DC was Hacked by Russians?

Posted on April 7, 2015April 7, 2015 by Denise Simon

So today there was a widespread power outage in Washington DC. The State Department, the Air and Space Museum, the Capitol building and even train stations were offline. Immediately officials came out early and said it was not terrorism.

Well that could depend on the definition of terrorism and who was behind it. Somehow the story turned to an explosion at a power station in Maryland. Humm, sounds like a hack of a portioned power grid, or does it? Even the White House is pointing to the Russians. Any other president would consider this an act of war.

How the U.S. thinks Russians hacked the White House

Washington (CNN)Russian hackers behind the damaging cyber intrusion of the State Department in recent months used that perch to penetrate sensitive parts of the White House computer system, according to U.S. officials briefed on the investigation.

While the White House has said the breach only ever affected an unclassified system, that description belies the seriousness of the intrusion. The hackers had access to sensitive information such as real-time non-public details of the president’s schedule. While such information is not classified, it is still highly sensitive and prized by foreign intelligence agencies, U.S. officials say.

The White House in October said it noticed suspicious activity in the unclassified network that serves the executive office of the president. The system has been shut down periodically to allow for security upgrades.

The FBI, Secret Service and U.S. intelligence agencies are all involved in investigating the breach, which they consider among the most sophisticated attacks ever launched against U.S. government systems. The intrusion was routed through computers around the world, as hackers often do to hide their tracks, but investigators found tell-tale codes and other markers that they believe point to hackers working for the Russian government. A spokesman for the National Security Council declined to comment. Neither the U.S. State Department or the Russian immediately embassy responded to a request for comment.

To get to the White House, the hackers first broke into the State Department, investigators believe.

The State Department computer system has been bedeviled by signs that despite efforts to lock them out, the Russian hackers have been able to reenter the system. One official says the Russian hackers have “owned” the State Department system for months and it is not clear the hackers have been fully eradicated from the system.

As in many hacks, investigators believe the White House intrusion began with a phishing email that was launched using a State Department email account that the hackers had taken over, according to the U.S. officials.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, in a speech at an FBI cyberconference in January, warned government officials and private businesses to teach employees what “spear phishing” looks like.

“So many times, the Chinese and others get access to our systems just by pretending to be someone else and then asking for access, and someone gives it to them,” Clapper said.

Related: What is spear fishing?

The ferocity of the Russian intrusions in recent months caught U.S. officials by surprise, leading to a reassessment of the cybersecurity threat as the U.S. and Russia increasingly confront each other over issues ranging from the Russian aggression in Ukraine to the U.S. military operations in Syria.

The attacks on the State and White House systems is one reason why Clapper told a Senate hearing in February that the “Russian cyberthreat is more severe than we have previously assessed.”

The revelations about the State Department hacks also come amid controversy over former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server to conduct government business during her time in office. Critics say her private server likely was even less safe than the State system. The Russian breach is believed to have come after Clinton departed State.

But hackers have long made Clinton and her associates targets.

The website The Smoking Gun first reported in 2013 that a hacker known as Guccifer had broken into the AOL email of Sidney Blumenthal, a friend and advisor to the Clintons, and published emails Blumenthal sent to Hillary Clinton’s private account. The emails included sensitive memos on foreign policy issues and were the first public revelation of the existence of Hillary Clinton’s private email address now at the center of controversy: [email protected]. The address is no longer in use.

Iran Parameter Framework by the Numbers

Posted on April 3, 2015April 3, 2015 by Denise Simon

To see the Iran parameters framework by the numbers and with charts, click here.

In what represents the worst aspect of this flawed deal, Obama has placed responsibility for verification of the agreement back on the United Nations. This is a hazardous repeat of the flawed UN response to Iraq’s proliferation after the Gulf War. Simply put, the UN Security Council will have veto powers over anything Iranian and nuclear when it comes to verification. This gives Beijing, and even more Moscow, a critical lever over the process.

