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.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Intel Update for 31 March 2010
Wow, busy two weeks here at work. Not to say that things haven't been happening...in fact, this has quietly been the most significant two week period in terms of happenings since I started this blog.
Iran
Diplomatically, Iran is winning, hands down. President Obama offered up the hand of friendship to Iranian leadership on their lunar new year...and promptly had it bitten off.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62N2XZ20100324
http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-47155320100323
Why on earth would Iran care what the US thinks, when even our partners feel free to blow us off? They're winning (since they're getting what they want with minimal repercussions), we're losing, so why alter course?
To whit: The Israeli announcement of 1600 additional housing units while Vice-President Biden was in Israel several weeks ago. Canada got in on the act too, and is pulling all their troops from Afghanistan.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9EP1ALG0&show_article=1
Another slap at US diplomatic clout was the Russian announcement of finishing construction on nuclear reactors for Iran even as Secretary of State Clinton was visiting to pressure Russia to back sanctions on Iran.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100318/pl_nm/us_russia_usa_iran
What is interesting to note is that the US went ballistic when Netanyahu's cabinet minister made the announcement, and has remained very muted on this one. Perhaps it is Russia's additional clout, perhaps it is because we feel that we need them to get sanctions through. Another explanation is that meaningful sanctions and preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon are a low priority. There are indications that the administration regards a nuclear Iran as fait accompli, and that it is a problem that can be managed and contained. They have offered Israel missile shields, protection guarantees, and have pushed them on the Palestinian issue, which they believe to be a more immediate threat to Israel than Iranian nuclear weapons.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/0323/1224266874275.html?via=rel
This blog was correct in another of its predictions: the US has weakened its sanctions proposal in order to bring China on board. At this stage, given the very limited nature of the sanctions proposed, the White House is putting an optimistic face forward. So does the DoS. However, there still has been no apparent movement by China on the issue.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/26/world/la-fg-iran-sanctions26-2010mar26
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/world/middleeast/31prexy.html
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/nuclear/clinton-china-to-be-involved-in-iran-sanctions-push-19985.html
Still, analysts handicapping the situation believe that China will eventually agree to some form of carefully targeted sanctions on Iran. However, it's a good bet that whatever gets put in place, it won't hurt the Chinese bottom line in trade: whether via legal or black market means.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N26135393.htm
********Breaking News*********
China has changed it's position and will now officially consider sanctions at the UN. There will likely be a lot of haggling, more watering down of the sanctions, and passage in a few months.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/03/31/officials-say-china-discuss-iran-sanctions/?test=latestnews
So, looking back to the beginning of this month, the following assessment still stands and appears to be the direction we're headed.
"If China agrees to sanctions, it will only agree to weak ones which do not interfere with its trade with Iran. This seems to be a likely option, since it allows the other nations to declare diplomatic victory, go home, and ignore the problem for another couple of years while stating “we need to give sanctions a chance to work”. Too bad Iran will have a weapon in as little as 18 months."
Speaking of Iran's drive for nuclear weapons, this week the CIA confirmed two things which this blog speculated about months ago. Firstly, Iran does indeed appear to be following a dual track program of enrichment and nuclear weapon building, with the goal of being able to "plug and play" their fissile materials into a nearly complete weapon as soon as the enrichment and shaping of the implosion core can be completed.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/30/cia-iran-has-capability-to-produce-nuke-weapons/
This was predicted back in the 3 February posting. No mention of the warhead type or methodology is made in the new report.
As senior Iranian nuclear scientist has now been confirmed to have defected while in Saudi Arabia. This was originally posted (and speculated on) in the December 24th posting, and the suspicion proved to be correct.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/iran-nuclear-scientist-defects-us-cia-intelligence-coup/story?id=10231729
This is likely the source of the new CIA data on the progress and plan for Iran's nuclear program, as well as the more definitive timetables and insight into their decision making process. Given the CIA's dismal record on WMD in Iraq and the the laughable 2007 NIE estimate, this may be the first time in a long while we can take the intelligence community's assessment of the Iranian weapons program seriously. Keep in mind, earlier estimates were saying Iran might not have a weapon until 2015 or later.
Iran has been caught with its hand in the cookie jar again, training and equipping the Taliban.
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/terrorism/taliban-fighters-being-taught-at-secret-camps-in-iran-19941.html
No surprise here. As the U.S. looks weaker and weaker on foreign policy, Iran will continue to step it up, and find way of indirectly attacking their enemies, just as we would do.
The Korean Peninsula
This past week the back end of a South Korean 1,200 ton frigate exploded and fell off, causing the front half of the ship to sink relatively quickly. 46 South Korean sailors are believed dead. US and Korean Naval officials have denied that it was a torpedo, although explanations of suicide divers and mines have been offered. North Korea has been quiet on the issue, but has been unusually belligerent in its rhetoric lately.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/31/president-puts-military-on-alert-after-ship-blast/
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2010/0329/South-Korea-s-Cheonan-ship-sinking-mystery-A-North-Korea-mine
The most prominent theory is a mine, with it being uncertain whether it was a Korean War vintage mine that did it (1950-1953), or one placed more recently by the North in order to send a message. What is certain is that the uncertainty has paralyzed South Korea diplomatically. They can't blame the North until the investigation is complete, the North has deniability (it was really old, we didn't know it was there, we don't know who put it there back in 50-53). Additionally, by the time the investigation is complete, public desire for vengeance will have cooled, and the incident will be almost forgotten on the world stage. Thus, it is very unlikely that even if it is determined the mine was placed there recently, that the US and South Korea will take any real action.
Why is this significant? Because Iran and China are taking their cues on how far they can push the US, once they have nuclear weapons, without retaliation directly from North Korea's actions. A Chinese general said this, on the record, only a month ago (see previous postings for link)
As a result, if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, expect all sorts of US ships to run into "previously unknown mines lost during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war."
Iraq
Finally, a bit of good news. Votes in the Iraqi election have been tallied, and Illad Allawi's centrist coalition won a plurality, putting them in the best position to form a coalition government. What is good about this is that it is speculated this will pull Iraq further from the Iranian sphere of influence, and allow the Iraqi government to draw more support from other regional Arab leaders.
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/iraq/analysis-allawi-win-could-curb-irans-influence-19980.html
Afghanistan
As noted previously noted, the Canadians wil no longer support the mission in Afghanistan. The Japanese have already pulled their tankers supporting logistics in the Indian Ocean. Iran is training the Taliban, and US contractors have been cutting corners on training Afghani police, producing recruits completely incapable of conducting the most basic of police functions.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/235221/page/1
The U.S. has announced it will take back the city of Khanadahar in June. I'd guess they're doing this if they regard the approach to Marjah as having been successful.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/30/AR2010033004090.html?wprss=rss_world
Terrorism
It's taken a couple of weeks, but the national media has finally caught up with the danger of "boob bombs" described in a February 4th posting here.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/03/24/terrorists-use-explosives-breast-implants-crash-planes-experts-warn/
The underwear bomber has said this, and MI 5 picked up on it, but now appears to be circular reporting. Still, this remains the next step in al Qaeda's continued attempts to bring air travel to a screeching halt. So far, we don't have a counter move. For more commentary, refer to the previous post on this topic.
Israel
The fallout from the Vice President Biden's visit to Israel continues. Prime Minister Netanyahu visited the White House last week, and was afforded none of the usual pomp and circumstance usually afforded visiting world leaders. No photo ops, Bibi taking the side entrance, and his entourage being left to their own devices while the President went to eat dinner without him invited. No notes on the meeting were released.
After the meeting, an Israeli paper claimed a Netanyahu confidant had told them Netanyahu described President Obama as "Israel's greatest disaster". Netanyahu vehemently denied this, along with White House adviser David Axelrod.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/obama-netanyahu-meeting-n_n_512051.html
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/03/28/WH-Obama-intended-no-snub-of-Netanyahu/UPI-64361269806346/
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE62R0HT20100328
There is a belief that the two sides discussed settlements (Jerusalem in particular), Iran, and the differences between the administration and Israel. Central among them is the Israeli stance that a nuclear armed Iran is the most immediate existential threat to Israel, while the WH and DoS espouse the viewpoint that Iran won't do anything while the US is protecting Israel, and that the most significant threat to Israel's existence is their failure to resolve the issues with the Palestinians.
Given the history of Jews in Europe, Israelis (particularly older ones) are extremely wary of placing their fate in the hands of non-Jewish governments who promise to protect them. Even the United States did a horrific job of protecting Jews fleeing Europe, and believing tales of atrocities. (See the St. Louis incident for details).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_St._Louis
Many Israelis were shocked at the treatment of Prime Minister Netanyahu. Some American left wing Jews, heretofore allies of the President, have turned on President Obama, while not giving up on him entirely.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2010/03/23_dershowitz.html
There has been speculation that the Obama administration wants regime change by convincing the Israeli people the only way forward to peace is by removing Netanyahu. Already some of the more liberal Israeli papers (Haaretz) are beginning to tow this line. Howver, it remains to be seen how much traction this gets. President Obama is deeply unpopular with right wing Israelis (27% of all Israelis think he's an anti-Semite, 72% of self identified conservatives), and the middle is ambivalent.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1157483.html
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=171849
Commentators examining the path the Iran / Israel story arc is taking are producing some good analyses of alternatives.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE62N2I9
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE62N1CX
The article above represents conventional thinking, albeit well organzed and fairly comprehensive thoughts. There are two arguments I would make with it, however.
