Russia: The Troll State

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2016 Journalists Predictions in Foreign Affairs

Posted on 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.

Saudi Arabia has Terminated Ties with Iran

Posted on January 3, 2016January 3, 2016 by Denise Simon

It is official especially when Tehran sent empty planes to Riyadh to pick up Iranian personnel. Saudi has the endorsement of several Gulf States while John Kerry of the U.S. State Department is begging for calm and for relations to be restored. Sigh…

Saudi Arabia severs ties with Iran: foreign minister

Riyadh (AFP) – Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir announced Sunday that Saudi Arabia was severing diplomatic ties with Iran after demonstrators stormed its Tehran embassy to protest against Riyadh’s execution of a Shiite cleric.

Jubeir also said that all Iranian diplomats must leave Saudi Arabia within 48 hours.

Trend: Saudi Arabia in response to protests in front of Saudi Embassy in Tehran decided to terminate the diplomatic relations with Iran, Haber 7 reported.

Saudi Arabia gave Iranian ambassador 24 hours to leave the country.

Iranian protesters against the execution of a Shiite leader by Saudi Arabia raided and set fire to the Saudi Embassy in Tehran late Saturday.

The move came hours after the Saudi Interior Ministry announced that prominent Shiite leader Nimr al-Nimr and 46 other men were executed on terror charges.

Meanwhile, Tehran has issued a formal declaration against Saudi Arabia.

DailyMail: Iran’s Supreme Leader has vowed ‘divined revenge’ on Saudi Arabia after it executed 47 prisoners, including a prominent Shiite cleric, yesterday.

Its elite paramilitary unit, the Revolutionary Guard, compared the Sunni-ruled country to terror group ISIS and warned the ‘medieval act of savagery’ would lead to the monarchy’s downfall.

A controversial meme posted on an Iranian website, thought to belong to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameni, suggested the only difference between Saudi rulers and ISIS executioners was the clothes they wore.

Saudi Arabia claimed Shiite cleric Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr and the other executed prisoners, which include three other Shiite dissidents and a number of al-Qaeda supporters, were all convicted ‘terrorists’. It said Iran had ‘revealed its true face as a supporter of terrorists’ by condemning al-Nimr’s death.

The escalating war of words came after a night of violence in the Iranian capital of Tehran, where a furious mob petrol bombed the Saudi embassy to protest al-Nimr’s killing. At least 40 were arrested on suspicion of attacking and setting fire to the embassy.

Iraq’s former Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki warned the executions would ‘topple the Saudi regime’, US and European said they risked ‘exacerbating sectarian tensions’, and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he was ‘deeply dismayed’.

Al-Nimr, the most vocal critic of the Saudi dynasty, was the driving force behind the protests which broke out in the east of the country in 2011, where the Shiite minority claims they are fiercely persecuted.

Khamenei condemned Saudi Arabia for the second straight day over his execution, saying: ‘The unjustly spilled blood of this oppressed martyr [al-Nimr] will no doubt soon show its effect and divine vengeance will befall Saudi politicians.’

The Revolutionary Guard yesterday promised ‘harsh revenge’ against Saudi Arabia’s royal dynasty, but its foreign ministry called for calm after protesters tried to burn down its embassy in Tehran.

None of the Saudi embassy staff were inside the building when demonstrators broke in and trashed the offices. They forced their way inside where they ransacked rooms, destroyed furniture and started fires before they were ejected by police.

Tehran’s police chief said an unspecified number of ‘unruly elements’ were arrested for attacking the embassy with petrol bombs and rocks overnight.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, who condemned al-Nimr’s execution, said the attacks on the embassy were ‘unjustifiable’.

He ordered his Interior Ministry to arrest the attackers, who he described as ‘extremists’, and punish them for ‘such ugly acts’.

There have been reports of other revenge attacks against Saudi Arabia across the Middle East.

Footage from Iraq claimed to show Saudi Arabia’s newly reopened embassy in Baghdad engulfed in smoke after a rocket was reported to have been fired at it.

Helicopters circled high above the embassy in central Baghdad, which was targeted after the news of al-Nimr’s execution spread to Iraq, Russia Today reported.

Unconfirmed reports have claimed the rocket, which struck just metres away from the embassy, was fired by Iraqi Shiite militia group Harakat al-Nujaba.

The Saudi embassy reopened its doors on Friday after being closed for 25 – following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait – to help strengthen an alliance against ISIS.