We’ve seen this movie before, with Iraq in the 1990s. Charles Duelfer, who led the UN’s nuclear inspection regime in Iraq from 1993 to 2000, has termed this the “fatal flaw” of Obama’s deal, and that may be charitable. Yeltsin’s Russia was not very cooperative about Baghdad’s nuclear game-playing, and we should expect Putin’s Kremlin, which is engaged in Cold War 2.0 against the West, to be anything but helpful.

While Tehran and Moscow have no love for each other, between mutual fear and loathing, they both hate the West more, and any deal that puts Putin’s Kremlin in a verification role over Iran’s nuclear program is a farce, not to mention a strategic delusion. At worst, this may give a strategic partnership between Russia and Iran, which has been growing slowly, a new life, with an explicitly anti-Western focus. None of this can be mistaken for good news for the West.

After years of painstaking effort, the Obama administration has managed to craft a framework agreement with Iran. In the next three months, this structure is meant to be filled out with details regarding the scale of Iran’s enrichment capacity and the stages of sanctions relief. If the devil is in the detail, much mischief may await us.

However, even before all this happens, the Iranian nuclear drama is proving to be one of the most curious arms control episodes in history. As the scale of American concessions becomes evident, the White House and its defenders seldom justify the emerging accord strictly on terms of the proliferation threat that remains. Their response is often limited to claiming that an admittedly imperfect agreement is still preferable to the alternatives. And the alternatives are usually painted in hysterical terms with Iran surging toward the bomb, the sanctions regime collapsing and an isolated United States helplessly watching all this unfold. Not for the first time, the Obama administration is demonstrating a poor understanding of Iran’s strategies, the resilience of the sanctions regime and the nature of the international system.

By this time the essential contours of the agreement are all obvious. The accord will leave Iran with a sizeable enrichment capacity and none of its facilities will be shuttered as was once contemplated. The agreement’s most important sunset clause will be 10 years upon whose expiration, all essential restriction on Iran’s enrichment infrastructure will collapse. In essence, Iran can then move toward an industrial-size nuclear program similar to that of Japan. This means that the Islamic Republic will be in a position to manufacture numerous bombs on short order. The ballistic missiles, which are an essential part of any nuclear weapons program, will be excluded from the deal. And previous Iranian experiments with the military dimension of nuclear energy are postponed from scrutiny. Thus, any verification regime will not be informed by the history of Iran’s clandestine program.

The proponents of this deal have to account for why they are not bothered by such a large residual enrichment capacity. Why do they think a sunset clause is a wise idea? Why do they believe ballistic missiles should be ignored and how can once craft an intrusive verification system that has no historical memory? An arms control agreement has to be justified first and foremost on technical grounds and whether it meets the essential non-proliferation standards.

The path that the proponents of this accord have chosen is to avoid such questions and take refuge in the world of ominous alternatives. One of their favorite talking points is to suggest that coercion has not forestalled Iran’s nuclear path and that since 2003 as sanctions were imposed Iran has gone from 200 to 19,000 centrifuges. They neglect to mention that only approximately 9,500 of those machines are operational. Thus, during this period Iran increased its capacity by an average of 800 centrifuges a year. Although this is hardly ideal it is not an unmanageable situation. The notion that without this agreement Iran would immediately surge to a bomb is belied by the evidence that the proponents of this accord present.

Beyond that what is often missed is that Iran’s ingenious strategy is to advance its program incrementally and not provocatively. Iran has always been cautious to step and not leap forward. This way as Iran’s program inches forward, the international community routinely accedes to its new gains. In absence of an agreement, Iran will certainly take measures to advance its program, but those moves are likely to be cautious and incremental so to avoid a military reaction.

It is often suggested that should there be breakdown in the talks, the sanctions regime will collapse. The European states and Asian powers will rush back into Iran in defiance of American prohibitions. This notion ignores the fact that U.S. sanctions are secondary in nature, meaning that if there is European bank or an Asian firm that wishes to invest in Iran then it will lose its access to the U.S. market. There is no way that such firms will risk losing access to a U.S. economy estimated at $16.8 trillion dollars for sake of an Iranian economy of $368 billion. To be frank, the U.S. sanctions can success even if there is a perception that they are unfair. That is one of the advantages of being a superpower with the largest economy in the world.