"Israel would be loath to attack Iranian energy assets, like oil production and shipping facilities."
It might be risky, but the only way to bring down the Iranian regime or to delay their nuclear program more than a few years is to disrupt the Iranian economy so badly that the Basiji and Revolutionary guard aren't receiving living wages anymore (sparking an unopposed revolution like what happened in Romania or East Germany), or that the economy completely collapses and the government puts aside the nuclear program to make sure enough cash is a vailable to stave off the revolution described above.
Additionally, neither article considers what would happen if Israel decided that the only course of action which guarantees their survival as a nation and race is to completely destroy Iran as a functioning government and economy. Easiest way to do this is with EMP (as discussed previously)
Iran
Diplomatically, Iran is winning, hands down. President Obama offered up the hand of friendship to Iranian leadership on their lunar new year...and promptly had it bitten off.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62N2XZ20100324
http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-47155320100323
Why on earth would Iran care what the US thinks, when even our partners feel free to blow us off? They're winning (since they're getting what they want with minimal repercussions), we're losing, so why alter course?
To whit: The Israeli announcement of 1600 additional housing units while Vice-President Biden was in Israel several weeks ago. Canada got in on the act too, and is pulling all their troops from Afghanistan.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9EP1ALG0&show_article=1
Another slap at US diplomatic clout was the Russian announcement of finishing construction on nuclear reactors for Iran even as Secretary of State Clinton was visiting to pressure Russia to back sanctions on Iran.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100318/pl_nm/us_russia_usa_iran
What is interesting to note is that the US went ballistic when Netanyahu's cabinet minister made the announcement, and has remained very muted on this one. Perhaps it is Russia's additional clout, perhaps it is because we feel that we need them to get sanctions through. Another explanation is that meaningful sanctions and preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon are a low priority. There are indications that the administration regards a nuclear Iran as fait accompli, and that it is a problem that can be managed and contained. They have offered Israel missile shields, protection guarantees, and have pushed them on the Palestinian issue, which they believe to be a more immediate threat to Israel than Iranian nuclear weapons.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/0323/1224266874275.html?via=rel
This blog was correct in another of its predictions: the US has weakened its sanctions proposal in order to bring China on board. At this stage, given the very limited nature of the sanctions proposed, the White House is putting an optimistic face forward. So does the DoS. However, there still has been no apparent movement by China on the issue.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/26/world/la-fg-iran-sanctions26-2010mar26
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/world/middleeast/31prexy.html
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/nuclear/clinton-china-to-be-involved-in-iran-sanctions-push-19985.html
Still, analysts handicapping the situation believe that China will eventually agree to some form of carefully targeted sanctions on Iran. However, it's a good bet that whatever gets put in place, it won't hurt the Chinese bottom line in trade: whether via legal or black market means.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N26135393.htm
********Breaking News*********
China has changed it's position and will now officially consider sanctions at the UN. There will likely be a lot of haggling, more watering down of the sanctions, and passage in a few months.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/03/31/officials-say-china-discuss-iran-sanctions/?test=latestnews
So, looking back to the beginning of this month, the following assessment still stands and appears to be the direction we're headed.
"If China agrees to sanctions, it will only agree to weak ones which do not interfere with its trade with Iran. This seems to be a likely option, since it allows the other nations to declare diplomatic victory, go home, and ignore the problem for another couple of years while stating “we need to give sanctions a chance to work”. Too bad Iran will have a weapon in as little as 18 months."
Speaking of Iran's drive for nuclear weapons, this week the CIA confirmed two things which this blog speculated about months ago. Firstly, Iran does indeed appear to be following a dual track program of enrichment and nuclear weapon building, with the goal of being able to "plug and play" their fissile materials into a nearly complete weapon as soon as the enrichment and shaping of the implosion core can be completed.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/30/cia-iran-has-capability-to-produce-nuke-weapons/
This was predicted back in the 3 February posting. No mention of the warhead type or methodology is made in the new report.
As senior Iranian nuclear scientist has now been confirmed to have defected while in Saudi Arabia. This was originally posted (and speculated on) in the December 24th posting, and the suspicion proved to be correct.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/iran-nuclear-scientist-defects-us-cia-intelligence-coup/story?id=10231729
This is likely the source of the new CIA data on the progress and plan for Iran's nuclear program, as well as the more definitive timetables and insight into their decision making process. Given the CIA's dismal record on WMD in Iraq and the the laughable 2007 NIE estimate, this may be the first time in a long while we can take the intelligence community's assessment of the Iranian weapons program seriously. Keep in mind, earlier estimates were saying Iran might not have a weapon until 2015 or later.
Iran has been caught with its hand in the cookie jar again, training and equipping the Taliban.
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/terrorism/taliban-fighters-being-taught-at-secret-camps-in-iran-19941.html
No surprise here. As the U.S. looks weaker and weaker on foreign policy, Iran will continue to step it up, and find way of indirectly attacking their enemies, just as we would do.
The Korean Peninsula
This past week the back end of a South Korean 1,200 ton frigate exploded and fell off, causing the front half of the ship to sink relatively quickly. 46 South Korean sailors are believed dead. US and Korean Naval officials have denied that it was a torpedo, although explanations of suicide divers and mines have been offered. North Korea has been quiet on the issue, but has been unusually belligerent in its rhetoric lately.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/31/president-puts-military-on-alert-after-ship-blast/
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2010/0329/South-Korea-s-Cheonan-ship-sinking-mystery-A-North-Korea-mine
The most prominent theory is a mine, with it being uncertain whether it was a Korean War vintage mine that did it (1950-1953), or one placed more recently by the North in order to send a message. What is certain is that the uncertainty has paralyzed South Korea diplomatically. They can't blame the North until the investigation is complete, the North has deniability (it was really old, we didn't know it was there, we don't know who put it there back in 50-53). Additionally, by the time the investigation is complete, public desire for vengeance will have cooled, and the incident will be almost forgotten on the world stage. Thus, it is very unlikely that even if it is determined the mine was placed there recently, that the US and South Korea will take any real action.
Why is this significant? Because Iran and China are taking their cues on how far they can push the US, once they have nuclear weapons, without retaliation directly from North Korea's actions. A Chinese general said this, on the record, only a month ago (see previous postings for link)
As a result, if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, expect all sorts of US ships to run into "previously unknown mines lost during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war."
Iraq
Finally, a bit of good news. Votes in the Iraqi election have been tallied, and Illad Allawi's centrist coalition won a plurality, putting them in the best position to form a coalition government. What is good about this is that it is speculated this will pull Iraq further from the Iranian sphere of influence, and allow the Iraqi government to draw more support from other regional Arab leaders.
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/iraq/analysis-allawi-win-could-curb-irans-influence-19980.html
Afghanistan
As noted previously noted, the Canadians wil no longer support the mission in Afghanistan. The Japanese have already pulled their tankers supporting logistics in the Indian Ocean. Iran is training the Taliban, and US contractors have been cutting corners on training Afghani police, producing recruits completely incapable of conducting the most basic of police functions.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/235221/page/1
The U.S. has announced it will take back the city of Khanadahar in June. I'd guess they're doing this if they regard the approach to Marjah as having been successful.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/30/AR2010033004090.html?wprss=rss_world
Terrorism
It's taken a couple of weeks, but the national media has finally caught up with the danger of "boob bombs" described in a February 4th posting here.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/03/24/terrorists-use-explosives-breast-implants-crash-planes-experts-warn/
The underwear bomber has said this, and MI 5 picked up on it, but now appears to be circular reporting. Still, this remains the next step in al Qaeda's continued attempts to bring air travel to a screeching halt. So far, we don't have a counter move. For more commentary, refer to the previous post on this topic.
Israel
The fallout from the Vice President Biden's visit to Israel continues. Prime Minister Netanyahu visited the White House last week, and was afforded none of the usual pomp and circumstance usually afforded visiting world leaders. No photo ops, Bibi taking the side entrance, and his entourage being left to their own devices while the President went to eat dinner without him invited. No notes on the meeting were released.
After the meeting, an Israeli paper claimed a Netanyahu confidant had told them Netanyahu described President Obama as "Israel's greatest disaster". Netanyahu vehemently denied this, along with White House adviser David Axelrod.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/obama-netanyahu-meeting-n_n_512051.html
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/03/28/WH-Obama-intended-no-snub-of-Netanyahu/UPI-64361269806346/
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE62R0HT20100328
There is a belief that the two sides discussed settlements (Jerusalem in particular), Iran, and the differences between the administration and Israel. Central among them is the Israeli stance that a nuclear armed Iran is the most immediate existential threat to Israel, while the WH and DoS espouse the viewpoint that Iran won't do anything while the US is protecting Israel, and that the most significant threat to Israel's existence is their failure to resolve the issues with the Palestinians.