Violent demonstrations have also erupted across the Middle Eastern and Gulf countries, including Lebanon, Pakistan and Bahrain, while Muslims in the West have held peaceful marches. Much more detail here along with photos.

2016: ISIS Seeks Damascus Apocalyptic War

Posted on January 3, 2016January 3, 2016 by Denise Simon

All battlefield plans and operations for Islamic State have a religious and historical basis. The objective for 2016 Islamic State is Damascus.

ISIS Seeks To Usher In Isa’s — Or Jesus’s — Return At Damascus In Apocalyptic World War

InquisitR: ISIS is determined to resurrect an Islamic Caliphate. Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi and his jihadist forces also have apocalyptic goals that transcend the typical tyrannical delusions of world domination. They have seized the opportunity afforded by the ongoing civil war in Syria to hasten the return of Isa (Jesus), as Jesus is referred to in Islamic literature. In the narrative of the Prophet Muhammad recorded in the Sahih Muslim Book 41, Hadith Number 7015 it states, “at this very time that Allah would send Christ, son of Mary, and he will descend at the white minaret in the eastern side of Damascus.” The minaret of Isa (Jesus) is located on the southeastern corner of the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus, Syria. The minaret of Isa (Jesus) is the tallest of the three minarets located at the Umayyad Mosque.

Referencing ISIL’s Islamic pedigree, Richard Lourie states, “At the same time, ISIL is the last gasp of the old dispensation.” The term dispensation is used as a reference to the idea of an age or epoch of time. Lourie aptly introduces this argument in an article that he entitled “ISIL Has Launched A World War,” written for Al Jazeera America.

One cannot help but ponder the almost prophetic words of Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, in a 2012 interview with Russia Today.

CHRISTIANITY FACING ELIMINATION BY ISIS APOCALYPSE WARNS ARCHBISHOP

“I think the price of this invasion, if it happened, is going to be more than the whole world can afford because if you have a problem in Syria, and we are the last stronghold of secularism and stability in the region and coexistence, let’s say, it will have a domino effect that will affect the world from the Atlantic to the Pacific and you know the implication on the rest of the world. I do not think the West is going in that direction, but if they do so, nobody can tell what is next.”

At this hour, all of the world’s powers have coalesced together for war in Syria. Even more hauntingly, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi recently released statements threatening to launch attacks inside of Israel. This is a provocative position for ISIS to undertake. It is, however, not a stance taken in a vacuum of aggression. Messianic madmen do not merely act; they are moved by apocalyptic grandeur. Reading Sahih Muslim Book 41, Hadith Number 7015, sheds further light on the true goals of Al-Baghdadi and his jihadi forces. In particular, the section that speaks of Isa (Jesus) that states, “He would then search for him (Dajjal) until he would catch hold of him at the gate of Ludd and would kill him.”

Dajjal is a demonic anti-Christ figure that Isa (Jesus) comes to defeat along with the Mahdi during a cataclysmic cosmic war. The gate of Ludd is a reference to the contemporary city of Lod, Israel. Lod is the home of Israel’s world-famous Ben Gurion Airport.
These concepts and ideas may not mean much on the surface to western minds that are unfamiliar with narratives present in Islamic eschatology. However, it is imperative that the west realize that this is what drives the idea of ISIS establishing a new caliphate governed by sharia law. As Russia, China, the United States, Australia, Great Britain, countries throughout the middle east, and Africa get sucked into this conflict, it must be known that a world war has always been the goal of ISIS. They are not concerned with whether they achieve an overt victory, but instead aim to hasten the re-arrival of Isa (Jesus) in accordance with the narratives of Islamic apocalyptic prophecy.

In 2016, the eyes of the world will rest a gazing stare upon Damascus. It will continue to be center stage in a struggle for the future of humanity.

Iran to Increase Power of Destructive Missiles

Posted on January 2, 2016January 2, 2016 by Denise Simon

For additional reference on Iran’s compliance and sanction money, the International Monetary Fund releases are here.

TEHRAN (FNA)- The destruction power and precision of Iran’s missiles will increase, Defense Minister Brigadier General Hossein Dehqan said Saturday following the recent presidential decree that required the defense ministry to speed up development of Iran’s missile capability.