None of this means the Iran deal is beyond repair. In the next three months, Secretary of State John Kerry has an opportunity to craft an agreement that addresses some of the deficiencies of the framework accord. He may wish to reconsider the wisdom of such a shortened sunset clause. The need for Iran to come clean on all its previous attempts at nuclear weaponization is critical if the agreement is to have a reliable inspection regime. And the ballistic missiles that are already part of UN resolutions should be addressed as part of this agreement and not separately. Finally, there has to be a mechanism in place for how to deal with Iranian violations. The history of arms control suggests that violations are rarely prosecuted and reversed in a timely manner.

Should he do so, he would have forged a deal that reliably restrains Iran’s nuclear appetite, enjoys bipartisan support at home and is embraced by our allies in the region. And that agreement would be worthy of the appellation historic.

In the Artic, NATO vs. Putin

Posted on April 3, 2015April 3, 2015 by Denise Simon

4/3/2015 – OFFUTT AIR FORCE BASE, Neb. — Two B-52 Stratofortresses from the 5th Bomb Wing, Minot Air Force Base, N.D., and a pair from the 2nd Bomb Wing, Barksdale Air Force Base, La., completed today simultaneous, roundtrip sorties from their U.S. bases to the Arctic and North Sea regions, respectively.

The training mission, coined POLAR GROWL, allowed the aircrews to hone their navigation skills and enhanced their ability to work with Allied partners, while demonstrating U.S. Strategic Command capacity.

“These flights, demonstrating the credible and flexible ability of our strategic bomber force in internationally-recognized flight information regions, are the culmination of months of planning and coordination,” said Adm. Cecil D. Haney, U.S. Strategic Command commander. “They are one of many ways we demonstrate interoperability, compliance with national and international protocols and due regard for the safety of all aircraft sharing the air space.”

Each of the two legs of POLAR GROWL provided unique training opportunities, all while testing the bomber force’s command and control apparatus’ ability to support two synchronized flight paths. The bomber crews flying the North Sea route participated in dissimilar air intercept maneuvers with fighter aircraft flown by the Royal Canadian Air Force, the U.K.’s Royal Air Force and the Royal Netherlands Air Force. In addition to conducting dissimilar air intercept maneuvers with Royal Canadian Air Force fighters, bomber crews on the Arctic leg of the mission transited around the North Pole, providing the crews invaluable training in polar navigation.

“Today’s dynamic global security environment is an interdependent world where international partnerships are foundational,” Haney continued. “Exercises and operations such as these bomber flights enable and enhance relationships with our Allies and partners, and allow others to understand what capabilities U.S. Strategic Command brings to the equation.”

The U.S. regularly conducts combined training and theater security cooperation engagements with Allies and partners. The combined training provided in POLAR GROWL follows the participation of B-52s in NATO Exercise NOBLE JUSTIFICATION in October 2014 and the deployment of B-52s and B-2s to RAF Fairford, U.K., in June 2014, both of which provided occasions to train alongside U.S. Allies and partners.

“The long-range nature of the mission, coupled with the opportunity to interact, in real-time, with Allied aircraft was an invaluable experience that simply can’t be replicated out of the cockpit,” said Maj. Nathan Barnhart, 343rd Bomb Squadron instructor radar navigator. “Training like this ensures we are ready to respond to any and all mission directives across the globe.”

Flown in support of both U.S. European Command and U.S. Northern Command, POLAR GROWL was specifically designed to demonstrate U.S. commitment to Allies and enhancement of regional security, and not directed at any country.

Additionally, U.S. forces conduct all flights in accordance with the procedures outlined in the International Civil Aviation Organization international standards and recommended practices. By conducting flights that follow the ICAOs fundamental objectives, regional safety is enhanced to prevent any chance of misunderstanding.

