Intel Update for 19 APR 2010

Wow...I have been really tardy with this one. Work has been insane, wrapping up a number of projects, and the house is a time eating monster (ask my wife about my failed plumbing attempt...).

Iran

Iran continues it's march towards nuclear weapons. Recent assurances that Iran will not have a nuclear weapon capability for at least a year were given by SecDef Gates, as well as analysis that they will not be effectively weaponized (i.e. reliably attached to a ballistic missile) for at least 3 years.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100414/wl_nm/us_iran_usa_centrifuges

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/irannuclearpoliticsweaponsus

This is hardly reassuring. Consider that Iran would be much better off using proxies to attack Israel. Imagine if Hezbollah delivered a simple nuclear weapon via a suicide boat attack to Haifa. Or how about via a passenger jet squawking emergency, and a nuclear weapon in its cargo hold? As much as the west wants to delude itself into thinking it still has three years left to solve the problem, the answer is a lot closer to one year because Iran merely needs the weapon, and there are all sorts of ways to deliver the weapon that cut corners and don't require complicated miniaturization and ballistic missile interface technology.

Sanctions are going nowhere slowly, and the proposal has been watered down to insignificance in order to get the Chinese on board (they still aren't). Even the relatively liberal "The Times" makes note of this.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7101531.ece

One thing that has completely escaped the attention of the media is that in an interview with the NY Times, President Obama freely admitted he does not expect sanctions to work.

"We're not naive that any single set of sanctions automatically is going to change Iranian behavior"

(First audio clip on the left in the link below)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/06arms.html

People within the administration are tacitly acknowledging this viewpoint, and are making preparations for both military options, as well as laying the groundwork for a policy of containment. That latter seems far more likely to be the ultimate position. SecDef Gates sent a classified memo to the White House in January which essentially stated that the US needed to develop military Courses of Action (COAs) for dealing with Iran.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63H2UN20100418

Iran's leadership continues to play to the home crowd, insulting world leaders and boasting that Iran is too strong to ever be attacked.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100407/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100418/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_8

At some level, imagining these guys waking up one morning and wondering why none of their electronic work anymore provides a certain amount of entertainment. Iranian leadership remains confident that no one will touch their oil supplies or production, and the potential use of EMP against them isn't even considered, it is viewed as so improbable. Previous analysis here suggests otherwise.

Afghanistan

Things here seem to be in a slow descent. Some Afghani tribal leaders are demanding that President Karzai stop the planned U.S. offensive into Kandahar. Karzai in turn is making promises without consulting the coalition.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/tribal-leaders-consulted-kandahar-push--karzai/

The campaign for hearts and minds doesn't appear to be going so well on several fronts. Many Afghanis are pushing to return to a more repressive Sharia oriented system.

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/04/19/rising-anti-westernism-in-afghanistan/?test=latestnews

Which, not coincidentally, is demand number one of the Taliban.

"We want sharia. That is first. Everything else comes after that," he said. "People want sharia and then development."

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04/18/ap-interview-taliban-say-buildup-way/


U.S. forces have again caused civilian casualties, providing additional fodder for the Taliban Information Operations (IO) campaign. Also, a MV-22 Osprey went down during operations. 4 were killed. Cause of the crash has not been released. The Taliban claimed credit for shooting it down, but also that 30 people were on board. This is another coup for the Taliban regardless, given that the MV-22 is the centerpiece of Marine aviation, as well as its $70 million dollar price tag.

http://www.reformer.com/ci_14857081?source=rss_viewed

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10103/1050035-82.stm?cmpid=nationworld.xml

Without actual, on the ground knowledge of the human terrain, and a constant flow of new information, it is hard to tell which way things are shifting. The Taliban puts out a lot of disinformation, but the coalition is often guilty of seeing and hearing what they want to hear, as well as putting a positive spin on things whenever the media is around. Still, it is worth noting that it took quite a while for troops in Iraq to really notice a turn around during the surge there. (Yes, I know they're totally different situations, but this is likely to be true in both places: the shift to us or away from us will be titanic and almost imperceptible at first.)

