannot continue President Obama’s policy of turning a blind eye to North Korea and Iran.”

A Chinese government spokesman said Beijing opposed the test but warned Japan not to take provocative counter actions in response.

China has sought to rein in North Korea military provocations, including nuclear and long-range missile tests.

“We strongly urge [North Korea] to remain committed to its denuclearization commitment, and stop taking any actions that would make the situation worse,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said.

The European Union, in a statement, said that if the test blast is confirmed as nuclear it would be “a grave violation” of North Korea’s international obligations under U.N. resolutions not to produce or test nuclear weapons.

A nuclear test would be “a threat to the peace and security of the entire North East Asia region,” the EU said.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg criticized the announced nuclear test. “I condemn the continued development by North Korea of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs and its inflammatory and threatening rhetoric,” he said.

The latest nuclear test was not a surprise and followed a recent boast from Kim, the North Korean leader, that his state had developed a thermonuclear bomb.

South Korea’s Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Defense Command, a Defense Ministry group, stated in a report made public Sunday that a nuclear test was expected but that it likely would not be a large-scale thermonuclear blast.

“We can’t discount the possibility that the North’s excavation of a new tunnel at its Punggye-ri test site could be designed for thermonuclear weapons tests,” command said. “Considering its research of nuclear technology, its history of underground and projectile tests, and elapsed time since its nuclear development, North Korea has the foundation for thermonuclear weapons, the report added according to the semi-official Yonhap news agency.

Thermonuclear bombs are advanced weapons that employ a nuclear blast to create a larger hydrogen blast.

Former Defense Intelligence Agency official Bruce Bechtol said if the test was a hydrogen bomb “this means the North Koreans are advancing their nuclear weaponization program at a faster and more efficient—and deadly—pace than most analysts have predicted in the past.”

“Yes it changes things,” he added. “It increases the possibilities regarding the threat that North Korea can pose to South Korea, the region, and the USA.”

The nuclear test follows North Korea’s successful submarine missile ejection test Dec. 21 from a submerged submarine. The test was regarded by U.S. intelligence agencies as a significant advance in Pyongyang’s bid to develop nuclear-armed submarine-launched missiles.

The submarine used in the test, known as the Gorae, or Whale, suffered a serious malfunction in attempting an ejection test Nov. 28. That test nearly sank the submarine, which returned to port listing at a 45-degree angle, according to U.S. officials.

Iran unveils second underground missile site

Posted on January 5, 2016January 5, 2016 by Denise Simon

Oh, wonder if the Obama will give Tehran an Academy award for Iran’s theatrics, behavior and violations.

DUBAI (Reuters) – Iran unveiled a new underground missile depot on Tuesday with state television showing Emad precision-guided missiles in store which the United States says can take a nuclear warhead and violate a 2010 U.N. Security Council resolution.

The defiant move to publicize Iran’s missile program seemed certain to irk the United States as it plans to dismantle nearly all sanctions on Iran under a breakthrough nuclear agreement.

Tasnim news agency and state television video said the underground facility, situated in mountains and run by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, was inaugurated by the speaker of parliament, Ali Larijani. Release of one-minute video followed footage of another underground missile depot last October.

The United States says the Emad, which Iran tested in October, would be capable of carrying a nuclear warhead and U.S. officials say Washington will respond to the Emad tests with fresh sanctions against Iranian individuals and businesses linked to the program.

Iran’s boasting about its missile capabilities are a challenge for U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration as the United States and European Union plan to dismantle nearly all international sanctions against Tehran under the nuclear deal reached in July.

Iran has abided by the main terms of the nuclear deal, which require it to give up material that world powers feared could be used to make an atomic weapon and accept other restrictions on its nuclear program.

But President Hassan Rouhani ordered his defense minister last week to expand the missile program.

The Iranian missiles under development boast much improved accuracy over the current generation, which experts say is likely to improve their effectiveness with conventional warheads.

The Revolutionary Guards’ second-in-command, Brigadier General Hossein Salami, said last Friday that Iran’s depots and underground facilities are so full that they do not know how to store their new missiles.

***

Iranian-Saudi Tensions May Distract Iran’s Efforts to Attack Israel

InvestigativeProject: The dramatic escalation in the Iranian-Saudi Arabian rivalry poses critical potential ramifications for Israeli national security, according to the former head of Israel’s National Security Council, Yaakov Amidror.

Amidror – also formerly the head of Israeli military intelligence – told the Jerusalem Post that he expects the Iranian-Saudi crisis to prolong the Syrian civil war, leading both sides to increase support for their respective proxies in that country.