The B-52 Stratofortress is capable of delivering large payload of precision nuclear or conventional ordnance over long ranges, while also providing decision makers the ability to rapidly project military power and generate decisive effects.

*** The United States and NATO is performing these operations because of Putin.

Russia’s Arctic Push

For the interactive map go here.

Russia has been ramping up its military presence in the Arctic, reopening abandoned Soviet-era bases, boosting its troop presence, building new facilities, and refurbishing infrastructure and air fields across a region that stretches from Russia’s borders with Norway and Finland to the seas off Alaska. The push reflects a new emphasis under President Vladimir Putin on the Arctic as a region of strategic importance that is also rich in oil and gas reserves.

The push comes as melting sea ice opens up those Arctic energy resources, prompting a scramble by Russia and other Arctic nations — Denmark, Canada, the United States, and Norway – to stake competing territorial claims. Mouse over and click each dot to see details of Russia’s Arctic expansion.

***

Putin is being quite shrewd while Jens Stoltenberg, the newly assigned Secretary General of NATO was real stupid.

Oslo (AFP) – Russian ships docked at what was once a secret Norwegian naval base in the Arctic have prompted concern from the NATO country’s former top military leaders, anxious about its resurgent eastern neighbour roaming nearby.

Norway’s jagged Arctic coastline has regained its strategic importance since tensions between Russia and NATO members have spiked to levels not seen since the fall of the Soviet Union.

The rocky relations have led some to criticise the shutting down of Olavsvern Naval Base, a massive complex burrowed into a mountain near the northern town of Tromsoe, that has been closed since 2009.

Shuttering it was driven by the then seemingly reduced threat from Moscow and its massive Northern Fleet based on Russia’s nearby Kola Peninsula.

“We sold the only base worthy of the name that we had up there. It’s pure madness,” former vice admiral Einar Skorgen, who commanded Norway’s northern forces, told AFP.

Skorgen and other critics say Norway has robbed itself of a crucial foothold in the far north, forcing its submarines to travel hundreds of extra miles from their bases to defend the region.

On top of that, three Russian ships have spent the winter docked deep within the mountain hideaway, once a closely guarded military facility.

“We are the only country along with Russia to have a permanent presence in the Barents Sea, where we share a common border. Obviously our navy should be stationed there, including our submarines,” Skorgen said.

“If the ships aren’t there where they are needed, they might as well be scrapped altogether.”

The way the base changed hands and ended up being rented to Russian research vessels — some of them seismic survey ships reportedly linked to state-owned energy giant Gazprom — has added further fuel to their anger.

When no buyers answered the armed forces’ initial advert on Norway’s version of eBay, a Norwegian businessman clinched the deal in 2013 for a mere 40 million kroner ($5 million, 4.6 million euros) — a steal given that NATO ploughed nearly 4 billion kroner into its construction.

“There are no longer any secrets surrounding this base,” said its new landlord Gunnar Wilhelmsen.

“Not since the military and NATO agreed to put it on sale over the Internet, along with photographs of every nook and cranny.”

– Historic ‘blunder’ –

Nonetheless, the potential for Russian military activity aboard research vessels has many military experts worried, particularly former top-ranking officers who are more prone to speaking their mind.

“Russia is a country where the state has a say over all commercial or semi-state business. It’s clear, very few people know what happens on these vessels,” said retired vice admiral Jan Reksten, formerly second in command of the Norwegian military.

He said the sale of Olavsvern was “a double loss” as “Norway’s armed forces lost an important base and now there are Russian vessels docked there.”

In an ironic twist to the tale, the decision to close the base was taken by the leftist government of Jens Stoltenberg, who has gone on to become NATO’s current secretary general and who has warned countries not to lower their guard when it comes to Russia.

Kjell-Ola Kleiven, a blogger writing on security issues in Norway, calls the affair the “biggest blunder in recent history” in an oil-rich country which boasts the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund.

“With 7,000 billion kroner in the bank,” he wrote, “you would have thought that the Norwegian nation had the means and savvy to retain ownership of Olavsvern base.”

