Putin Demands a Stand-down or Escalation of War

Posted on February 11, 2016February 11, 2016 by Denise Simon

As you read this, Obama is in California fundraising. Poor guy, he is sleeping at a Sheraton rather than his usual Fairmont….sigh.

Russia proposes Syria ceasefire but warns foreign troops risk ‘world war’

Munich (Germany) (AFP) – Moscow said Thursday it had made a “quite specific” ceasefire proposal for Syria as foreign ministers gathered in Munich, hoping to revive a floundering peace process amid warnings of a “new world war”.

With Syria peace talks derailed by the regime onslaught on Aleppo, the UN said 51,000 Syrians had fled the northern city this month as government forces backed by Russian bombers and Iranian fighters left the opposition there virtually surrounded.

“We made propositions for a ceasefire that are quite specific,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said as he sat down for talks with US counterpart John Kerry.

Moscow has refused to confirm reports that its ceasefire would take effect only on March 1, giving another three weeks to an offensive which the UN says could place 300,000 people under siege.

Observers say the bombardments on Aleppo have killed 500 people since they began on February 1.

Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, meanwhile, warned that any move by Gulf nations to send in troops to support the rebels would risk a “new world war”.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov (L) and US Secretary of States John Kerry shake hands as they …

“The Americans and our Arabic partners must think hard about this: do they want a permanent war?” he told Germany’s Handelsblatt newspaper.

US diplomats said that any ceasefire in the Syria conflict should be “immediate”.

“This is an issue of commitments we all took, and that we have to respect,” added EU foreign affairs chief Federica Mogherini.

But Russia and Iran have repeatedly labelled the rebels in Aleppo as “terrorists” and suggested there can be no settlement until they have been militarily defeated.

“Those who are outside Syria should help the peace process and not seek to impose conditions on the Syrian people,” Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif told Iran’s state TV after arriving for the talks.

– US ‘Plan B’ –

A first round of talks between the Syrian government and the opposition in Geneva collapsed earlier this month over the attacks on Aleppo.

The rebels say they will not return to talks, pencilled in for February 25, unless government sieges and air strikes end.

Hosted by Kerry and Lavrov, foreign ministers from the 17-nation Syria contact group came together late Thursday for a meeting billed as a moment of truth for the floundering peace process.

Washington has threatened an unspecified “Plan B” if talks fail, as tension mounts with Moscow over its air campaign.

Syrians ride a motorbike past a collapsed building on which graffiti reads “Russia kills us&quo …

The two sides traded accusations on Thursday about bombing in Aleppo, with the Pentagon claiming two hospitals had been destroyed, and Moscow saying US planes had struck the city — which was flatly denied by Washington.

– Weakening the West –

Analysts see little hope of reconciling differences.

Syria is a crucial ally and military staging post for Russia and Iran, while a growing number of observers say Moscow has benefited from the chaos created by the war, particularly the refugee crisis in Europe.

“The goal of Russian President Vladimir Putin is to destabilise and weaken the West,” Koert Debeuf, a research fellow at the University of Oxford, told the Carnegie Europe think tank.

Syrian government forces raise their weapons as they patrol after taking control of the village of K …

But they also see little chance of a decisive victory for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

“The idea of a full reconquest… seems neither credible nor durable. It will simply turn into a terrorist or guerrilla situation,” said Camille Grand, of the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris.

Many have criticised the United States for not doing more to support the rebels.

Even outgoing French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius could not hide his frustration as he announced his resignation on Wednesday, saying: “You don’t get the feeling that there is a very strong commitment” by the US in Syria.

Washington has been reluctant to involve itself in another war after the quagmires of Afghanistan and Iraq, and has sought to focus more on combatting the Islamic State group than getting involved in the civil war between Syria’s regime and rebels.

“The US has given up the idea of toppling Assad,” said Grand. “Kerry seems willing to accept pretty much anything to resolve the crisis.”

The conflict has also strained relations between Turkey and its Western allies.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan hit back at UN calls that his country, which is already hosting 2.5 million refugees, should do more for those fleeing Aleppo.

“We do not have the word ‘idiot’ written on our foreheads,” he said. “The United Nations should give advice to other countries. And then we can send the refugees to these countries.”

He has also slammed Washington’s increasingly close alliance with the Kurdish militias in the fight against IS, saying it was turning the region into “a pool of blood”.

*** A deeper dive on Putin

Mounting Evidence Putin Will Ignite WWIII

By letting Putin get away with whatever he likes in Syria, Obama has created a deeply dangerous situation

Schindler-Observer: Relations between Russia and Turkey have been dismal since late November, when a Turkish fighter jet shot down a Russian bomber on the border with Syria, killing its pilot. That began a war of words between Moscow and Ankara that ought to concern everyone, since the former has several thousand nuclear weapons and the latter is a member of NATO.

Kremlin propaganda against Ankara has increased of late, setting the stage for further confrontation. As I explained here last week, Russian media outlets initially blamed the Sinai crash of Metrojet 9268 last autumn on the Islamic State, an atrocity which killed 224 innocents, nearly all of them Russians—a quite plausible claim. However, the Kremlin has abruptly shifted course and now blames the mass murder on Turkish ultranationalist terrorists, without any evidence provided to support that explosive assertion.

Where things may be going between Russia and Turkey, ancient enemies who have warred many times over the centuries, was evidenced this week, when the Kremlin announced large-scale surprise military exercises in the regions of the country that are close to Turkey. Troops were moved to full combat readiness, the last stage before a shooting war, with Sergei Shoygu, the Russian defense minister, announcing on TV: “We began our surprise check of the military preparedness in the Southwest strategic direction.”

That would be the direction of Turkey. These snap exercises involve the Southern Military District and the navy’s Black Sea Fleet, which are deeply involved in Russia’s not-so-secret secret war in eastern Ukraine. However, they also involve the navy’s Caspian Sea flotilla, which is nowhere near Ukraine.

It’s difficult to see how Turkey could stand idly by as an ancient city of two million is crushed just fifty miles from its frontier.