Given the history of Jews in Europe, Israelis (particularly older ones) are extremely wary of placing their fate in the hands of non-Jewish governments who promise to protect them. Even the United States did a horrific job of protecting Jews fleeing Europe, and believing tales of atrocities. (See the St. Louis incident for details).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_St._Louis
Many Israelis were shocked at the treatment of Prime Minister Netanyahu. Some American left wing Jews, heretofore allies of the President, have turned on President Obama, while not giving up on him entirely.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2010/03/23_dershowitz.html
There has been speculation that the Obama administration wants regime change by convincing the Israeli people the only way forward to peace is by removing Netanyahu. Already some of the more liberal Israeli papers (Haaretz) are beginning to tow this line. Howver, it remains to be seen how much traction this gets. President Obama is deeply unpopular with right wing Israelis (27% of all Israelis think he's an anti-Semite, 72% of self identified conservatives), and the middle is ambivalent.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1157483.html
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=171849
Commentators examining the path the Iran / Israel story arc is taking are producing some good analyses of alternatives.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE62N2I9
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE62N1CX
The article above represents conventional thinking, albeit well organzed and fairly comprehensive thoughts. There are two arguments I would make with it, however.
"Israel would be loath to attack Iranian energy assets, like oil production and shipping facilities."
It might be risky, but the only way to bring down the Iranian regime or to delay their nuclear program more than a few years is to disrupt the Iranian economy so badly that the Basiji and Revolutionary guard aren't receiving living wages anymore (sparking an unopposed revolution like what happened in Romania or East Germany), or that the economy completely collapses and the government puts aside the nuclear program to make sure enough cash is a vailable to stave off the revolution described above.
Additionally, neither article considers what would happen if Israel decided that the only course of action which guarantees their survival as a nation and race is to completely destroy Iran as a functioning government and economy. Easiest way to do this is with EMP (as discussed previously)
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Intel Update for 16 March 2010
Time marches on, and there's been some interesting movements here.
Iran
Iran briefly moved its uranium supplies above ground, and then right back into the Natanz facility. There was some speculation that this was to tempt Israel into making a move, but more likely it was purely for logistical reasons.
http://article.wn.com/view/2010/03/01/Iran_moves_enriched_uranium_stock_back_underground_r/
China is now officially Iran's largest trading partner.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100315/wl_mideast_afp/iranchinanuclearpoliticseconomy
This probably has a lot to do with how China reacted to the visit from prominent Israeli economist Stanley Fischer last month. More on that later.
Sanctions on Iran will likely not be voted on by the UN until June. If China refuses to go along with them, it is likely the European Union will impose them unilaterally.
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/nuclear/u.n.-iran-sanctions-may-take-until-june-kouchner-19908.html
Given the apparent Israeli position of waiting this out, this delay won't have much effect. However, it does complicate the picture diplomatically for Israel if most countries have sanctions on Iran, but the most important one (China) does not...
In the "Gee, why are they bothering going through the motions." category, I dug up this old quote by Joe Biden from 2008 where he states that he doesn't believe sanctions will work.
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=68135§ionid=351020104
In the "As if he couldn't get any more annoying" category, President Amadhinejad called 9/11 a big lie, adding "truther" to "Holocaust denier" on his resume.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100306/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran
People often ask why it's ok for Israel to have nukes, but for Iran not to. See evidence above, that Iran is NOT controlled by rational individuals making decisions based on a commonly perceived reality. World leaders don't spend nights awake worrying that Israel will obliterate a neighbor with nukes, since they have had them for 40+ years in all likelihood, and if the Yom Kippur War wasn't enough to trigger it, not much will. Iran? People wonder if they would use them at random based on some cleric thinking Allah told him to.
Recently, General Petraeus submitted written testimony to the Senate Armed Services Comittee which alleges Iran is harboring Al Qaeda elements and sponsoring terrorism. He also suggests that intelligence indicates Iran has encountered difficulties in building a nuclear weapon and that their schedule has slid to the right. Additionally, he believes a resumption of serious peace talks by Israel would undercut many of Iran's positions.
http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/03/17/1011164/petraeus-peace-could-undercut-iran-threat
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/world/middleeast/17military.html
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-17/petraeus-says-u-s-doesn-t-see-inevitable-iran-bomb-update1-.html
Honestly, 18 months is probably the shortest timetable possible right now for Iran to develop a viable nuclear weapon.
China
China has received pressure from the UAE, Saudia Arabia, and the UK regarding sanctions on Iran recently. The UK is confident that China will not stand alone against the world. While admitting that Iran is a serious problem, China's official policy continues to be that diplomacy is the only appropriate avenue.
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/nuclear/britain-says-china-wont-risk-isolation-over-iran-19894.html
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/nuclear/china-knows-its-duties-in-iran-nuclear-tussle-saudi-19909.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62F2WK20100316
Additionally, a few weeks back Israel sent one of its top economists (Stanley Fischer) to try to convince China that sanctions on Iran wouldn't damage the Chinese economy. He failed to make any headway, and shortly after he left China publicly re-iterated its position that sanctions were off the table.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100224/wl_nm/us_israel_china_iran
China's decisions always revolve around maximizing their own economic interests. Very rarely do they take a stand on principle. Simply put, Israel doesn't have monetary leverage to get China to act on Iran. Perhaps other countries do...
Afghanistan
There are conflicting reports about the Afghani government's reaction to the capture of Mullah Baradar (the #2 Taliban of Afghanistan) in Pakistan with the help of US intelligence.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,589405,00.html?test=latestnews
Karzai's office denies these reports.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62F2C020100316
I tend to discount the denial, since reconciliation with the Taliban has been the cornerstone of Karzai's plan for how to bring the civil war in Afghanistan to a close. Remember that Karzai was not a big proponent of the surge, since he favored a negotiated political solution to the situation.
Department of state workers in Afghanistan are extremely unhappy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/10/AR2010031003975.html
So, 80 hours weeks, 1 year tours, not enough people to do all the things they are supposed to do, and crappy to non-existent turnovers from their predecessors. Sound like what pretty much every Marine in the region puts up with too, except they get shot at a lot more, but don't get paid as much and whine less.
Terrorism
CIA director Leon Panetta told the media Wednesday that U.S. airstrikes have al Qaeda on the run.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/03/17/official-al-qaeda-leader-played-role-cia-bombing-killed/
Given the number of high ranking members killed, and the capture of the cave complex described in a link in the last blog, what Panetta says does not appear to be hyperbole, although it should be noted this blog hinted at the same 2 weeks ago...
Israel
Vice President Biden's visit to Israel last week turned into a diplomatic disaster. While visiting, one of Netanyahu's cabinet members announced the new construction of 1600 housing units in east Jerusalem. Netanyahu presented Biden with a broken gift at a state dinner. Perhaps it was payback for Biden's insistence that Israel should just learn to live with a nuclear Iran back in 2008.
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=68135§ionid=351020104
After Biden's return to the US, the DoS responded harshly, calling the move insulting. Some commentators described US - Israeli relations as the lowest in 35 years. Israel has apologized, and Prime Minister Netanyahu has promised to investigate the timing of this announcement.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100313/wl_afp/mideastconflictisraelusprobe
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1257887/U-S-fury-Hillary-Clinton-accuses-Israel-insulting-Joe-Biden-visit.html
Given that the settlement announcement was made by an ultra-right cabinet minister, it seems possible this was done by a rogue cabinet member wanting to take a swipe at Biden and the Obama administration.
There has been some speculation that the Obama administration has been trying to create regime change in Israel.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hfN-O_PsuDUAvRqVJauM5zDQhY9w
It would not be the first time the US has worked to effect regime change in Israel. In 1999 President Clinton gave permission to James Carville to take some time off as a political advisor to his administration to be a political consultant for Labor Party Leader Ehud Barak during his 1999 campaign, in the Labor Party's efforts to unseat then Prime Minister Bejamin Netanyahu (who was not well liked by the Clinton administration either). Barak did eventually win, but this was not enough to help President Clinton push through the peace process. Yassir Arafat dug in his heels, wouldn't make concessions, and the Camp David accords of 2000 fell apart, leaving President Clinton furious at the Palestinian negotiators.
Iran
Iran briefly moved its uranium supplies above ground, and then right back into the Natanz facility. There was some speculation that this was to tempt Israel into making a move, but more likely it was purely for logistical reasons.
http://article.wn.com/view/2010/03/01/Iran_moves_enriched_uranium_stock_back_underground_r/
China is now officially Iran's largest trading partner.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100315/wl_mideast_afp/iranchinanuclearpoliticseconomy
This probably has a lot to do with how China reacted to the visit from prominent Israeli economist Stanley Fischer last month. More on that later.
Sanctions on Iran will likely not be voted on by the UN until June. If China refuses to go along with them, it is likely the European Union will impose them unilaterally.
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/nuclear/u.n.-iran-sanctions-may-take-until-june-kouchner-19908.html
Given the apparent Israeli position of waiting this out, this delay won't have much effect. However, it does complicate the picture diplomatically for Israel if most countries have sanctions on Iran, but the most important one (China) does not...