South Korea

The South Korean government has promised to get to the bottom of the loss of their ship, but is carefully avoiding blaming North Korea for anything yet. However, even if it turns out North Korea was responsible, it is unlikely South Korea will take any action other that proposing resolutions and sanctions at the UN. Which China will probably block.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63I0B820100419

I am certain Iran is watching this one. They take their cues for how far they can push things from North Korea, and especially note how other nations won't do a thing to them once they have a nuclear weapon, even when they commit outright acts of war. If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, they will become far more aggressive and much less cautious.

Iraq

US and Iraqi forces killed al-Qaeda in Iraq's (AQI) top two leaders this weekend. It has been shown time and time again that killing top leaders in terrorist organizations doesn't halt their operations. It does however continue the gradual deterioration of their capabilities and clout with the public. It also bolsters confidence in the Iraqi government, despite being locked in a post election fugue.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04/19/iraqi-al-qaeda-leader-killed-countrys-intelligence-team-pm-maliki-says/

A terrorist tactic has emerged in Iraq: the House Bourne Improvised Explosive Device (HBIED). It's pretty much what it sounds like: fill a home full of explosives and set them off.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100418/wl_mideast_afp/iraqunrestqaeda_20100418234332

These weapons are somewhat counter productive. They do not swing the local populace towards supporting AQI. Additionally, it continues to demonstrate overall weakness by targeting civilians instead of US and Iraqi security forces.

Israel

US and Israeli relations continue to deteriorate. Israel skipped out on the nuclear conference sponsored by President Obama because it had been tipped off that certain Muslim nations planned to hijack the conferences agenda and turn it into a chance to pile on to the Israeli delegation regarding its not-so-secret nuclear weapons program. Diplomats issued denials that this was the plan, but Turkey's Foreign Ministry said Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan would demand at the summit that Israel disarm as part of a nuclear-free Middle East.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6375QC20100409

Some interesting polls are coming out of Israel. The big take aways are that Israelis are split on who is to blame for US-Israeli relations, Netanyahu or Obama. Additionally, only 24% of Israelis think that Netanyahu will attack Iran while he is Prime Minister, running contrary to this blogs assumptions. (However, I'm not sure many Israelis are considering the the contrarian EMP option).

http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/19/so_what_do_israelis_think_of_it_all_by_daniel_levy

President Obama should be happy with the results, since US Jews overwhelmingly believe Netanyahu is responsible for the responsible for the rift between the US and Israel. A vast majority of Israelis (72%) think President Obama is Fair or Friendly towards Israel. PM Netanyahu's poll numbers are falling, and if elections were held again today in Israel it would be difficult for the Likud party to form another government. This suits the administration fine, since they regard Netanyahu as intractable on the Palestinian issue, and they see that issue as the cornerstone of stabilizing the Middle East vice the neutralization of Iran.

http://rete-eco.it/fr/nouvelles/europe-usa-etc/12558-poll-us-jews-prefer-obama-to-netanyahu.html

It should be noted that these polls were taken before President Obama declared that US support for Israel "must be balanced against other interests."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/world/middleeast/15mideast.html

When taken in context, this indicates that getting Israel to accept a deal with the Palestinians is more important than how the Israelis actually feel about such a deal. There are certainly elements of the Israeli population who are willing to cut more favorable deals with the Palestinians, but given previous Palestinian intransigence on issues Israelis find antithetical (right of return, giving Jerusalem back wholesale, returning to the pre-1967 border and uprooting ~250,000 Jewish settlers), if President Obama somehow got an Israeli Prime Minister and Foreign Minister to sign on to a deal acceptable to the Palestinians, it would cause the Israeli government to collapse, and the treaty would never be ratified in the Knesset.