This implies that the snap exercises, which have been prominently featured in Kremlin media, are about Turkey, not Russia. This goes back to recent events on the ground in Syria, where the Kremlin-backed regime of Bashar al-Assad is slowly crushing its opponents, thanks to prodigious military help from both Russia and Iran. Regime forces are closing in on Aleppo, Syria’s biggest city, and 50,000 civilians have already fled the city in panic.

The Russian military displays scant regard for civilian casualties. Mr. Putin’s air force killed almost 700 Syrian civilians last month (to compare, the Islamic State killed less than a hundred Syrian civilians in January), and if the crushing of the Chechen capital of Groznyy in 1994-95, when Russian forces killed roughly 35,000 Chechens, mostly civilians, in just six weeks, is any guide, residents of Aleppo are wise to get as far away as they can.

Needless to add, such a bloody siege of Aleppo would set off a humanitarian crisis that the world could not fail to notice. It’s difficult to see how Turkey could stand idly by as an ancient city of two million is crushed just fifty miles from its frontier.

That is precisely the scenario that has seasoned analysts worried. In Pentagon circles, among those who are watching the budding war between Moscow and Ankara, citations of this famous movie clip are now commonplace. Distressingly, smart Russian analysts are thinking along similar lines.

Today Pavel Felgenhauer published his analysis under the alarming title, “Russia has begun preparations for a major war,” and he marshals a convincing case that the snap exercises in the country’s southwest are really a cover for a shooting war with Turkey—and therefore with NATO too, if Ankara is perceived as defending itself and can assert its right to Article 5, collective self-defense, which obligates all members of the Atlantic Alliance to come to Turkey’s aid.

‘It’s clear that there has to be some actual ‘redline’ for Mr. Obama, something that the United States cannot tolerate Russia doing – but where is it? If I don’t know, I’m sure the Kremlin doesn’t either.’

As The New York Times dryly noted of the Kremlin, “The [Defense] Ministry has ordered surprise maneuvers over the last three years as tensions between the East and West have worsened. The maneuvers have at times come as combat escalated in Ukraine and Syria.” In fact, using large-scale military exercises as a cover for aggression is old hat in Moscow. It was used during the August 1968 Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, which explains why NATO always got jumpy when Moscow held military exercises anywhere NATO territory, while snap exercises like this week inevitably caused Cold War panic.

Mr. Felgenhauer paints an alarmingly plausible scenario. As rebel forces defend Aleppo in Stalingrad fashion, the Syrian military, with Russian help, commences a protracted siege of the city, employing massive firepower, which becomes a humanitarian nightmare of a kind not seen in decades, a tragedy that would dwarf the 1992-95 siege of Sarajevo. However, any Turkish move to lift that siege, even with international imprimatur, would quickly devolve into all-out war.

Mr. Felgenhauer minces no words about this: “Russia has begun the deployment of forces and resources for a major war with Turkey.” Mr. Putin has decided to let his client, the Assad regime, win its bloody civil war, first in the north around Aleppo, and any moves by Turkey or NATO to stop them will be met with force. So far, President Barack Obama has let Mr. Putin do whatever he likes in Syria, no matter the cost in innocent lives, so the Kremlin has no reason to think that will change.

The Yom Kippur War of October 1973, when the United States and the Soviet Union came alarmingly close to great power war, is cited as an ominous precedent by Mr. Felgenhauer—albeit one that ended happily when nuclear war was averted thanks to wise diplomacy. There is no reason to think the befuddled Obama administration is that diplomatically deft.

But who is Pavel Felgenhauer? Regrettably, he is not a guy in furry slippers in someone’s basement spouting weird conspiracy theories. Instead, he is one of Russia’s top defense analysts with solid connections in that country’s military. He is a frequent critic of the Russian military and the Putin regime; it’s noteworthy that he published his analysis in Novoe Vremya (New Times), a Ukrainian newsmagazine, not a Russian outlet, perhaps because this sort of truth-telling is unwelcome at home. His prognostications are often correct, for instance his prediction of the Russian invasion of Georgia in August 2008, which he called two months before it happened.

That is NATO’s top concern right now: that after years of weakness and vacillation, the Obama administration may find itself backed into a corner by aggressive Russian action.

Is Mr. Felgenhauer’s alarmism warranted? Many Western insiders think along similar lines. By letting Mr. Putin get away with whatever he likes in Syria, Mr. Obama has created a deeply dangerous situation in the region. By abandoning his infamous Syria “redline” in September 2013, the White House in effect outsourced American policy there to Mr. Putin, as I warned you at the time, and which the Obama administration, powerless to influence terrible events in Syria, is slowly realizing.

“Are we heading for our ‘Sarajevo moment’?” a senior NATO official bluntly asked: “It’s clear that there has to be some actual ‘redline’ for Mr. Obama, something that the United States cannot tolerate Russia doing – but where is it? If I don’t know, I’m sure the Kremlin doesn’t either.”

That is NATO’s top concern right now: that after years of weakness and vacillation, the Obama administration may find itself backed into a corner by aggressive Russian action. Particularly if coupled with intemperate Turkish reactions, that could create a nightmare of historic proportions around Aleppo. Although the White House has foresworn any military intervention in Syria’s fratricide, it’s worth noting that Mr. Obama led NATO to war in Libya exactly five years ago to prevent possible slaughter in Benghazi, a far smaller humanitarian threat than the terrifying sword of Russian artillery and airpower that’s hanging over Aleppo right now.

For their part, the Russians are upping the ante, with regime media publishing claims by the Defense Ministry that air attacks on Aleppo yesterday that killed civilians, including the bombing of a hospital, were actually perpetrated by U.S. Air Force A-10s, a war crime that they say the Pentagon has tried to pin on Moscow. In fact, American intelligence knows this was the work of the Russian Air Force: “We have intercepts of the Russian pilots talking during the attack,” explained a Pentagon official, “as usual, the Russians are lying.” Yet this sort of dishonest Kremlin propaganda, what spies term disinformation, is exactly what the Obama administration has refused to counter, as I’ve explained in this column, in a futile effort to keep the Kremlin happy.