In the "Gee, why are they bothering going through the motions." category, I dug up this old quote by Joe Biden from 2008 where he states that he doesn't believe sanctions will work.
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=68135§ionid=351020104
In the "As if he couldn't get any more annoying" category, President Amadhinejad called 9/11 a big lie, adding "truther" to "Holocaust denier" on his resume.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100306/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran
People often ask why it's ok for Israel to have nukes, but for Iran not to. See evidence above, that Iran is NOT controlled by rational individuals making decisions based on a commonly perceived reality. World leaders don't spend nights awake worrying that Israel will obliterate a neighbor with nukes, since they have had them for 40+ years in all likelihood, and if the Yom Kippur War wasn't enough to trigger it, not much will. Iran? People wonder if they would use them at random based on some cleric thinking Allah told him to.
Recently, General Petraeus submitted written testimony to the Senate Armed Services Comittee which alleges Iran is harboring Al Qaeda elements and sponsoring terrorism. He also suggests that intelligence indicates Iran has encountered difficulties in building a nuclear weapon and that their schedule has slid to the right. Additionally, he believes a resumption of serious peace talks by Israel would undercut many of Iran's positions.
http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/03/17/1011164/petraeus-peace-could-undercut-iran-threat
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/world/middleeast/17military.html
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-17/petraeus-says-u-s-doesn-t-see-inevitable-iran-bomb-update1-.html
Honestly, 18 months is probably the shortest timetable possible right now for Iran to develop a viable nuclear weapon.
China
China has received pressure from the UAE, Saudia Arabia, and the UK regarding sanctions on Iran recently. The UK is confident that China will not stand alone against the world. While admitting that Iran is a serious problem, China's official policy continues to be that diplomacy is the only appropriate avenue.
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/nuclear/britain-says-china-wont-risk-isolation-over-iran-19894.html
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/nuclear/china-knows-its-duties-in-iran-nuclear-tussle-saudi-19909.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62F2WK20100316
Additionally, a few weeks back Israel sent one of its top economists (Stanley Fischer) to try to convince China that sanctions on Iran wouldn't damage the Chinese economy. He failed to make any headway, and shortly after he left China publicly re-iterated its position that sanctions were off the table.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100224/wl_nm/us_israel_china_iran
China's decisions always revolve around maximizing their own economic interests. Very rarely do they take a stand on principle. Simply put, Israel doesn't have monetary leverage to get China to act on Iran. Perhaps other countries do...
Afghanistan
There are conflicting reports about the Afghani government's reaction to the capture of Mullah Baradar (the #2 Taliban of Afghanistan) in Pakistan with the help of US intelligence.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,589405,00.html?test=latestnews
Karzai's office denies these reports.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62F2C020100316
I tend to discount the denial, since reconciliation with the Taliban has been the cornerstone of Karzai's plan for how to bring the civil war in Afghanistan to a close. Remember that Karzai was not a big proponent of the surge, since he favored a negotiated political solution to the situation.
Department of state workers in Afghanistan are extremely unhappy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/10/AR2010031003975.html
So, 80 hours weeks, 1 year tours, not enough people to do all the things they are supposed to do, and crappy to non-existent turnovers from their predecessors. Sound like what pretty much every Marine in the region puts up with too, except they get shot at a lot more, but don't get paid as much and whine less.
Terrorism
CIA director Leon Panetta told the media Wednesday that U.S. airstrikes have al Qaeda on the run.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/03/17/official-al-qaeda-leader-played-role-cia-bombing-killed/
Given the number of high ranking members killed, and the capture of the cave complex described in a link in the last blog, what Panetta says does not appear to be hyperbole, although it should be noted this blog hinted at the same 2 weeks ago...
Israel
Vice President Biden's visit to Israel last week turned into a diplomatic disaster. While visiting, one of Netanyahu's cabinet members announced the new construction of 1600 housing units in east Jerusalem. Netanyahu presented Biden with a broken gift at a state dinner. Perhaps it was payback for Biden's insistence that Israel should just learn to live with a nuclear Iran back in 2008.
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=68135§ionid=351020104
After Biden's return to the US, the DoS responded harshly, calling the move insulting. Some commentators described US - Israeli relations as the lowest in 35 years. Israel has apologized, and Prime Minister Netanyahu has promised to investigate the timing of this announcement.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100313/wl_afp/mideastconflictisraelusprobe
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1257887/U-S-fury-Hillary-Clinton-accuses-Israel-insulting-Joe-Biden-visit.html
Given that the settlement announcement was made by an ultra-right cabinet minister, it seems possible this was done by a rogue cabinet member wanting to take a swipe at Biden and the Obama administration.
There has been some speculation that the Obama administration has been trying to create regime change in Israel.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hfN-O_PsuDUAvRqVJauM5zDQhY9w
It would not be the first time the US has worked to effect regime change in Israel. In 1999 President Clinton gave permission to James Carville to take some time off as a political advisor to his administration to be a political consultant for Labor Party Leader Ehud Barak during his 1999 campaign, in the Labor Party's efforts to unseat then Prime Minister Bejamin Netanyahu (who was not well liked by the Clinton administration either). Barak did eventually win, but this was not enough to help President Clinton push through the peace process. Yassir Arafat dug in his heels, wouldn't make concessions, and the Camp David accords of 2000 fell apart, leaving President Clinton furious at the Palestinian negotiators.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Weekly Intel Update for 4 MAR 2010
Sorry that I missed a week here. Hopefully the goodies in this week’s batch make up for it.
Iran
This blog tries to remain politically neutral, but some recent poll results makes it clear that the authors opinion are reflective of one particular viewpoint.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/02/fox-news-poll-iran-bomb-equals-disaster/
“A Fox News poll released Tuesday finds that 60 percent of voters think force will be required to stop Iran, while 25 percent think diplomacy and sanctions alone will work.
Just over half of Democrats (51 percent) and independents (51 percent) think force will be necessary, as do three-quarters of Republicans (75 percent).
If Iran were to obtain the capability to use nuclear weapons, 56 percent think that would be “a disaster,” while 37 percent call it “a problem that can be managed” and 3 percent say it wouldn’t be a problem at all.
Despite a slim majority of Democrats thinking it would be a disaster (51 percent), a large minority think it would be a problem that could be managed (42 percent). In stark contrast, Republicans -- by a wide 36 point margin -- think Iran with nukes would be a disaster (60 percent).”
My first thought upon reading this was that the poll was interviewing the wrong people: they should have been polling Israelis because the US government has already made it clear that the military option is off the table. However, here’s a brief list of questions that need to be answered by the people who believe negotiations will work, and / or that a nuclear Iran is a problem that can be managed.
1. If Iran becomes a nuclear power, can Israeli actions be managed? Given the Israeli history of unpredictability and sudden, violent unilateral action, plus the frosty relations between Israel and the U.S. at the moment, this seems unlikely. U.S. control is limited when they perceive an existential threat (Six Day War), and previous strikes at Syrian and Iraqi nuclear facilities illustrates they really don’t care what the rest of the world thinks.
2. Can the consequences of Israeli military action be managed? If Iran takes it on the chin from Israel, and Iran retains a capability to retaliate, they can wreak havoc on other Gulf states’ oil production and distribution operations. There’s no way we can stop the damage to the economy this will cause.
3. Why would you think diplomacy would work? We’ve been negotiating with Iran in multi-party talks since 2005. In that time, the Iranian position has not changed a whit, and their program has marched forward completely unimpeded (except by covert Israeli actions). Also consider the 15 years of negotiations with North Korea over their nuclear weapons program, and the success it has enjoyed.
4. What makes you think you can get sanctions past China? China is Iran’s #1 trade partner, and in return China is getting lots of cheap oil, and slowly sending its tendrils into the Iranian oil production infrastructure. China has so far shown no inclination to alter its position.
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/nuclear/china-says-pushing-for-diplomatic-solution-on-iran-19848.html
5. Even if you get sanctions past China, will they be strong enough to have the desired effect? If China agrees to sanctions, it will only agree to weak ones which do not interfere with its trade with Iran. This seems to be a likely option, since it allows the other nations to declare diplomatic victory, go home, and ignore the problem for another couple of years while stating “we need to give sanctions a chance to work”. Too bad Iran will have a weapon in as little as 18 months.
6. Even if you do (somehow) get very strong sanctions through, what makes you think they would work? Sudan weathered sanctions amidst Darfur. Saddam Hussein got filthy rich off the black market for his oil during the 12 years of sanctions between 1991 and 2003. Iran has been sanctioned for years with targeted sanctions, and it has barely slowed down their nuclear program. They’re still acquiring weapons and nuclear related materials with relative ease (and distributing them to their proxies in Gaza and Lebanon). North Korea has been under sanctions for years. During the famine of 1995-1998, 2.5 to 3 million North Koreans died of starvation (10% of the North Korean population). Compare this with the Ethiopian famine of 1984-1985 where 1 million people died (less than 3% ). North Korea’s nuclear program continued right through this. The moral of this is that even if you imposed sanctions on Iran that were so strong you killed off 10% of the country, there’s still no reason to believe it would actually stop their nuclear program, based on historical evidence. http://www.iranfocus.com/en/terrorism/italy-arrests-seven-for-smuggling-arms-to-iran-19847.html
This is not to be partisan, but merely to look at this as logically as possible. Iran wants nuclear weapons, and the evidence strongly suggests that options other than force have a very low (close to zero) probability of succeeding.