Such a scenario can intensify Israeli concerns of unpredictable and radical terrorist organizations consolidating bases of operations on the Jewish state’s northern borders.

However, other analysts view Syrian fragmentation as a strategic benefit – at least temporarily removing Syria as a conventional military threat and forcing Iranian proxies, including Hizballah, to divert resources and manpower to the Syrian front instead of conducting major attacks against Israel.

According to this perspective, Iran will also be more preoccupied with confronting Saudi Arabia in other regional theaters – including Bahrain, Yemen, and Iraq.

“That doesn’t meant they won’t do anything [toward Israel]. This doesn’t mean, for instance, that this will influence Hezbollah [backed by Iran] not to carry out revenge attacks against Israel. But it means that whenever there is something, there will be someone in Iran who will say that they have other problems to think about; we will not be the only issue they will be focusing on,” Amidror said.

This assessment supports other analyses that believe Hizballah failed to effectively retaliate to Israel’s reported assassination of arch-terrorist Samir Kuntar. On Monday, Hizballah detonated a large explosive on the Israel-Lebanon border, targeting two military vehicles. Israel said it suffered no casualties. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) followed with artillery fire against Hizballah targets in Lebanon, but limited its response to avoid escalating tensions.

The relatively weak show of force from Hizballah suggests that the terrorist organization continues to be bogged down in the Syrian civil war, unwilling and incapable of seriously challenging Israel at the moment. Fighting in Syria has cost Hizballah as much as a quarter of its fighters, Israeli military affairs journalist Yossi Melman points out.

Those losses “neutralized the Shi’ite-Lebanese organization’s ability to act against Israel,” he writes. At the least, it makes the prospect of opening a second front with Israel less appealing. Hizballah still enjoys an arsenal of more than 100,000 rockets it can fire at Israel when it opts for a confrontation.

Even though Hizballah and other Iranian proxies continue to enhance their presence in the Golan Heights for the purposes of targeting Israel, recent Iranian-Saudi tensions will likely force terrorist organizations at Iran’s behest to focus more of their efforts and resources on other fronts beyond the Jewish state.

Saudi Arabia’s Anti-Iran Coalition Growing

Posted on January 5, 2016January 5, 2016 by Denise Simon

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

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

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

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

New Saudi-Iran crisis threatens wider escalation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SIMMERING MISTRUST

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FURTHER ESCALATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

****

Where do the rest of the countries stand?

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

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

COUNTRIES BACKING SAUDI ARABIA:

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

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

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

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

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

THE MEDIATOR:

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

THOSE BACKING IRAN:

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

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

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

OTHER REGIONAL ACTORS:

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

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

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

THOSE URGING CAUTION:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Jihadi John Identified

Posted on January 4, 2016January 4, 2016 by Denise Simon

Is this former Anjem Choudary lackey the new Jihadi John? Speculation mounts that former bouncy castle salesman who skipped bail to join ISIS in Syria is killer who executed UK spy

WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT
Propaganda video shows ISIS thugs shooting five men at point blank range
Executioner threatened Prime Minister, calling him a ‘slave to White House’
Young boy who appears to be around five said ‘we will kill them over there’
British fighter jets began airstrikes on ISIS locations in Syria a month ago
For more news on the latest ISIS video visit www.dailymail.co.uk/isis
If you recognise the boy or man, email [email protected] or call 0203 615 1926

Speculation was mounting today that the ISIS executioner dubbed the ‘new Jihadi John’ is a British fanatic who taunted police after skipping bail to flee to Syria.

British security agents are racing to identify the masked militant who spoke with a clear English accent in a sickening new execution video in which he is seen shooting an alleged British spy.

Claims have been circulating online that it could be Siddhartha Dhar, a British militant who went on the run with his pregnant wife and family while under investigation by Scotland Yard in 2014.

The father-of-four from Walthamstow was one of nine men detained on suspicion of encouraging terrorism and supporting radical cleric Anjem Choudary and the banned group al-Muhajiroun.

The former bouncy castle salesman later posted a picture of himself cradling his baby while brandishing an assault rifle to mock security services whose blunders allowed him to escape the UK.

Dhar, also known as Abu Rumaysah, is believed to have met, and possibly mentored, Michael Adebolajo, one of the murderers of Fusilier Lee Rigby.

Speculation was mounting that the ISIS executioner dubbed the ‘new Jihadi John’ (left) is British fanatic Siddhartha Dhar, also known as Abu Rumaysah (right) who taunted police after skipping bail to flee to Syria.

Dhar was released on bail after his arrest in September 2014 and ordered to hand in his passport.