Mr. Putin instead has taken his measure of Mr. Obama and has doubled down, saving his client regime in Syria. Russia has won in Syria and NATO and the West are stuck with that outcome, as are the unlucky residents of Aleppo. “I hope Obama doesn’t decide to get a backbone now,” suggested a retired American general who knows the Russians well, “since the Kremlin is in ‘drive’ in Syria and isn’t about to do ‘reverse’.”

There seems to be little chance of this White House taking on the Russians in Syria. However, there are no guarantees that Ankara is equally inclined to let the Kremlin do whatever it wants on its southern border, and that is how NATO could get embroiled in World War III over the Levant. Cooler heads may prevail, and all sensible people should hope they do here.

Iran’s Windfall From Nuclear Deal Cut in Half by Debts

Posted on February 11, 2016February 11, 2016 by Denise Simon

NYT’s -WASHINGTON — Iran gained access to about $100 billion in frozen assets when an international nuclear agreement was implemented last month, but $50 billion of it already was tied up because of debts and other commitments, a U.S. official said on Thursday.

Stephen Mull, the State Department’s lead coordinator for implementing the international nuclear agreement with Tehran, also told the House Foreign Affairs Committee there was no evidence Iran had cheated in the first few weeks since the deal was implemented.

Mull and John Smith, acting director of the Treasury Department office that oversees sanctions, faced heated questioning from some members of the committee, where several Democrats had joined Republican lawmakers in opposing the nuclear pact that was reached in July.

Many have worried that Iran would cheat on the deal and use unfrozen funds for action against Israel or to support Islamist militants elsewhere in the region.

“Of that amount, a significant portion of it, more than $50 billion, is already tied up,” Mull said.

It was the first top-level congressional hearing on the nuclear pact since Jan. 16, when world powers lifted crippling sanctions against Iran in return for it compliance with the agreement to curb its nuclear ambitions.

“We seem to be in many instances talking tough about Iran,” said U.S. Representative Eliot Engel, the panel’s top Democrat, a deal opponent. “In reality our actions are far away from our rhetoric and that’s a worrisome thing. We want to make sure that Iran’s feet are held to the fire.”

Many members of the U.S. Congress, where every Republican and a few dozen Democrats opposed the agreement, have been calling for legislation to impose new sanctions on Iran over its ballistic missile program and human rights record.

House Republicans have been pushing legislation to restrict the ability of President Barack Obama, a Democrat, to lift sanctions under the nuclear pact. One measure passed the House on Feb. 2 almost entirely along party lines but it has not yet been taken up in the Senate and Obama has promised a veto.

*** Not so fast, all is still not kosher….

WASHINGTON (AP) — A State Department official says the U.S. does not know the precise location of tons of low-enriched uranium shipped out of Iran on a Russian vessel under the landmark nuclear agreement.

Testifying Thursday, Ambassador Stephen Mull tells the House Foreign Affairs Committee the stockpile is a Russian custody issue.

Critics of the nuclear deal seized on the shipment’s status to show the agreement’s flaws. New Jersey GOP congressman Chris Smith says it’s “outrageous and unbelievable” that Russia is being trusted to be the repository for such sensitive material. Russia is a close ally of Iran.

The low-enriched uranium is suitable mainly for generating nuclear power and needs substantial further enrichment for use in the core of a nuclear warhead. Mull says he’s confident the material will be controlled properly.

***

Saudi Arabia and Bahrain have banned Iranian-flagged vessels from entering their waters and imposed other shipping restrictions, according to ship insurers citing local reports, potentially escalating tensions between Tehran and Riyadh.

Iran has been struggling to ramp up oil exports and still faces insurance and financing hurdles despite the lifting of international curbs on its banking, insurance and shipping sectors last month as part of a nuclear deal with world powers.

A ban on Iranian ships in those ports is unlikely to affect international trade, although the uncertainty will add to trade hiccups for Iran.

Some ship insurers in recent days, citing reports from local agents and correspondents, said in notes to members that Saudi Arabia and Bahrain had banned all Iranian-flagged ships from entering their waters.

Norwegian ship insurer Gard said Bahrain had imposed a ban on any vessel that has visited Iran as one of its last three port calls.

“There is currently no such restriction in Saudi Arabia,” Gard wrote, citing information from a logistics provider. Saudi Arabian and Bahraini authorities did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Ship insurer West of England said separately: “An entered vessel has since been denied entry to Bahrain after visiting an Iranian port two port calls earlier, resulting in the fixture being cancelled.”

Other ship insurers had yet to issue any guidance or confirm there were new regulations in place.

While oil companies such as Italy’s Eni and France’s Total have been looking to book cargoes from Iran, international insurers are no nearer to resolving concerns over US sanctions that remain in place.

Last month, Sunni Muslim Saudi Arabia cut ties with Shi’ite Iran after its Tehran embassy was attacked following Riyadh’s execution of a Shi’ite cleric.

In solidarity with Riyadh, Kuwait and Qatar subsequently pulled out their ambassadors from Tehran, and the United Arab Emirates downgraded its ties. Bahrain and two non-Gulf states, Djibouti and Sudan, severed relations completely.

Saudi Arabia and Iran – leading members of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries – continue to grapple with weak oil prices.

Iran, North Korea and the Cruz Letter

Posted on February 10, 2016February 10, 2016 by Denise Simon

The Keys to Iran’s Missiles are in China and North Korea

The latest revelations about Iran’s ballistic missile program make it clear that sanctions on Tehran are pointless unless they’re imposed on China and the DPRK, too. Full story and intelligence here.

Iran space navigation system to be launched

TEHRAN, Feb. 10 (MNA) – National plan to improve navigation and positioning services will soon become operational with special features.

Iran’s very modern system of navigation and positioning system has been produced by Iran Electronics Industries (IEI) as the executive and with the support of Iran’s National Space Center as one of the subordinate units of the Science and Technology Department of the Presidential Office.

The system aims to provide advanced services to increase life quality of Iranian people and will soon become operational providing the whole country with the possibility to simultaneously exploit three highly-advanced global positioning systems called GPS, GLONAA as well as BeiDou.