This next article confirms earlier speculation that we will not see sanctions until this June at the earliest.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/100301/usa/iran_nuclear_politics_us_sanctions
Once again, the question this begs is not what will the G5+1 do or how they will react, but how will it affect the other actor sitting on the sidelines who has everything on the line. What message does it send? How will it be received? Odds are, Israel will wait until what it regards as the last possible instant (based on intelligence) to make it’s move. That would push the timeframe out to 18-36 months (at the latest).
Pakistan
Pakistan has been fighting militants more effectively now than at any time since 9/11.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/03/04/pakistan.militants/index.html?iref=allsearch
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/03/02/pakistan.taliban.commanders.killed/index.html?iref=allsearch
What’s significant here is that the Pakistani army fought back, didn’t retreat, and inflicted heavy casualties. Will to fight has always been an issue. The bigger one has been the ISI.
http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/03/whatever-happened-to-bin-laden/
Some analysts believe that the Pakistani intelligence service (ISI) knows where bin Laden is, and are holding out on us because as long as he’s out there, Pakistan can keep milking the U.S. for military aid and support against India.
In a bit of good news, the Pakistanis locals have evicted al Qaeda from its stronghold on the border. Given the scope of these tunnels, and how much stuff they left behind in their hurry to escape, this is a good thing.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Afghanistan/network-150-al-qaeda-caves-captured-afghan-border/story?id=10000854
1. If you leave in a hurry, you’re probably not moving to a better hiding spot. This means we’ll have better opportunities to catch or kill some of these guys as they scurry for cover.
2. There’s plenty of intelligence to be had here. We’ll find stuff. Don’t think for a moment that the CIA won’t go all CSI on this stuff given an opportunity (what kind of pollen is on the blankets? What sort of DNA can we recover? How old are the cells we recovered? Who do they belong to? What kind of minerals / mud are on the equipment? Did they leave behind documents? Computers? Storage media? Who made the weapons? When? What about fingerprints on the weapons? If we catch someone later, and want to figure out if they’re al Qaeda affiliates, we’ll have the goods in our database.)
The bad news? The locals say the foreigners are fleeing to Yemen and Somalia rather than back across the Pakistan / Afghanistan border.
Terrorism
A noted Islamic scholar produced what is considered the most thoroughly researched Fatwa against suicide attacks to date.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35660866/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/
Some would argue this is a significant step. However I think it will have a minimal effect. Islamic extremism and violence is probably more a cultural function than a religious one. In fact, I would regard violent Islamic ideology as more of a catalyst than as a cause. It provides a convenient excuse to behave in a way in which you were already inclined. There’s no argument that Turkish Muslims tend to be very different from Arabic ones, or Malaysians, or Pakistanis. There’s a darned good reason why most of the big terrorist acts of the past decade came from a handful of countries, and almost exclusively from one self identified cultural group. (We’ll leave the answer to the reader). Note that the author of this Fatwa does not come from the same cultural background as the majority of suicide bombers.
Israel
A few weeks ago, the center-left Brookings institution ran a war game that simulated what would happen if Israel attacked Iran's nuclear facilities. What it found was that things spun out of control afterwards, and everyone but Iran really suffered in the aftermath.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/02/21/87061/war-game-shows-how-attacking-iran.html
All I can say to this is...all right, all right, we get it. A conventional strike by Israel only makes things worse. A couple of months ago another war game reached similar conclusions. The problem is, none of these think tanks is thinking outside the box.
Israel certainly pays attention to these war games. They certainly have their own. Their intelligence on Iran surpasses our own, frankly (we had no idea Syria was building a nuclear facility until after the Israelis blew it up). So, why on earth would Israel mount a conventional strike if it would only set Iran's nuclear program back a little bit, and might fail entirely? Why would they do what everyone expects them to do? Why would they telegraph their punches? Why would they mount their attacks the same way they attacked Syria and Iraq's facilities? All of these would cede the element of strategic surprise.
What I want to know is why in a room full of PhD's would none of them stop to ask: If Israel believes a conventional strike will not help their situation, sanctions and diplomacy are doomed to fail, and a nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable, what will they do instead? If you accept these premises, then the remaining option is something unconventional. Somehow, despite these reasonable assumptions of Israeli thought processes, none of our think tank experts has reached this conclusion, has chosen to war game it, or discus it openly.
Iran
This blog tries to remain politically neutral, but some recent poll results makes it clear that the authors opinion are reflective of one particular viewpoint.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/02/fox-news-poll-iran-bomb-equals-disaster/
“A Fox News poll released Tuesday finds that 60 percent of voters think force will be required to stop Iran, while 25 percent think diplomacy and sanctions alone will work.
Just over half of Democrats (51 percent) and independents (51 percent) think force will be necessary, as do three-quarters of Republicans (75 percent).
If Iran were to obtain the capability to use nuclear weapons, 56 percent think that would be “a disaster,” while 37 percent call it “a problem that can be managed” and 3 percent say it wouldn’t be a problem at all.
Despite a slim majority of Democrats thinking it would be a disaster (51 percent), a large minority think it would be a problem that could be managed (42 percent). In stark contrast, Republicans -- by a wide 36 point margin -- think Iran with nukes would be a disaster (60 percent).”
My first thought upon reading this was that the poll was interviewing the wrong people: they should have been polling Israelis because the US government has already made it clear that the military option is off the table. However, here’s a brief list of questions that need to be answered by the people who believe negotiations will work, and / or that a nuclear Iran is a problem that can be managed.
1. If Iran becomes a nuclear power, can Israeli actions be managed? Given the Israeli history of unpredictability and sudden, violent unilateral action, plus the frosty relations between Israel and the U.S. at the moment, this seems unlikely. U.S. control is limited when they perceive an existential threat (Six Day War), and previous strikes at Syrian and Iraqi nuclear facilities illustrates they really don’t care what the rest of the world thinks.
2. Can the consequences of Israeli military action be managed? If Iran takes it on the chin from Israel, and Iran retains a capability to retaliate, they can wreak havoc on other Gulf states’ oil production and distribution operations. There’s no way we can stop the damage to the economy this will cause.
3. Why would you think diplomacy would work? We’ve been negotiating with Iran in multi-party talks since 2005. In that time, the Iranian position has not changed a whit, and their program has marched forward completely unimpeded (except by covert Israeli actions). Also consider the 15 years of negotiations with North Korea over their nuclear weapons program, and the success it has enjoyed.
4. What makes you think you can get sanctions past China? China is Iran’s #1 trade partner, and in return China is getting lots of cheap oil, and slowly sending its tendrils into the Iranian oil production infrastructure. China has so far shown no inclination to alter its position.
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/nuclear/china-says-pushing-for-diplomatic-solution-on-iran-19848.html
5. Even if you get sanctions past China, will they be strong enough to have the desired effect? If China agrees to sanctions, it will only agree to weak ones which do not interfere with its trade with Iran. This seems to be a likely option, since it allows the other nations to declare diplomatic victory, go home, and ignore the problem for another couple of years while stating “we need to give sanctions a chance to work”. Too bad Iran will have a weapon in as little as 18 months.
6. Even if you do (somehow) get very strong sanctions through, what makes you think they would work? Sudan weathered sanctions amidst Darfur. Saddam Hussein got filthy rich off the black market for his oil during the 12 years of sanctions between 1991 and 2003. Iran has been sanctioned for years with targeted sanctions, and it has barely slowed down their nuclear program. They’re still acquiring weapons and nuclear related materials with relative ease (and distributing them to their proxies in Gaza and Lebanon). North Korea has been under sanctions for years. During the famine of 1995-1998, 2.5 to 3 million North Koreans died of starvation (10% of the North Korean population). Compare this with the Ethiopian famine of 1984-1985 where 1 million people died (less than 3% ). North Korea’s nuclear program continued right through this. The moral of this is that even if you imposed sanctions on Iran that were so strong you killed off 10% of the country, there’s still no reason to believe it would actually stop their nuclear program, based on historical evidence. http://www.iranfocus.com/en/terrorism/italy-arrests-seven-for-smuggling-arms-to-iran-19847.html
This is not to be partisan, but merely to look at this as logically as possible. Iran wants nuclear weapons, and the evidence strongly suggests that options other than force have a very low (close to zero) probability of succeeding.
This next article confirms earlier speculation that we will not see sanctions until this June at the earliest.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/100301/usa/iran_nuclear_politics_us_sanctions
Once again, the question this begs is not what will the G5+1 do or how they will react, but how will it affect the other actor sitting on the sidelines who has everything on the line. What message does it send? How will it be received? Odds are, Israel will wait until what it regards as the last possible instant (based on intelligence) to make it’s move. That would push the timeframe out to 18-36 months (at the latest).