Despite the protests, Norway’s current right-wing government has shown no signs of reversing the decision made by its predecessors.

“There are no plans to re-establish military installations in Olavsvern,” Audun Halvorsen, political advisor to the defence minister, told AFP in an email.

“The owner of the site can use it as he sees fit and the armed forces do not have the authority to impose restrictions, nor any mandate to monitor civilian ships that dock there,” he added.

“Any suspected irregular activity is a matter for the police and legal authorities.”

Iran Nuclear Framework (MOU) Achieved

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

This is NOT a final deal, it is only a Memorandum of Understanding that has a date of June 30 attached to it. That of course is an organic date also. There are ‘snap-back’ sanctions threats in place IF the IAEA determines that Iran has violated conditions. What major question that remains is what are the real cures to Iran violating the conditions by the IAEA.

Iran still will have 5000-6000 centrifuges spinning and those provide Iran less than a year for a break-out condition, meaning a weapon can still be gained.

• The basis for an agreement for a peaceful Iranian nuclear program and a lifting of sanctions against that nation has been reached, EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini announced Thursday in Switzerland. “We have reached solutions on key parameters of a joint comprehensive plan of action,” she said.

• Iran’s enrichment capacity and stockpile would be limited, and Iran’s sole enrichment facility would be at the Natanz nuclear facility, Mogherini said. Other nuclear facilities would be converted for other uses, she said.

• Under the agreement, the nuclear facility at Fordow would be converted to a nuclear physics and technology center and the facility at Arak would be redesigned as a heavy-water research reactor that will not produce weapons-grade plutonium.

• The European Union would terminate all nuclear-related economic and financial sanctions against Iran, and the United States would do the same once Iran’s implementation of the agreement is confirmed, according to announcements of the deal.

• The United Nations would terminate all previous resolutions sanctioning Iran, and would incorporate other restrictions for an agreed-upon period, according to Thursday’s announcements.

Lausanne, Switzerland (CNN)The United States and other world powers have agreed on the general terms of a deal meant to keep Iran’s nuclear program peaceful, a major breakthrough after months of high-stakes negotiations.

The deal, announced Thursday evening in Switzerland, calls for Iran to limits its enrichment capacity and stockpile in exchange for the European Union lifting economic sanctions that have hobbled Iran’s economy.

Iran also agreed to enrich nuclear materials only at one plant, with other nuclear facilities converted for other uses, said Federica Mogherini, foreign policy chief for the European Union.

The United States would lift many sanctions on Iran after Iran’s implementation of the agreement is confirmed.

Leading negotiators announced the deal in a news conference in Lausanne, Switzerland, where they have been meeting for months.

Negotiators must resolve additional details of a final deal by the end of June. The announcement marks the end of a round of talks that started last week.

They were supposed to reach a framework for a deal by Tuesday but stretched the talks into Thursday.

The world powers involved in the talks were the United States, Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom and Germany.

The talks, aimed at reaching a preliminary political deal on Iran’s nuclear program, blew past their initial, self-imposed deadline of late Tuesday as Iranian and U.S. negotiators struggled to find compromises on key issues.

But the negotiators doggedly continued their work in Lausanne, trying to overcome decades of mistrust between Tehran and Washington.

The mutual mistrust has been a serious problem in the talks, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said earlier Thursday.

“I believe respect is something that needs to be exercised in practice and in deeds, and I hope that everyone is engaging in that in mutual respect,” he said.

‘A few meters from the finishing line’

Iran wants swift relief from punishing sanctions that have throttled its economy. And Western countries want to make sure any deal holds Iran back from being able to rapidly develop a nuclear weapon.

The Obama administration needed something solid enough it can sell to a skeptical Congress, which has threatened to impose new sanctions on Iran. The potential deal is also coming under sustained attack from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Homeland at Risk by Putin’s Nukes?

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

Russian analyst urges nuclear attack on Yellowstone National Park and San Andreas fault line

A Russian geopolitical analyst says the best way to attack the United States is to detonate nuclear weapons to trigger a supervolcano at Yellowstone National Park or along the San Andreas fault line on California’s coast.