Numerous valuable services offered by the system with centimeter accuracy include car navigation, crisis management, social services, mapping, identification of stationary and moving targets, precision farming, urban traffic control, tracking oil and gas pipelines, environmental services, advanced housing and urban development services, customs issues and smuggling prevention, accurate harness of fire, current and advanced insurance services, shipping services and ports, fine weather forecast.

The implementation of the navigation and positioning system will be carried out in three phases in 2016.

****

Sen. Cruz to President Obama: “Strategic Patience” Toward North Korea Isn’t Working

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) today sent a letter to President Barack Obama that expresses grave concerns about the administration’s North Korea policy and outlines alternative policy actions to address North Korea’s illegal nuclear tests, strengthen U.S. national security and return greater stability to East Asia and the Korean Peninsula.

Cruz sent the letter today after announcing he will vote for the North Korea Sanctions Enforcement Act of 2016 (H.R. 757), which would impose nuclear weapons-related sanctions on North Korea. The Senate is expected to pass the bill this evening.

“I write to express deep concern regarding [President Obama’s] policy of ‘strategic patience’ toward the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), particularly in light of their recent nuclear test and satellite launch that also served as a long-range ballistic missile test,” wrote Sen. Cruz. “Your administration has, for too long, hoped to achieve denuclearization through failed diplomacy and limited sanctions. The nuclear tests of May 2009, February 2013, and January 2016 suggest that ‘strategic patience’ with a country still officially at war with us is not working.”

Cruz’s letter to Obama lists five actions rooted in American strength that might actually modify the hostile and aggressive behavior of North Korea and its protectors:

1) Fully enforce U.S. laws. The U.S. needs to sharpen the choices for North Korea by raising the risk and cost for those who choose to violate laws and resolutions.

2) Stop protecting China. It is time to tell the truth about China: the PRC is not our partner in denuclearizing the Korean peninsula. Lax enforcement of U.S. laws have made China complacent in policing the illicit financing of regimes like North Korea and Iran, thus becoming complicit in their proliferation.

3) Rebuild the U.S. Navy. The U.S. must renew its commitment to force projection to protect our allies and deter our enemies.

4) Deploy a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) unit to better protect U.S. troops and critical targets in South Korea. This system is more capable than any ballistic missile system that South Korea has or will have for decades. And if the U.S. is serious about defending South Korea, we must openly confront China’s support for North Korea.

5) Relist North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism. North Korea’s cyber attack and accompanying threats of a “9/11-type attack” fulfill the legal definition of international terrorism – “violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that…appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population” (18 U.S. Code § 2331). Removal from the list has resulted in no improvement in the behavior of the DPRK, and we should end the dangerous fiction that they are not engaged in international terrorist activities.

The full letter can be viewed here and below.

February 10, 2016
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

I write to express deep concern regarding your policy of “strategic patience” toward the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), particularly in light of their recent nuclear test and satellite launch that also served as a long-range ballistic missile test. Your administration has, for too long, hoped to achieve denuclearization through failed diplomacy and limited sanctions. The nuclear tests of May 2009, February 2013, and January 2016 suggest that “strategic patience” with a country still officially at war with us is not working.

I would like to propose five alternative actions rooted in American strength that might actually modify the hostile and aggressive behavior of the DPRK and its protectors:

1. Fully enforce U.S. laws. In September 2015, Secretary Kerry warned of “severe consequences” if North Korea “refuses to live up to its international obligations.”[1] It is well past time to impose those consequences. History demonstrates that the United States is able to dictate the agenda when dealing with hostile regimes and improve global security through our leadership. Unilateral U.S. actions against Iran, combined with diplomatic pressure, led other nations to impose their own financial and regulatory measures against Tehran. Collectively, the international sanctions isolated Iran from the international banking system, targeted critical Iranian economic sectors, and forced countries to restrict purchases of Iranian oil and gas, Tehran’s largest export.

The United States should use its actions against Iran as a model for imposing the same severity of targeted financial measures against North Korea. Washington should no longer hold some sanctions in abeyance, to be rolled out after the next North Korean violation or provocation. There will be little change until North Korea feels the full impact of sanctions and China feels concern over the consequences of Pyongyang’s actions and its own obstructionism. The U.S. needs to sharpen the choices for North Korea by raising the risk and cost for those who choose to violate laws and resolutions. Actors who have thus far been willing to facilitate North Korea’s prohibited programs and illicit activities should not be exempt for political convenience. If Congress passes additional sanctions in the coming days, my hope is that, in addition to signing them into law, you would faithfully and consistently execute such targeted measures in a non-discriminant manner.

2. Stop protecting China. It is time to tell the truth about China: the PRC is not our partner in denuclearizing the Korean peninsula. Lax enforcement of U.S. laws have made China complacent in policing the illicit financing of regimes like North Korea and Iran, thus becoming complicit in their proliferation. China has enabled DPRK arms shipments to Iran to travel unimpeded through Chinese ports[2] and airspace.[3] It has facilitated the shipment of chemical reagents and protective suits from North Korea to Syria.[4] It has allowed transfer of arms-related material to Syria.[5]

Perhaps the most egregious act was the Chinese transfer of transporter-erector-launchers (TELs) to North Korea in 2011. Upon receipt of these vehicles, North Korea modified them with the ability to launch the KN-08, an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the West Coast of the United States from a road-mobile launch platform. This capability poses a nuanced challenge to our ground-based interceptors deployed in Alaska and California. A subsequent report from the United Nations confirmed that Chinese entities were responsible for the sale of these vehicles.[6] On April 7, 2015, Admiral Bill Gortney, the Commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command, confirmed that the KN-08 was operational. Because of China, North Korea has a modern mobile missile launcher that increases its ability to threaten Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and California with a road-mobile nuclear strike.[7]

3. Rebuild the U.S. Navy.

The foundation of the United States’ ability to project power overseas is the aircraft carrier, and its supporting Carrier Strike Group. One would hope that your annual budget submission to Congress would reflect the centrality of the aircraft carrier to America’s defense of our national interests and our allies abroad, but sadly this is not the case. The USS Gerald Ford is over budget,[8] the second ship of the class remains behind schedule,[9] and our Navy has only 272 combatants.[10] The budget you submitted further exacerbates this problem by reducing shipbuilding funds an additional $1.75 billion, as our adversaries expand their presence at sea and increase aggressive rhetoric regarding territorial sea claims.