But less than 24 hours after walking free, he took a coach from London to Paris and headed to the ISIS war zone with his young family.

Prior to posting the photo, Dhar taunted the police on Twitter for clumsily allowing him to slip through their fingers: ‘What a shoddy security system Britain must have to allow me to breeze through Europe to the Islamic State.’

He also boasted how he had fooled MI5: ‘My Lord (Allah) made a mockery of British intelligence and surveillance. Make hijrah (flight) Muslims. Place your trust in Allah.’

Proclaiming his love for ISIS and the importance of the fight against the West, Dhar wrote: ‘The Islamic State will punish the tyrants in the West. The army of Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is coming. Rejoice O Muslims.’

Dhar, who has been courted by broadcast media and repeatedly given a platform on the BBC and Channel 4 to promote his radical views, had publicly stated that he wanted to live under the Islamic State in Syria.

A few weeks before his arrest, he told one interviewer that he was willing to renounce his British citizenship if it meant he was allowed to travel.

Dhar was also interviewed by CBS News’s 60 Minutes programme about radicalisation in the UK earlier this month, telling presenter Clarissa Ward that he was unable to love his mother because she was not a Muslim.

Titled ‘Campaigning for ISIS in the West’, the episode focused on Choudary’s band of London-based radicals.

Slipped from police grasp: Siddhartha Dhar (circled) disappeared only 24 hours after being released on bail. The follower of Anjem Choudary (centre) took a coach to Paris with his family before travelling on to Syria.

Taunting the police: Abu Rumaysah posted a picture of him cradling his baby and brandishing an assault rifle in the other to mock security services whose blunders allowed him to escape the UK

It is understood that Dhar is of Indian origin and was brought up a Hindu before converting to Islam.

He was a key member of al-Muhajiroun and offshoot groups such as the Shariah Project, masterminding ‘roadshows’ in London that aimed to recruit troubled youngsters to Islam.

In the ten-minute footage, the executioner threatens Prime Minister David Cameron and vows that ISIS will one day occupy Britain before shooting the alleged spies in the head.

The fanatic has been compared to feared British executioner Mohammed Emwazi, dubbed Jihadi John, who was killed in a drone strike in November after appearing in several beheading videos.

Intelligence analysts are expected to employ the same techniques used to successfully unmask and track down Emwazi, including voice analysis and possibly even vein-recognition technology that mapped the executioner’s hands. They will also be hunting for clues to the identity of a young English-speaking boy who also appears in the video.

Dressed in military fatigues and a black bandanna bearing the white mark of ISIS, the boy declares: ‘We will kill kuffar [non believers]’.

Experts fear the boy, thought to be just five, is a member of one of dozens of families who have left the UK for the blood-soaked warzone of Iraq and Syria.

A spokeswoman for Mr Cameron said the video was a propaganda tool that serves as a reminder of the barbarity of the group.

They said: ‘We are examining the content of the video and the prime minister is being kept updated on that

‘It serves as a reminder of the barbarity of Daesh (ISIS) and what the world faces with these terrorists.

‘It is also clearly a propaganda tool and should be treated as such.’

A Foreign Office spokesman said: ‘We are aware of the video and are examining its content.’

Speculation mounted today that the child could be the son of a notorious Jihadi bride from London, Grace ‘Khadijah’ Dare. This picture of a youngster posing with a toy gun in front of an ISIS flag in 2014 and thought to be Dare’s son, also bears a similarity to the child. It was tweeted by Londoner Umm Khattab, the teenaged widow of an ISIS fighter with the caption: ‘Next generation, Bi’ithnillah (God willing)’. ISIS also threatened David Cameron in the gruesome video in which it executes five suspected spies.

British war veterans said the video was a sign of desperation after ISIS suffered a number of setbacks in Iraq and Syria, notably the fall of the town of Ramadi.

Former Admiralty chief Lord West told The Sun: ‘Terror is part of their policy because they think it shakes and rattles the West.

‘But it’s a sign of desperation, not strength. We must do better at our own propaganda to make them look silly, not terrifying.’

Iraq war hero Colonel Tim Collins added: ‘Nobody is pretending RAF jets are going to do it all, but they are making room for the Iraqis to get the job done.

‘This isn’t going to happen overnight but it’s going to happen.’

It came as speculation mounted today that the child could be the son of a notorious Jihadi bride from London.

The child bears a striking similarity to the young son of Grace ‘Khadijah’ Dare, who grew up in Lewisham, south London, and converted to Islam as a teenager.

In 2014, Dare posted a shocking photograph to her Twitter account of her then four-year-old son Isa, meaning ‘Jesus’, smiling as he aims an AK-47 rifle.