Pakistan
Pakistan has been fighting militants more effectively now than at any time since 9/11.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/03/04/pakistan.militants/index.html?iref=allsearch
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/03/02/pakistan.taliban.commanders.killed/index.html?iref=allsearch
What’s significant here is that the Pakistani army fought back, didn’t retreat, and inflicted heavy casualties. Will to fight has always been an issue. The bigger one has been the ISI.
http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/03/whatever-happened-to-bin-laden/
Some analysts believe that the Pakistani intelligence service (ISI) knows where bin Laden is, and are holding out on us because as long as he’s out there, Pakistan can keep milking the U.S. for military aid and support against India.
In a bit of good news, the Pakistanis locals have evicted al Qaeda from its stronghold on the border. Given the scope of these tunnels, and how much stuff they left behind in their hurry to escape, this is a good thing.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Afghanistan/network-150-al-qaeda-caves-captured-afghan-border/story?id=10000854
1. If you leave in a hurry, you’re probably not moving to a better hiding spot. This means we’ll have better opportunities to catch or kill some of these guys as they scurry for cover.
2. There’s plenty of intelligence to be had here. We’ll find stuff. Don’t think for a moment that the CIA won’t go all CSI on this stuff given an opportunity (what kind of pollen is on the blankets? What sort of DNA can we recover? How old are the cells we recovered? Who do they belong to? What kind of minerals / mud are on the equipment? Did they leave behind documents? Computers? Storage media? Who made the weapons? When? What about fingerprints on the weapons? If we catch someone later, and want to figure out if they’re al Qaeda affiliates, we’ll have the goods in our database.)
The bad news? The locals say the foreigners are fleeing to Yemen and Somalia rather than back across the Pakistan / Afghanistan border.
Terrorism
A noted Islamic scholar produced what is considered the most thoroughly researched Fatwa against suicide attacks to date.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35660866/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/
Some would argue this is a significant step. However I think it will have a minimal effect. Islamic extremism and violence is probably more a cultural function than a religious one. In fact, I would regard violent Islamic ideology as more of a catalyst than as a cause. It provides a convenient excuse to behave in a way in which you were already inclined. There’s no argument that Turkish Muslims tend to be very different from Arabic ones, or Malaysians, or Pakistanis. There’s a darned good reason why most of the big terrorist acts of the past decade came from a handful of countries, and almost exclusively from one self identified cultural group. (We’ll leave the answer to the reader). Note that the author of this Fatwa does not come from the same cultural background as the majority of suicide bombers.
Israel
A few weeks ago, the center-left Brookings institution ran a war game that simulated what would happen if Israel attacked Iran's nuclear facilities. What it found was that things spun out of control afterwards, and everyone but Iran really suffered in the aftermath.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/02/21/87061/war-game-shows-how-attacking-iran.html
All I can say to this is...all right, all right, we get it. A conventional strike by Israel only makes things worse. A couple of months ago another war game reached similar conclusions. The problem is, none of these think tanks is thinking outside the box.
Israel certainly pays attention to these war games. They certainly have their own. Their intelligence on Iran surpasses our own, frankly (we had no idea Syria was building a nuclear facility until after the Israelis blew it up). So, why on earth would Israel mount a conventional strike if it would only set Iran's nuclear program back a little bit, and might fail entirely? Why would they do what everyone expects them to do? Why would they telegraph their punches? Why would they mount their attacks the same way they attacked Syria and Iraq's facilities? All of these would cede the element of strategic surprise.
What I want to know is why in a room full of PhD's would none of them stop to ask: If Israel believes a conventional strike will not help their situation, sanctions and diplomacy are doomed to fail, and a nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable, what will they do instead? If you accept these premises, then the remaining option is something unconventional. Somehow, despite these reasonable assumptions of Israeli thought processes, none of our think tank experts has reached this conclusion, has chosen to war game it, or discus it openly.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Weekly Intel Update for 19 FEB 10
Terrorism
In December 5 members of an Army Arabic translation unit were detained for allegations that they were plotting to poison service members at the location. The Army says that there “is no credible information to support the allegations." It is unclear if they are still being held.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,586721,00.html?test=latestnews
http://blogs.cbn.com/stakelbeckonterror/archive/2010/02/18/update-five-muslim-soldiers-arrested-at-fort-jackson-in.aspx
Two sides to this one. If the allegations are untrue, then the government just took a punch in the teeth. What Muslim would go to work for a intel group when some dim-witted and bigoted co-worker is probably going to make up crap to get them hauled away? Another angle on this is a lot of Army brass is going to be hyper sensitive about allegations of a 5th column after the Fort Hood shooting. Most of the people who ignored the warning signs about Major Hassan are probably going to get letters of reprimand, and be career dead ended, or forced to retire. If they really were planning something, then it brings up the old question: if communism is a belief system with religious aspects, and Islam is a belief system based on religion, why is it legal to discriminate against Communists and not Muslims? The constitution provides protections for religions, even if they are dangerous to the public good. This isn’t an argument against the first amendment, merely an acknowledgement that it is much harder to fight religiously motivated enemies of the state than it is ones who have a secular belief system.
Pakistan
This past week, it was announced that Pakistani forces, given intelligence by the CIA, captured the functional Commander in Chief of the Afghanistani Taliban, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar. He’s not saying much, though. Additionally, American intel types weren’t allowed to question him for almost two weeks after his capture. There is some suspiscion that Pakistan’s intelligence service, the ISI, was worried he’d reveal how much the ISI has been helping the Taliban in Afghanistan over the years. It has been an open secret that the ISI has been riddled with Taliban sympathizers since before 9/11.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/world/asia/19intel.html
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/20100218_Captured_Taliban_chief_is_saying_little.html
Additionally, Pakistani forces rolled up two Taliban “Shadow Governors” in the aftermath.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/world/asia/19taliban.html
There’s all sorts of implications to this. First is that it briefly creates a power vacuum at the top, and that strategic planning of the Taliban may be disrupted as they scramble to re-establish a hierarchy. Another implication is that Pakistan’s leadership is finally taking the Afghan Taliban as seriously as the Pakistani Taliban, since the two organizations are strongly linked and providing each other support. Over time, as Baradar let’s things slip, it will give insight into the Taliban’s top level of strategy. While not as useful as time sensitive operational and tactical details, it still helps us develop a more effective strategy over time. He is also a bargaining chip, and the most optimistic in the DoS think he might lead to a reconciliation. The most tantalizing possibility is he could lead to the capture of UBL eventually. The latter is a long shot, but it’s also information he’d feel more inclined to divulge, since he could be convinced that if the US gets UBL, they’ll be less inclined to stick around in Afghanistan with no lingering causus belli.
Afghanistan
The assault on Marjah is on, and darned if I can make out who’s winning this one. The Coalition and the Afghanis are making extremely slow progress. It may take a full month to secure the town of only 80,000 people. The reasons behind this are primarily extremely tight rules of engagement (ROE) designed to minimize civilian casualties. Airpower is extremely difficult to come by as a result.
However, that still hasn’t been enough to prevent them. On the second day of the assault someone in the army screwed up a call for artillery fired, and planted a pair of rockets into a home 600 yards away from the intended target, killing 12 civilians. The army withdrew the weapon while investigating, the put it back into play Wednesday.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aP9PlZjNrXXo
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-afghanistan-civilians18-2010feb18,0,4359902.story
It hasn’t taken long for the Taliban fighters to figure out our ROE, and exploit them to the maximum extent possible, including liberal use of human shields.
http://www.fayobserver.com/Articles/2010/02/15/976418
http://www.usatoday.com/NEWS/usaedition/2010-02-18-marjah18_ST_U.htm?csp=34
Military casualties have been relatively low: 12 killed so far. However, right now I think the Taliban are winning this one for several reasons:
1. They have their propaganda tool already: those 12 civilians killed by the coalition, and in one go, are enough for them to stir up a lot of hate and fear towards the coalition going forward.
2. It doesn’t matter if only 10% of the population supports the Taliban, you look pretty freaking tough when 400 or so of your fighters can hold off 3,000+ US Marines for a month. Never mind the fact that the Marines are fighting with both hands tied behind their backs due to ROE. It’s still an information operations victory. Think Alamo, or Wake Island. Makes for one hell of a rallying cry.
On another note, a British officer remarked in the 19th Century that “An Afghan’s loyalty cannot be bought, it can only be rented. Apparently 25 Afghani policemen defected this week over pay issues. Oh, and they took their vehicles and heavy weapons with them. Oops.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/world/asia/19police.html
Iran
Iran’s “punch” at the west never clearly emerged last week. Was it their extremely effective suppression of green movement protests before they even began? Was is the declaration they had already enriched uranium to 20%? More likely than not, (hindsight being 20-20) their comments were intended for primarily domestic audiences. Based on articles out there Revolutionary Guard Basiji intimidation, plus government interference in electronic media prevented the protests from taking off. Based on the article below (and a little easy math) pro-government turn out outnumbered anti-government protesters 25-1.
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/iran-general-/clashes-erupt-at-major-anti-government-protests-in-iran-19708.html
Any Western leader hoping for changes from within needs to just forget it. It’s not happening. Consider the abject failure that is North Korea, and you get an idea how long these guys can hang onto power.