While Naval force projection has declined under your watch, Japan has invested heavily in its armed forces. Leading the effort to broaden the definition of “self-defense” and expand the military missions Japan would be willing to accept, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has prudently responded to the threat environment he faces in East Asia. In contrast to your administration, the Japanese government increased defense spending by 2.8% to $42 billion in 2015, which amounted to the largest defense budget in Japan’s history.[11] Your administration has celebrated our ally’s commitment to stability in the region, but I/we fear that your unwillingness to fully fund America’s military to meet its threats will render moot the courageous actions of our friend and ally Japan. The U.S. must renew its commitment to force projection to protect our allies and deter our enemies.

4. Deploy THAAD in South Korea. Last year, your administration approached Seoul with the prospect of deploying a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) unit to better protect U.S. troops and critical targets in South Korea. This system is more capable than any ballistic missile system that South Korea has or will have for decades. The THAAD deployment is wholly in line with China’s stated goal of preserving stability on the Korean peninsula and would not in any way constrain China’s military capabilities. Yet, the PRC reacted aggressively to this prospective deployment. In July 2014, President Xi Jinping warned President Park Geun-hye to “tread carefully”[12] regarding THAAD so it “won’t be a problem between South Korea and China.”[13] Beijing has issued similar warnings after Seoul began publicly discussing the need to improve its missile defenses after last month’s North Korean nuclear test.

I welcome recent progress this week in negotiations with South Korea on THAAD. However, I am concerned that you have not publicly condemned Xi Jinping for attempting to intimidate and blackmail a U.S. ally into rejecting our military assistance. It would be unfortunate if the climate agreement and progressing trade negotiations with the PRC were higher strategic priorities for the United States than standing up to the world’s largest communist state. If the U.S. is serious about defending South Korea, we must openly confront China’s support for North Korea. The U.S. should strongly push back against China’s opposition to THAAD by rebutting its false assertions that the system would impact Chinese security.

A good place to start would be disinviting them from Rim of the Pacific Exercise (RIMPAC) 2016. While speaking in Jakarta on March 20, 2013, you linked participation in these exercises with political engagement: “We have invited the Chinese to participate in the RIMPAC exercise which we host, and we are delighted that they have accepted. We seek to strengthen and grow our military-to-military relationship with China, which matches and follows our growing political and economic relationship.”[14] Given China’s complicity in North Korea’s nuclear capability, stonewalling of missile defense in South Korea, and its aggressive actions in the South China Sea, I/we believe it is time for the United States to fundamentally reevaluate U.S.-China relations.

5. Relist North Korea as a State Sponsor of Terrorism. One need not look far for justification. North Korea’s cyber attack and accompanying threats of a “9/11-type attack” fulfill the legal definition of international terrorism – “violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that…appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population” (18 U.S. Code § 2331). Removal from the list has resulted in no improvement in the behavior of the DPRK, and we should end the dangerous fiction that they are not engaged in international terrorist activities.

The regime in Pyongyang has not only issued explicit threats against American citizens, but there is also documented evidence that North Korea has shipped arms to Iran. Three intercepted vessels bound for Iran in July 2009 contained North Korean weapons that Western intelligence and Israeli intelligence officials and non-government experts believe were bound for Hezbollah and Hamas.[15] All three ships contained North Korean components for 122 mm Grad rockets and rocket launchers, 2,030 corresponding detonators, and related electric circuits and solid fuel propellant. As you know, Hezbollah and Hamas frequently fire these rockets into Israel. Yet your Administration continues to assert that North Korea is “not known to have sponsored any terrorist acts since the bombing of a Korean Airlines flight in 1987.”[16]

Until such actions are taken, the North Korean threat will continue to metastasize. Their launch last Saturday is further evidence of the escalating danger the DPRK poses to the U.S. and our allies. America must once again lead from a position of strength, rekindling the fear of our enemies and restoring the trust of our friends.

Sincerely,

Ted Cruz

[1] Secretary Kerry, Press Availability With South African Foreign Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, September 16, 2015.

[2] Report of the Panel of Experts established pursuant to resolution 1874 (2009), United Nations, June 11, 2013 (p. 31),http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_2013_337.pdf.

[3] Ibid (pp. 33-34).

[4] Report of the Panel of Experts established pursuant to resolution 1874 (2009), United Nations, June 14, 2012 (pp. 27-29),http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/NKorea%20S%202012%20422.pdf.

[5] Report of the Panel of Experts established pursuant to resolution 1874 (2009), United Nations, June 11, 2013 (pp. 36-38),http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_2013_337.pdf.

[6] Report of the Panel of Experts established pursuant to resolution 1874 (2009), United Nations, June 11, 2013 (pp. 26-28),http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_2013_337.pdf.

[7] Bill Gertz, “Admiral: North Korea Can Hit U.S. With Long-Range Nuclear Missile,” Washington Free Beacon, October 12, 2015,http://freebeacon.com/national-security/admiral-north-korea-can-hit-u-s-with-long-range-nuclear-missile/.

[8] Christian Davenport, “New Gerald R. Ford carrier class, as predicted, called $13 billion ‘debacle,’” Stars and Stripes, October 1, 2015,http://www.stripes.com/news/navy/new-gerald-r-ford-carrier-class-as-predicted-called-13-billion-debacle-1.371389.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Status of the Navy, as of February 9, 2016,http://www.navy.mil/navydata/nav_legacy.asp?id=146.

[11] Ankit Panda, “Japan Approves Largest-Ever Defense Budget,” The Diplomat, January 14, 2015,http://thediplomat.com/2015/01/japan-approves-largest-ever-defense-budget/.