She is married to a Swedish Islamic fighter called Abu Bakr, and is reported to be a convert who previously attended a mosque in South London.

Isa also has a younger brother, who would now be between two and three years old, who his mother has referred to as a ‘mini mujahid’, or holy warrior.

Images of Isa look remarkably similar to those of the young boy featured in the video, who could pass as six years old – the same age as Isa would be now.

The two children also appear to have a mole on their face in the same area and have similarly shaped eyes.

The terror group’s captives (pictured), dressed in orange jumpsuits, were filmed ‘confessing’ in Arabic to spying for British security service

Two years ago, Dare swapped her ‘comfortable life’ in Britain, where she was known for her dimples and her love of her mother’s home cooking, for the horror of Syria, where she has joined the terror group ISIS.

After appearing in an ISIS recruitment video calling on British Muslims to ‘stop being selfish’ and give up their families and studies to join the front line in the Middle East, Dare – a pseudonym – is said to be top of MI6’s list.

Young children have appeared in many ISIS propaganda videos before, including material which shows groups of youngsters being trained with guns.

In one infamous image, a child was pictured holding a severed head, while another photograph that circulated online showed a young child being encouraged to kick a severed head.

More than 30 UK children had been made the subject of family court orders over radicalisation fears, Scotland Yard said in August.

At that time, judges had considered cases involving 12 different families.

Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley, the country’s most senior terrorism officer, said in some instances the children were ‘almost babes in arms’, with ages ranging from two up to 16 or 17.

There have been a series of high-profile cases involving families taking their children to Syria, or making unsuccessful attempts to make the journey, in the past year.

In October, police released images of a family of seven from Bradford thought to have begun a journey to Syria or Iraq.

The evil and disgusting ISIS propaganda video shows why we need to do much more to tackle radicalisation in Britain.

In the footage released over the weekend, the five captives were forced to confess to their crimes – most probably under duress – before they were paraded to a remote desert location and ordered to kneel.

The English speaking jihadi yelled ‘Allahu Akbar’ before he and four other fanatics shot the men from point blank range.

The video ended with a trailer for another execution in which a young, dark skinned boy warned Britain of coming atrocities.

It raised fears that the child, who appeared to be around five, may have been made to execute someone on camera.

Before killing the prisoners in cold blood, the British jihadi said: ‘This is a message to David Cameron, slave of the White House, mule of the Jews.’

He called the Prime Minister an ‘imbecile’ and warned ‘your children will pay’ for British airstrikes on ISIS targets in Syria.

He added: ‘How strange it is that we find ourselves today hearing an insignificant leader like you challenge the might of the Islamic State.

‘How strange it is that the leader of a small island threatens us with a handful of planes.

‘One would have thought you would have learned the lessons of your pathetic master in Washington and his failed campaign against Islamic State.

‘It seems that you, just like your predecessors [Tony] Blair and [Gordon] Brown, are just as arrogant and foolish.

‘David, only a fool would wage war against a land where the law of Allah reigns supreme and where the people live under the justice and security of the Sharia.

‘As for those of you who wish to continue fighting under the banner of Cameron on the minimum wage, we say to you, to ask yourself, do you really think your government will care about you when you come into our hands?

‘Or will they abandon you, as they have abandoned these spies, and those who came before them.’

The chief executioner (pictured) in ISIS’s newest propaganda video wore military fatigues and spoke in a clear British accent.

The executioner in the new propaganda video bore a chilling resemblance to ISIS’s former executioner in chief, Jihadi Jn.

Reacting to the video, Labour MP Sadiq Khan wrote on Twitter: ‘The evil and disgusting ISIS propaganda video shows why we need to do much more to tackle radicalisation in Britain.’

The masked executioner in the video bore a chilling resemblance to ISIS’s former executioner in chief, Jihadi John.

The fanatic, real name Mohammed Emwazi, was filmed executing British aid workers David Haines and Alan Henning, American journalists Steven Sotloff and James Foley, American aid worker Peter Kassig and Japanese journalist Kenji Goto.

He was killed by a US drone strike near an iconic clock tower in the terror group’s de facto capital of Raqqa in Syria in November.

Security experts believe the mass execution is the culmination of an Islamic State manhunt for those who helped Western forces kill Emwazi.

Among the five men shot dead are understood to be those suspected of providing information on his movements and appearance.

The victims give their names and briefly discuss the details of their so-called offences – presumably under duress. Although their identities could not be verified, among them was Umaar Hamud al-Ja’far, 30, from Raqqa, who said he supplied information about the city’s topography. Another victim, Ubi Muhammad Abdul Ghani, 26, said he undertook covert surveillance.