On the nuclear front, the usually cautious and diplomatic IAEA has weighed in on Iran, and has declared they have strong evidence I ran has been working on nuclear warheads since 2004. The IAEA report, in particular, dumps on the 2007 NIE that declared Iran hadn’t actively been working on a warhead since 2003.
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/nuclear/inspectors-say-iran-worked-on-warhead-19765.html
“In fact, some in the Obama administration suspect that Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps or its leading religious leaders are betting that an escalation of the nuclear confrontation might distract attention from the protests that have rocked the government, while unifying the country against outsiders supposedly trying to suppress Iran’s rise as a significant power.”
I’m not sure who’s doing the mental math, but it’s one hell of an assumption to bet the existence of your country on the assumption the Israelis will pull their punches. You only unify the country if there’s a country left to unify.
“In its report, the institute also questioned Iran’s moving most of its stocks of low-enriched uranium into the plant at Natanz, which is doing the high enrichment. The transfer, it said, implied that Iran planned to enrich it all to higher levels and produce “far in excess” of any fuel needed for its stated purpose of fueling a medical reactor in Tehran.”
This is another line crossed. Based on the assessment that Iran is working for miniaturization, it implies a more sophisticated warhead. That gives us as little as 18 months before they are a nuclear armed power. They’re getting close. Gut feeling tells me that the outcome of this situation will be what comes to define the Obama administration. Will it be President Carter and the Desert One, or more like Regan and Operation Praying Mantis? Time will tell. The only sure thing is that oil prices will be going up.
Oh, did I mention the administration has ruled out any options but diplomacy and unilateral sanctions?
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/iran-general-/us-has-no-plan-for-military-action-against-iran-clinton-19760.html
Given that Iran is producing modern indigenously built guided missile frigates despite the weapons trade sanctions placed on them, it should be pretty clear how much of a chance sanctions have of working.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100219/wl_mideast_afp/iranmilitarynavyship_20100219131740
Again, Israel has pretty well figured they’re on their own, but they’re going to wait until the last minute (or some ideal moment when the rest of the world is already absolutely disgusted with Iran), to do something to deflect international criticism.
Israel
It looks like Israel got it’s hand caught in the cookie jar recently. On 20 JAN 2010 a senior Hamas commander, Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, was found murdered in his hotel room in Dubai. Reports indicate he was both electrocuted and suffocated. Ouch.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE61H17M.htm
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100218/D9DUJ2G01.html
France and the U.K. were both infuriated, but has nothing to do with the dead terrorist. Those responsible used forged British and French passports of dual citizenship Israelis. Apparently, the Brits (at least) had a standing gentlemen’s agreement with the Mossad that British passports were never to be used for their activities. In return, the Brits and the Mossad shared intelligence. This is in danger now, and the U.K. is threatening to server intelligence ties with the Israelis. Additionally, the Israeli Ambassador to the U.K. was summoned to address the issue and offer an explanation.
I don’t think the Israeli’s expected the UAE police to bas as competent as they have been. This hurts their standing with the Europeans, right at the moment when they’re begging large European nations (like Germany and France) to unilaterally slap heavy duty sanctions on Iran. Not sure what their game is, but one or more of the following may be true:
1. They never expected it to go down this way,
2. This guy was way too juicy a target to pass up
3. They never gave a flying fig about the Europeans imposing sanctions on Iran, since they don’t expect them to work worth a damn anyway.
4. It wasn’t really the Mossad. Some of the people captured are Palestinian, and lots of Fatah members wanted this Hamas guy dead.
In December 5 members of an Army Arabic translation unit were detained for allegations that they were plotting to poison service members at the location. The Army says that there “is no credible information to support the allegations." It is unclear if they are still being held.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,586721,00.html?test=latestnews
http://blogs.cbn.com/stakelbeckonterror/archive/2010/02/18/update-five-muslim-soldiers-arrested-at-fort-jackson-in.aspx
Two sides to this one. If the allegations are untrue, then the government just took a punch in the teeth. What Muslim would go to work for a intel group when some dim-witted and bigoted co-worker is probably going to make up crap to get them hauled away? Another angle on this is a lot of Army brass is going to be hyper sensitive about allegations of a 5th column after the Fort Hood shooting. Most of the people who ignored the warning signs about Major Hassan are probably going to get letters of reprimand, and be career dead ended, or forced to retire. If they really were planning something, then it brings up the old question: if communism is a belief system with religious aspects, and Islam is a belief system based on religion, why is it legal to discriminate against Communists and not Muslims? The constitution provides protections for religions, even if they are dangerous to the public good. This isn’t an argument against the first amendment, merely an acknowledgement that it is much harder to fight religiously motivated enemies of the state than it is ones who have a secular belief system.
Pakistan
This past week, it was announced that Pakistani forces, given intelligence by the CIA, captured the functional Commander in Chief of the Afghanistani Taliban, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar. He’s not saying much, though. Additionally, American intel types weren’t allowed to question him for almost two weeks after his capture. There is some suspiscion that Pakistan’s intelligence service, the ISI, was worried he’d reveal how much the ISI has been helping the Taliban in Afghanistan over the years. It has been an open secret that the ISI has been riddled with Taliban sympathizers since before 9/11.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/world/asia/19intel.html
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/20100218_Captured_Taliban_chief_is_saying_little.html
Additionally, Pakistani forces rolled up two Taliban “Shadow Governors” in the aftermath.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/world/asia/19taliban.html
There’s all sorts of implications to this. First is that it briefly creates a power vacuum at the top, and that strategic planning of the Taliban may be disrupted as they scramble to re-establish a hierarchy. Another implication is that Pakistan’s leadership is finally taking the Afghan Taliban as seriously as the Pakistani Taliban, since the two organizations are strongly linked and providing each other support. Over time, as Baradar let’s things slip, it will give insight into the Taliban’s top level of strategy. While not as useful as time sensitive operational and tactical details, it still helps us develop a more effective strategy over time. He is also a bargaining chip, and the most optimistic in the DoS think he might lead to a reconciliation. The most tantalizing possibility is he could lead to the capture of UBL eventually. The latter is a long shot, but it’s also information he’d feel more inclined to divulge, since he could be convinced that if the US gets UBL, they’ll be less inclined to stick around in Afghanistan with no lingering causus belli.
Afghanistan
The assault on Marjah is on, and darned if I can make out who’s winning this one. The Coalition and the Afghanis are making extremely slow progress. It may take a full month to secure the town of only 80,000 people. The reasons behind this are primarily extremely tight rules of engagement (ROE) designed to minimize civilian casualties. Airpower is extremely difficult to come by as a result.
However, that still hasn’t been enough to prevent them. On the second day of the assault someone in the army screwed up a call for artillery fired, and planted a pair of rockets into a home 600 yards away from the intended target, killing 12 civilians. The army withdrew the weapon while investigating, the put it back into play Wednesday.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aP9PlZjNrXXo
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-afghanistan-civilians18-2010feb18,0,4359902.story
It hasn’t taken long for the Taliban fighters to figure out our ROE, and exploit them to the maximum extent possible, including liberal use of human shields.
http://www.fayobserver.com/Articles/2010/02/15/976418
http://www.usatoday.com/NEWS/usaedition/2010-02-18-marjah18_ST_U.htm?csp=34
Military casualties have been relatively low: 12 killed so far. However, right now I think the Taliban are winning this one for several reasons:
1. They have their propaganda tool already: those 12 civilians killed by the coalition, and in one go, are enough for them to stir up a lot of hate and fear towards the coalition going forward.
2. It doesn’t matter if only 10% of the population supports the Taliban, you look pretty freaking tough when 400 or so of your fighters can hold off 3,000+ US Marines for a month. Never mind the fact that the Marines are fighting with both hands tied behind their backs due to ROE. It’s still an information operations victory. Think Alamo, or Wake Island. Makes for one hell of a rallying cry.
On another note, a British officer remarked in the 19th Century that “An Afghan’s loyalty cannot be bought, it can only be rented. Apparently 25 Afghani policemen defected this week over pay issues. Oh, and they took their vehicles and heavy weapons with them. Oops.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/world/asia/19police.html
Iran
Iran’s “punch” at the west never clearly emerged last week. Was it their extremely effective suppression of green movement protests before they even began? Was is the declaration they had already enriched uranium to 20%? More likely than not, (hindsight being 20-20) their comments were intended for primarily domestic audiences. Based on articles out there Revolutionary Guard Basiji intimidation, plus government interference in electronic media prevented the protests from taking off. Based on the article below (and a little easy math) pro-government turn out outnumbered anti-government protesters 25-1.
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/iran-general-/clashes-erupt-at-major-anti-government-protests-in-iran-19708.html
Any Western leader hoping for changes from within needs to just forget it. It’s not happening. Consider the abject failure that is North Korea, and you get an idea how long these guys can hang onto power.
On the nuclear front, the usually cautious and diplomatic IAEA has weighed in on Iran, and has declared they have strong evidence I ran has been working on nuclear warheads since 2004. The IAEA report, in particular, dumps on the 2007 NIE that declared Iran hadn’t actively been working on a warhead since 2003.