[12] Yonhap, “China’s Xi Asked Park to ‘Tread Carefully’ over U.S. Missile-Defense System,” August 26, 2014,http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2014/08/26/73/0301000000AEN20140826002100315F.html.

[13] Chang Se-jeong and Ser Myo-ja, “Xi Pressed Park on Thaad System,” Korea JoongAng Daily, February 6, 2015,http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=3000595

[14] Ashton Carter, “The U.S. Defense Rebalance to Asia,” Remarks as prepared for delivery, April 8, 2013,http://archive.defense.gov/Speeches/Speech.aspx?SpeechID=1765.

[15] Manyin, Mark, “North Korea: Back on the State Sponsors of Terrorism List?” CRS, January 21, 2015,http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43865?source=search&guid=738771c7105c426fac0c7ad3efa85187&index=4.

[16] “Country Reports on Terrorism 2012,” Department of State, May 30, 2013,http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2012/209980.htm.

In the first phase, a total of 15 network stations and two data centers will be launched in Tehran as an experiment to collect accurate position information.

After the implementation of the first phase in Tehran, the second phase of the project will be implemented in major cities while the third phase the whole country will be covered by the system.

The hardware of the system is supposed to be available to users who will only be charged for a very low annual cost

KSM, Muslim Brotherhood Kuwait and 9/11

Posted on February 10, 2016February 10, 2016 by Denise Simon

CTC: Nasir al-Wahayshi, AQAP’s Leader
Nasir al-Wahayshi is a tiny wisp of a man with a jutting beard and soft-spoken manner. Known by the kunya Abu Basir, he was born in 1976 in the region of Mukayras in what was then Abyan.[3] Redistricting in 1998 put Mukayras in al-Bayda and that same year al-Wahayshi left Yemen for Afghanistan.[4] He had just graduated from one of Yemen’s private religious institutes, which had been established in the 1970s and 1980s as a way to convince Yemeni tribesmen that a republican form of government was compatible with Islam. Staffed by Egyptian exiles and Saudi teachers, many of these institutes eventually gravitated toward the more radical works of Islamic theology.

Al-Wahayshi arrived in Afghanistan in the months after Usama bin Ladin’s 1998 fatwa, declaring war on the United States and Israel, and he soon joined al-Qa`ida. Bin Laden made the young Yemeni his personal secretary, and for the next four years the two were nearly inseparable.[5] Al-Wahayshi spent all of his time with Bin Ladin, watching as the older man built and ran an international organization. He sat in on councils and helped with correspondence.

After the 9/11 attacks and the confused aftermath of the Battle of Tora Bora in late 2001, al-Wahayshi was separated from the al-Qa`ida commander. Bin Laden escaped into Pakistan, while al-Wahayshi moved south toward Iran, where he was eventually arrested and held for nearly two years.[6] In late 2003, al-Wahayshi was extradited back to Yemen. Apparently unaware of his close connections to Bin Ladin, Yemeni intelligence held him in the general prison population at a maximum-security facility in Sana`a.

AQAP publishes insider’s account of 9/11 plot

TLWJ: Sometime before his death in a US drone strike in June 2015, Nasir al Wuhayshi recorded an insider’s account of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. As the aide-de-camp to Osama bin Laden prior to the hijackings, Wuhayshi was well-placed to know such details. And al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), which Wuhayshi led until his demise, has now published a version of his “untold story.”

A transcript of Wuhayshi’s discussion of the 9/11 plot was included in two editions of AQAP’s Al Masra newsletter. The first part was posted online on Jan. 31 and the second on Feb. 9. The summary below is based on the first half of Wuhayshi’s account.

Wuhayshi began by explaining al Qaeda’s rationale for attacking America. Prior to 9/11, the jihadists’ cause was not supported by the Muslim people, because the mujahideen’s “goals” were not widely understood. The jihadists were divided into many groups and fought “tit-for-tat” conflicts “with the tyrants.” (The “tyrants” were the dictators who ruled over many Muslim-majority countries.)

While the mujahideen had some successes, according to Wuhayshi, they were “besieged” by the tyrants until they found some breathing room in Afghanistan. The “sheikhs” studied this situation in meetings held in Kabul and Kandahar, because they wanted to understand why the jihadists were not victorious. And bin Laden concluded they should fight “the more manifest infidel enemy rather than the crueler infidel enemy,” according to a translation obtained by The Long War Journal. Wuhayshi explained that the former was the “Crusader-Zionist movement” and the latter were the “apostates” ruling over Muslims.

While waging war against the “apostate” rulers was not likely to engender widespread support, no “two people” would “disagree” with the necessity of fighting “the Jews and Christians.” If you fight the “apostate governments in your land,” Wuhayshi elaborated, then everyone – the Muslim people, Islamic movements, and even jihadists – would be against you because they all have their own “priorities.” Divisions within the jihadists’ ranks only exacerbated the crisis, as even the mujahideen in their home countries could refuse to fight.

Wuhayshi then cited Abu Muhammad al Maqdisi, a prominent pro-al Qaeda ideologue, who warned that the “capability” to wage “combat” in Muslim-majority countries did “not yet exist.” So, for instance, if al Qaeda launched a “jihad against the House of Saud,” then “many jihadist movements” would oppose this decision. Al Qaeda’s fellow travelers would protest that they were “incapable” of defeating the Saudi government. And these jihadists would complain they did not want to “wage the battle prematurely,” or become entangled “in a difficult situation.”

For these reasons and more, according to Wuhayshi, bin Laden decided to “battle the more manifest enemy,” because “the people” would agree that the US “is an enemy” and this approach would not sow “discord and suspicion among the people.” Bin Laden believed that the “Islamic movement” would stand with al Qaeda “against the infidels.”

Wuhayshi’s explanation of bin Laden’s reasoning confirms that attacking the US was not al Qaeda’s end goal. It was a tactic, or a step, that bin Laden believed could unite the jihadists behind a common purpose and garner more popular support from “the people.”

Not all jihadists agreed with bin Laden’s strategy. In February 1998, bin Laden launched a “Global Islamic Front for Waging Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders.” Wuhayshi claimed that a “majority of the groups agreed to” the initiative, but some, like the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), opposed it. (However, some senior LIFG members were folded into al Qaeda.)