Faisal Hamud al-Ja’far, 25, said he was also from Raqqa and stated he was paid money to open an internet café in the city.

Mahyar Mahmud al-Uthmaan, 31, says he accepted a payment of $300 in Turkey, also to open an internet café. Ha’il Marwan Abdul Razaq, 40, admitted taking pictures of militant activity.

Intelligence agencies are already working to identify the young boy and the older British jihadi in the film.

More than 800 Britons have travelled to Syria and Iraq to fight for Islamic State, including families from Luton, Bradford and London.

The new video, which featured a child threatening Britain, comes a month since RAF jets began bombing ISIS targets in Syria.

Russian speaking ISIS fighter threatened President Vladimir Putin before he beheaded a suspected spy on camera in a propaganda video released last month

RAF strikes killed 396 ISIS terrorists from October 2014 to October 2015, with 30 wiped out in a single strike in November, a Freedom of Information request revealed (pictured, US airstrike in Ramadi, Iraq)

In the wake of the Paris attacks and a UN Security Council resolution which called on all member states to double their efforts to eradicate ISIS, British drones, as well as Typhoon and Tornado jets, began airstrikes on Syria.

RAF strikes killed 396 ISIS terrorists from October 2014 to October 2015, with 30 wiped out in a single strike in November, a Freedom of Information request revealed.

And on December 9, Chancellor George Osborne said 16 RAF jets had killed four since MPs voted to extend strikes to Syria a week prior.

In another propaganda video released last month, a Russian speaking ISIS fighter threatened President Vladimir Putin before he beheaded a suspected spy on camera.

The jihadi vowed revenge on Putin in response to Russian jets which had been targetting ISIS and rebel fighters in aid of President Bashar al-Assad.

The executioner, who was later named as Anatoly Zemlyanka, 28, said to Russia: ‘You will not find peace in your homes.

‘We will kill your sons… for each son you killed here. And we will destroy your homes for each home you destroyed.

All praise be to Allah the greatest, the only one worthy of worship, obedience and submission.

And may the peace and blessings be upon the prophet Muhammad, the final messenger sent to all of mankind.

This is a message to David Cameron.

O slave of the White House, o mule of the Jews.

How strange it is that we find ourselves today hearing an insignificant leader like you challenge the might of the Islamic State.

How strange it is that the leader of a small island threatens us with a handful of planes. One would have thought you would have learned the lessons of your pathetic master in Washington and his failed campaign against Islamic State.

It seems that you, just like your predecessors Blair and Brown, are just as arrogant and foolish.

In fact David, you are more of an imbecile.

Only an imbecile would dare to wage war against a land where the law of Allah reigns supreme.

And where the people live under the justice and security of the Sharia.

Only an imbecile would dare to anger a people who love death the way that you love your life.

O British Government. O people of Britain. Know that today your citizenship are under our feet.

And that the Islamic State, our country, is here to stay.

And we will continue to wage jihad, break borders and one day invade your land where we will rule by the sharia.

But as for those of you who wish to continue fighting under the banner of Cameron on the minimum wage, we say to you, to ask yourself, do you really think your government will care about you when you come into our hands?

Or will they abandon you, as they have abandoned these spies, and those who came before them.

Because you will lose this war, as you lost in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But this time when you lose, your children will pay for your deeds.

And remember you as the fools who thought they could fight the Islamic State.

2016 Journalists Predictions in Foreign Affairs

Posted on January 4, 2016January 4, 2016 by Denise Simon

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

What Will Be the Big Story of 2016?

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

The world is melting

Thomas E. Ricks

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

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

A year of borrowed time

Stephen M. Walt

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

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

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

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

America, a country divided

Bruce Stokes

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

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

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

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

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

Obama’s push for North Korean diplomacy

Jeffery Lewis

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

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

The year of strange flu

Laurie Garrett

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

The demise of Western values

James Traub

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

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

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

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

A trend in terror

Aaron David Miller

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

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

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

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

The year the world forgets refugees, again

Lauren Wolfe

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

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

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

The long reach of limiting civil rights in Europe

Leela Jacinto

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

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

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

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

The fall of the House of Europe

James Stavridis

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

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

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

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

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

Obama’s last chance

Rosa Brooks

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

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

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

The tremors of the refugee crisis

Gordon Adams

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

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

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

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

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

An eye on the House of Saud

Kim Ghattas

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

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

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

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

The shale conundrum

Emile Simpson

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

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

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

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

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

Saudi Arabia settles down

Elizabeth Dickinson

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

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

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

The (many) crises yet to come

Whitney Kassel

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

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

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