The president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems based in Moscow, Konstantin Sivkov said in an article for a Russian trade newspaper on Wednesday, VPK News, that Russia needed to increase its military weapons and strategies against the “West” which was “moving to the borders or Russia”.

He has a conspiracy theory that NATO – a political and military alliance which counts the US, UK, Canada and many countries in western Europe as members – was amassing strength against Russia and the only way to combat that problem was to attack America’s vulnerabilities to ensure a “complete destruction of the enemy”.

Conspiracy theory: The president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems based in Moscow, Konstantin Sivkov.

“Geologists believe that the Yellowstone supervolcano could explode at any moment. There are signs of growing activity there. Therefore it suffices to push the relatively small, for example the impact of the munition megaton class to initiate an eruption. The consequences will be catastrophic for the United States – a country just disappears,” he said.

“Another vulnerable area of the United States from the geophysical point of view, is the San Andreas fault – 1300 kilometers between the Pacific and North American plates … a detonation of a nuclear weapon there can trigger catastrophic events like a coast-scale tsunami which can completely destroy the infrastructure of the United States.”

He said the Russian geography on the other hand would protect it from a tsunami or a volcano attack. Few people live on the coast in Russia and Siberia which rests on basalt would withstand similar attacks.

Russian target number 2: The San Andreas fault line, here pictured on the Carrizo Plain in California.

Mr Sivkov, who spoke at the 2013 Moscow Economic Forum, said by 2020 to 2025 Russia would have amassed “asymmetric weapons” in its arsenal for the attack.

“The situation for us today is comparably worse than half a century ago,” he said.

“The weakened economic potential in Russia, the loss of the ‘spiritual core of what was the communist idea’, and the lack of large-scale community allies in Europe such as the Warsaw Pact, Russia simply cannot compete against the NATO and its allies.”

In December last year, the vocal military strategist told Russian newspaper, Pravda.ru that there is a “developing standoff between Russia and the West” and the US’s ultimate goal was to “destroy Russia”.

Mr Sivkov accused American politicians of committing several crimes including causing the deaths of 1,200,000 people in Iraq. He believed the only way for the “American elite” to be held accountable was for its military forces to be destroyed.

“American politicians have committed a variety of crimes. Will anyone be held accountable for those crimes? What about the international law, the UN and other organisations? Are they doing anything?” he asked.

Mr Sivkov told Pravda that the idea of the US preparing for a serious war against Russia using cruise missiles was plausible given that it had already launched a thousand missiles in Yugoslavia and Iraq.

*** Putin has issued nuclear weapons threats in several regions.

Russia Threatens Danish Warships With Nuclear Weapons

Danish warships could become targets for Russian nuclear missiles if Denmark joins NATO’s missile defence system, Russia has warned, in comments that have sparked outrage in Copenhagen.

Russia’s ambassador to Denmark, Mikhail Vanin, made the comments in an opinion piece published by the Danish national newspaper Jyllands-Posten, on Saturday.

“I don’t think the Danes fully understand the consequences of what will happen if Denmark joins the American-controlled missile defence. If it happens, Danish warships will become targets for Russian atomic missiles,” Vanin wrote.

*** There is more:

Putin threatens nuclear war: Russian leader will take any necessary step to drive Nato out of Baltics and defend Crimea

Vladimir Putin is planning to exploit the threat of nuclear war to force Nato out of countries bordering Russia, it has been claimed.

A secret meeting between intelligence figures in Moscow and Washington reportedly revealed Putin will consider any attempt to return the Crimean peninsula to Ukraine as declaration of war and will take any necessary step – including using nuclear weapons – to retain control of the region.

Notes from the meeting are also said to have revealed that Putin is planning imminent ‘destabilising actions’ in pro-Western Baltic states in a direct challenge to Nato’s promise to defend the countries from Soviet-style Russian expansionism.

These disturbances are thought to likely involve cyber attacks or ramping up local ethnic tensions in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania intended to unsettle the region.