Gamaa Islamiya (IG), an Egyptian group, initially agreed to join the venture, but ultimately rejected it. As did other groups in the Arab Magreb, according to Wuhayshi. (Some senior IG leaders remained close to al Qaeda and eventually joined the organization.)

Although Wuhayshi claimed that a “majority” of jihadist organizations agreed with bin Laden’s proposal, only three ideologues joined bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri in signing the front’s infamous first fatwa.

In August 1998, just months after the “Global Islamic Front” was established, al Qaeda struck the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. According to Wuhayshi, bin Laden held a series of meetings around this time, as he sought to convince as many people as possible that attacking America was the right course. Some jihadists objected, believing it would ensnare them in a trap. But bin Laden pressed forward, telling those who didn’t agree that they wanted to fight “lackeys” without confronting “the father of the lackeys.” Al Qaeda’s path “will lead to a welcome conclusion,” Wuhayshi quoted bin Laden as saying.

The “initiative against the Crusaders continued” after the US Embassy bombings, Wuhayshi said, and the number of people who supported it increased “dramatically.” During this period, the “Global Islamic Front” launched operations against the “Crusaders” on the ground and at sea, but the idea to strike “from the air with planes” had not yet been conceived.

The origins of the 9/11 plot

Wuhayshi traced the genesis of the 9/11 plot to both Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), who would come to be known as the “mastermind” of the operation.

But he also credited Abdullah Azzam for popularizing the concept of martyrdom in the first place. Azzam was killed in 1989, but is still revered as the godfather of modern jihadism. After the mujahideen had defeated the Soviets in Afghanistan, they considered “hitting the Americans,” Wuhayshi claimed. Azzam “spoke harshly about the Western military camp.” Azzam also “introduced” the jihadists to a “new tactic.” Wuhayshi recommended that people listen to Azzam’s “final speech,” in which he reportedly said: “God gave me life in order to transform you into bombs.”

Years later, on Oct. 31, 1999, bin Laden watched as the co-pilot of EgyptAir Flight 990 crashed the jet into the Atlantic Ocean, killing more than 200 people on board. Bin Laden, according to Wuhayshi, wondered why the co-pilot didn’t fly the plane into buildings. After this, Wuhayshi claimed, the basic idea for 9/11 had been planted in bin Laden’s mind.

In reality, the EgyptAir crash came after the outline of the 9/11 plot had been already sketched. For instance, the 9/11 Commission found that KSM “presented a proposal for an operation that would involve training pilots who would crash planes into buildings in the United States” as early as 1996. “This proposal eventually would become the 9/11 operation.” In March or April 1999, according to the Commission’s final report, bin Laden “summoned KSM to Kandahar…to tell him that al Qaeda would support his proposal,” which was referred to as the “planes operation.”

Indeed, Wuhayshi recounted how KSM and his nephew, Ramzi Yousef, plotted to attack multiple airliners in the mid-1990s. In the so-called Bojinka plot, KSM and Yousef even conceived a plan to blow up as many as one dozen airliners. Wuhayshi recalled how Yousef placed a bomb on board one jet as part of a test run. Their plot failed and Yousef was later captured in Pakistan. Yousef has been incarcerated for two decades after being convicted by an American court for his role in Bojinka and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Wuhayshi prayed for his release.

Wuhayshi told a story that, if true, means KSM had dreamed of attacking the US since his youth. When he was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Kuwait, KSM wrote a play in which a character “ponders how to down an American aircraft.” Wuhayshi claimed to have searched for this play online, but he and another “brother” failed to find it.

Still, Wuhayshi insisted that KSM wrote the play, showing he was already thinking of ways to strike America as a young man.

Syria, now Uncontrollable

Posted on February 10, 2016February 10, 2016 by Denise Simon

Opposition Leader: U.S. Diplomacy Costs Syrian Lives

Bloomberg: In the days since the collapse of the Syria peace talks championed by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, the humanitarian catastrophe in northern Syria has grown, tens of thousands of new refugees were created, and the Russian- and Iranian-backed killing of civilians has increased. These are all consequences of the flawed U.S. strategy, according to the lead negotiator for the Syrian opposition.

Riyad Hijab was prime minister of Syria in 2012 under the dictator Bashar al-Assad; he became the highest-ranking defector from the regime when he switched sides and joined the rebels. He is now the leader of the High Negotiating Committee that represented the Syrian opposition at last week’s meetings in Geneva, which collapsed after two days. Kerry had pressured the Syrian opposition leaders to attend, even warning they could lose their U.S. funding if they boycotted. Hijab says that Kerry’s approach — to try to persuade Assad and Russia to negotiate while the offensive continues — has actually made things much worse.

“The administration is saying it is testing the good faith of the other side,” Hijab told me in a phone interview on Monday. “But when you are testing these things and it fails, the price that is being paid is horrendous death and the expansion of extremism and terrorism on the ground.”

Syrian forces backed by Russian air power are pressing an offensive against rebel groups in and around Aleppo, the nation’s largest city, that began before the scheduled peace talks. Kerry said Friday, “This has to stop.” He said he would know if the other parties, such as Russia, were “serious” about upholding United Nations Security Council resolutions on protecting civilians after a meeting later this week in Munich of the international group of countries supporting proxies in the Syrian civil war.

In the eyes of the Syrian opposition, Russia and Iran are making a mockery of the peace process, and Kerry’s reluctance to acknowledge this is putting them in deadly harm. It also creates more problems for America’s regional allies, aids the Islamic State and dims the prospects for future peace talks. “The failures of the negotiations end up lowering the credibility of the moderate opposition in front of the Syrian people,” said Hijab. “United States credibility is plummeting within the population of Syria but also in the region as a whole.”

This week, it is Syrians near Aleppo who are paying the price. Regime forces, with Russian support, are advancing toward the Turkish border, threatening to cut off opposition groups and civilians from their source of aid. At least 35,000 people have joined the flood of refugees since the collapse of the talks, ahead of what many anticipate will be another in a long line of starvation sieges the regime is perpetrating on cities. Hijab said there are now 18 cities under siege, three more than when the talks began. More here.