“Following o the president’s letter, we held numerous meetings with the executive officials, commanders and officials in the missile sector and decided work out appropriate plans as soon as possible to enhance the defensive power and capability as well as the effective deterrence power of our missiles contrary to the will of the hegemonic system which seeks to restrict the Islamic Republic militarily,” Dehqan told reporters in Tehran on Saturday.

He also underscored the country’s serious intention to further develop its missile power.

Stressing that the defense ministry seeks to optimize its ballistic missiles in different aspect, Dehqan said, “Increasing the precision-striking, destructive and blast power of our missiles… are among the defense ministry’s plans in the missile field.”

In his letter on Thursday, President Rouhani noted the United States’

“hostile policies and illegal and illegitimate meddling against Iran’s right to develop its defensive power”, and ordered the defense minister to accelerate production of various types of missiles needed by the Iranian Armed Forces more powerfully.

“As the United States seems to plan to include the names of new individuals and firms in its previous list of cruel sanctions in line with its hostile policies and illegitimate and illegal meddling in the Islamic Republic of Iran’s right to reinvigorate its defense power, the program for the production of the Armed Forces’ needed missiles is required to continue more speedily and seriously,” President Rouhani’s written order to the Defense Minister read.

President Rouhani’s decree came in reaction to the US Treasury Department’s announcement that it is preparing sanctions on two Iran-linked networks helping develop the missile program.

The presidential decree also required the defense ministry to think of new missile production programs at a much wider scale in case Washington continues its sanctions policy against Iran’s defense industries.

“In case such wrong and interventionist measures are repeated by the United States, the Defense Ministry will be duty-bound to make use of all possibilities to bring up new planning to develop the country’s missile capability,” it stressed.

The president further described Iran’s defense capabilities as a contributor to regional stability and security, and not a threat to any other state or party. Rather it is a means to “safeguard the country’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity and to combat the evil phenomenon of terrorism and extremism in line with common regional and global interests”.

President Rouhani further reminded that Tehran has time and again underlined all throughout the nuclear negotiations with the six world powers – that ended up in the nuclear deal in Vienna in July – that it would “never negotiate with anyone about its defense power, including the missile program, and would never accept any restriction in this field, emphasizing its entitlement to the legitimate right of defense”.

“It is crystal-clear that Iran’s missile program is not at all a part of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – also known as the nuclear deal – and this is acknowledged by the US officials as well,” said the decree, and added, “As repeatedly stated, nuclear weapons have no room in Iran’s defense doctrine, and therefore, the development and production of Iran’s ballistic missiles which have never been designed to carry nuclear warheads, will continue powerfully and firmly as a crucial and conventional tool for defending the country.”

According to Washington officials, the US is preparing sanctions against firms and individuals in Iran, Hong Kong and the United Arab Emirates over alleged links to Iran’s ballistic missile program, a move seen by many in and outside Iran as a major blow to the nuclear deal between Tehran and the

5+1 group of powers that include the US, Russia, China, France and 5+Britain plus Germany.

Under the planned restrictions, the US or foreign nationals would be barred from doing business with the firms and people in the networks. US banks would also freeze any US-held assets.

The Washington’s antagonistic move comes after Iran took the first two major steps under the nuclear deal – that included reducing the number of its operating centrifuge machines from around 10,000 to 6,000 and sending its over 8.5 tons of low-enriched uranium stockpile to Russia.

Once Iran takes out the heart of its Heavy Water Reactor in Arak and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirms implementation of these three steps in coming weeks, Iran will be through with fulfilling its undertakings, and it will be the United States’ turn to hold up its end of the bargain and remove all the sanctions against Iran, according to the deal.

But now with the US intensifying sanctions against Iran, those who stood against the deal in Tehran are rallying increasing support for their pessimistic views about Washington’s loyalty to the deal.

After Iran reduced its centrifuges to around 6,000 last month, the US imposed a new sanction against Iran through changes in its Visa Waiver Program.

The US senate passed a bill related to the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) which allows citizens of 38 countries — namely European states, Australia, Japan and South Korea — to travel to the United States without having to obtain a visa but excludes from this program all dual nationals from Iran, Iraq, Syria and Sudan, and anyone else who has traveled to those countries in the past five years.

The bill is seen by the EU as a serious effort to deter expansion of economic and tourism ties between Europe and Iran after the removal of the sanctions against Tehran. Senior EU officials have voiced strong protest at the US for its biased action against the block and are running debates with counterparts in Washington to drop the bill.