Syria, already a catastrophe, seems on the verge of an uncontrollable disaster

WaPo: Suddenly, after four years of brutal civil war, Syria this week became even more of an uncontrollable military, diplomatic and humanitarian disaster.

“We are not blind to what is happening,” Secretary of State John F. Kerry said Tuesday, as he prepared for a meeting in Munich of stakeholders from outside Syria. “We are all very, very aware of how critical this moment is.”

The Thursday gathering could well be the last gasp of a three-month, Kerry-orchestrated effort to bring together powerful countries on all sides of the conflict — from Russia and Iran on behalf of the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, to the United States and its partners on the opposition side — to try and forge a political solution that would allow them all to focus their efforts on defeating the Islamic State.

What seemed possible even two weeks ago, however, now seems all but hopeless. Failure of planned peace negotiations could lead President Obama finally to a decision he has long resisted — whether to more fully arm and back rebel groups whose cohesion and commitment to a democratic and secular Syria he mistrusts.

In recent days, Russian bombardment of opposition forces north of Aleppo, a rebel stronghold, has severed opposition supply lines and threatens to allow government-aligned forces to encircle the city. In a letter sent to the Obama administration this week, Russia proposed to stop the bombing on March 1, allowing it to continue for another three weeks

The Russian blitz has allowed pro-government ground forces, mostly composed of Iranian-trained militias from Iraq, Iran and Lebanon’s Shiite Hezbollah, to push north to with 20 miles of the Turkish border. This is the same area where the United States and Turkey have planned to carve out an opposition-held zone to combat Islamic State forces approaching it from the east.

Tens of thousands of new refugees have fled Aleppo and its environs to the recently closed Turkish border. Mercy Corps, one of the few aid agencies in a position to help them, said Tuesday that its supplies will soon run out. For those who haven’t fled, the encirclement of Aleppo “would leave up to 300,000 people, still residing in the city, cut off from humanitarian aid unless cross-line access could be negotiated,” the United Nations said.

In Europe, where a flood of nearly a million migrants and refugees from the region, most of them Syrians, have already arrived, political and social tensions are threatening the foundation of European unity constructed over the past 70 years.

“There are fault lines emerging that we thought we had overcome,” said Peter Wittig, Germany’s ambassador to the United States, who described the situation as an existential threat to Europe.

“The United States has been slow to recognize this is a much bigger thing than anything else we’ve experienced since the beginning of the European Union,” Wittig said. “We didn’t see it earlier, we were totally unprepared. . . . We’re not blaming the United States. It takes time for this country to realize that it’s really that serious.”

Germany has taken in the bulk of the migrants and refugees, while some Eastern European members of the E.U. have closed their borders to them.

Negotiation track derided

U.S. ties have become strained with partners closer to the conflict. These allies fear the Obama administration has been blinded to the threat from Russia and Iran by its desire to believe they can be swayed by diplomatic reason and appeals to shared worries about expansion of the Islamic State.

One senior official from a close partner nation described the negotiation track as a farce. The official said that it was unrealistic to expect the opposition to come to the table when its forces are being decimated on the ground and civilians are being starved by Russian bombing and the government gains it has enabled, in violation of United Nations resolutions that Moscow agreed to in order to get the talks started. The official, who said that U.S. leadership is still essential if the war is to end, did not want to be identified by name or nationality in order to speak candidly.

Frontline Turkey, a NATO ally and member of the U.S.-led coalition against the Islamic State, has dithered over its priorities, concerned that a U.S. alliance with Syrian Kurds fighting against the militants will give advantage to Turkish Kurds who seek independence. Even as pro-government forces expand north from Aleppo, Kurdish fighters in Syria’s northwest corner are pushing into the same area.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has demanded that the United States choose between Turkey and the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party. After State Department spokesman John Kirby said this week that the United States does not consider the Syrian Kurds to be terrorists while recognizing that Turkey does, the Ankara government called in U.S. Ambassador John R. Bass on Tuesday for a dressing-down.

Talks between the Syrian government and opposition were suspended before they began this month after rebel representatives said they would not sit at the table until the government provided humanitarian access to besieged areas and released women and children it is holding prisoner. The Munich meeting, originally scheduled to monitor progress in the negotiations, became a final effort to get them started.

Scorched-earth policy

Kerry has long sought a more muscular U.S. policy than Obama has allowed. But he also firmly believes that if negotiations can begin, Assad will eventually be forced from power, with Russian acquiescence in the face of the inevitable.

For the moment, Moscow seems more interested in adjusting the balance of power on the ground — where just months ago, the rebels were on the ascendant — to strengthen Assad’s position before entering talks about his future.

Near the Turkey-Syria border Tuesday, rebels said they fear they are being betrayed by the countries they thought were their allies — most notably the United States. Without significant new injections of arms and ammunition, they said, they will not survive the combined onslaught of intense Russian airstrikes and advances by pro-government ground forces.

“Russia is the second superpower in the world, and Russia is using all of its power against the rebels,” said Mohammed Adib, a political officer with Jabhat Shamiya, the main rebel group fighting in northern Aleppo province. “They’re using a scorched-earth policy, and they don’t care what the international community says.”

“The problem is the friends of the regime are really good friends and give lots of support, whereas our friends sometimes give support and sometimes not,” he said.

While they don’t expect they will receive anti-aircraft missiles, which would have a major impact on the balance of power, rebels said they still hope to receive upgraded weapons, including new-generation models of the TOW missiles that have proved effective at taking out the Syrian government’s aging battle tanks, though these are no match for newly supplied Russian T-90 tanks.

If the rebel fighters cannot rebound, Adib and other rebel spokesmen said, there is a risk that opposition fighters will join more radical organizations, including the Islamic State. “People will not surrender to [Assad] under any circumstances,” said Khaled Shihabeddine, a political adviser to the Noureddin al-Zinki rebel group. “If things stay as they are, with no support and no one stopping Russia, the rebels will be pushed into a corner and . . . all possibilities will be open.”