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/nuclear/inspectors-say-iran-worked-on-warhead-19765.html
“In fact, some in the Obama administration suspect that Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps or its leading religious leaders are betting that an escalation of the nuclear confrontation might distract attention from the protests that have rocked the government, while unifying the country against outsiders supposedly trying to suppress Iran’s rise as a significant power.”
I’m not sure who’s doing the mental math, but it’s one hell of an assumption to bet the existence of your country on the assumption the Israelis will pull their punches. You only unify the country if there’s a country left to unify.
“In its report, the institute also questioned Iran’s moving most of its stocks of low-enriched uranium into the plant at Natanz, which is doing the high enrichment. The transfer, it said, implied that Iran planned to enrich it all to higher levels and produce “far in excess” of any fuel needed for its stated purpose of fueling a medical reactor in Tehran.”
This is another line crossed. Based on the assessment that Iran is working for miniaturization, it implies a more sophisticated warhead. That gives us as little as 18 months before they are a nuclear armed power. They’re getting close. Gut feeling tells me that the outcome of this situation will be what comes to define the Obama administration. Will it be President Carter and the Desert One, or more like Regan and Operation Praying Mantis? Time will tell. The only sure thing is that oil prices will be going up.
Oh, did I mention the administration has ruled out any options but diplomacy and unilateral sanctions?
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/iran-general-/us-has-no-plan-for-military-action-against-iran-clinton-19760.html
Given that Iran is producing modern indigenously built guided missile frigates despite the weapons trade sanctions placed on them, it should be pretty clear how much of a chance sanctions have of working.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100219/wl_mideast_afp/iranmilitarynavyship_20100219131740
Again, Israel has pretty well figured they’re on their own, but they’re going to wait until the last minute (or some ideal moment when the rest of the world is already absolutely disgusted with Iran), to do something to deflect international criticism.
Israel
It looks like Israel got it’s hand caught in the cookie jar recently. On 20 JAN 2010 a senior Hamas commander, Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, was found murdered in his hotel room in Dubai. Reports indicate he was both electrocuted and suffocated. Ouch.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE61H17M.htm
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100218/D9DUJ2G01.html
France and the U.K. were both infuriated, but has nothing to do with the dead terrorist. Those responsible used forged British and French passports of dual citizenship Israelis. Apparently, the Brits (at least) had a standing gentlemen’s agreement with the Mossad that British passports were never to be used for their activities. In return, the Brits and the Mossad shared intelligence. This is in danger now, and the U.K. is threatening to server intelligence ties with the Israelis. Additionally, the Israeli Ambassador to the U.K. was summoned to address the issue and offer an explanation.
I don’t think the Israeli’s expected the UAE police to bas as competent as they have been. This hurts their standing with the Europeans, right at the moment when they’re begging large European nations (like Germany and France) to unilaterally slap heavy duty sanctions on Iran. Not sure what their game is, but one or more of the following may be true:
1. They never expected it to go down this way,
2. This guy was way too juicy a target to pass up
3. They never gave a flying fig about the Europeans imposing sanctions on Iran, since they don’t expect them to work worth a damn anyway.
4. It wasn’t really the Mossad. Some of the people captured are Palestinian, and lots of Fatah members wanted this Hamas guy dead.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Weekly Intel Update for 9 FEB 2010
I’m rushing to get this one out, something big may be brewing, and we’ll all get to see it on the news when we wake up on the morning of Thursday, February the 11th.
Iran
Both Ayatollah Khameini and President Amadhinejad have told the press that they are going to do something to humiliate the west on the 11th. They have been deliberately cryptic about what it is. Based on both of them saying this, it’s probably not just bluster, this is something they’ve been planning for a while.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.e0b08e9e64fe15a987c1cf73dd8c5fe2.521&show_article=1
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/01/31/iran.protests/index.html?section=cnn_latest
OK, so what could they be referring to? The normal possibilities don’t seem to fit. Iran already announced the production of several new indigenously produced weapons systems (two drones, and a long range missile system they claim is better than the oft delayed Russian S-300 (NATO code SA-20)) this past week. Perhaps they are saving up a bigger weapons system announcement, but it seems unlikely. Iran’s attempts at indigenously produced weapons systems have had middling results at best over the past 15 years. So, if they announced that they were going to build their own submarines, we would probably either know about it already (tough to hide something that big), or it would end up being nothing more than bragging about pipe dreams.
http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-45987720100208
They already had a space launch last week (see the previous weekly update for details and snarky comments). It’s possible they could launch something bigger. Perhaps a spy satellite? An extended range ballistic missile that can hit all of Europe (including the UK?) Maybe an astronaut with a lot of Chinese help? Seems unlikely again, because we’d probably have more forewarning. Missiles are tough to hide, and launching something obviously designed and built by the Chinese is sort of ho-hum, like carrying a foreign national on the space shuttle. Also, Iran celebrated the revolution last year by launching its first satellite. Not much shock and awe there either, sort of like giving your wife the same thing for her birthday two years running.
A more intriguing option is that Iran is planning to massacre the green movement (including the leadership, maybe they’ll get a show trial before they’re hung) en masse when they protest on Thursday. It would certainly crush western hopes for regime change (and strike at our arrogance for believing the Islamic Republic would fall). The clerics and the regime have been laying the ground work for a massacre for a long time. Revolutionary guard commanders promising forceful responses to protesters, clerics issuing edicts declaring the protesters as enemies of God and tools of the West. The green movement has been calling for protests. There will definitely be clashes Thursday, but how bloody they turn out to be is entirely up to the regime. My money says it’s going to be extraordinarily bad.
As mentioned last week, a final (and least likely possibility) is a nuclear test. This seems very unlikely, but of all the possibilities this would seem to be the one with the most shock value. Most experts don’t believe Iran has enough super high enriched uranium….yet. This week they announced they will be enriching their stocks to 20% for “medical research.” Right. With this move, even Russia doesn’t seem to be buying their claims of “peaceful purposes” anymore (although they still won’t support anything but targeted sanctions, not general economic ones). China, of course, has not changed their stance.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/02/09/iran.uranium.enrichment/index.html?hpt=T2
The practical upshot is that experts think it will take about a year to get it up to 20%, but that’s the 80% solution, since getting it up to 90% (weapons grade) will only take another 6 months after that. However, it indicates that Iran probably doesn’t have a nuke yet, making a nuclear test on the 11th seem unlikely.
So, I’ve snuck downstairs and given the box Iran has wrapped for us a good shake. Sounds like a massacre; a combination between Tianamen Square and night of the long knives, where they aim to take out both the rank and file of the green movement and the leadership (Moussavi) in the same day.
Iraq
Vice President Biden has convinced the Iraqi government to hold off on the political suspensions until after the election. The idea is that most of the people who were banned from the election probably won’t win anyway, so it will really cut down on the number of appeals the judiciary will have to hear in the aftermath. The most obvious argument afterwards will be that this still influenced the election, since people will be discouraged from voting for a candidate who will likely be disqualified anyway.
That doesn’t mean things are really much better though.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20100208/cm_thenation/1096527708_1
Iraq is falling further and further under the sway of Iran, and unless something changes radically (like Iran ceasing to be a military or economic power very suddenly), it will continue down this path until they are a proxy state similar to Syria.
China
A bit far afield for this blog, but a pair of recent articles highlights exactly what kind of trouble we’re in, and how we got here.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article7017951.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797093
Here’s the quote that really got me:
“We should retaliate with an eye for an eye and sell arms to Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela,” declared Liu Menxiong, a member of the Chinese people’s political consultative conference. He added: “We have nothing to be afraid of. The North Koreans have stood up to America and has anything happened to them? No. Iran stands up to America and does disaster befall it? No.”
What this illustrates is that the concept of being afraid to flex military causing enemies to be emboldened is not just a neo-con fantasy. This is in relatively left leaning newspaper, and in our opponents own words. Our handling of North Korea and Iran has made the US look like a paper tiger to many. A policy of talk first, last and always serves to destabilize the situation, possibly more so than kicking in the door the way we did with Iraq.
Another good article on how the China basically has the US in a sleeper hold we can’t break out of:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/china_debt_bomb_onc23nzJdiQR7gTLkrwSpL
Can’t really see a good way out of this one, other than to slash entitlements (medicare, Medicaid, social security) since discretionary spending is only a small portion of the budget. Raising taxes would likely be necessary as well. However, those options are not politically viable, and thus we'll have to go off the economic cliff before we change.
Israel
Israel is screaming for tough sanctions. Same as always. Still unlikely to get what they’re asking for, especially with a bellicose and intransigent China running interference, and Russia unwilling to do more than targeted sanctions.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE6181A8.htm
On another note, Netanyahu is parked in Israel again. I suspect they have most of their top defense people back in country as well while they try to figure out just what the Feb 11th surprise is.
Afghanistan
The coalition is still loudly announcing its plan for an assault on Marjah, while coordinating with local civilians to try to reduce casualties.
After some careful thought, I’m revising my estimate of what the outcome will be here. This is going to end up looking a lot like Fallujah: tons of booby traps, the important bad guys will be long gone, and a small core group of lower level martyrs and a very small level of mid level folks will be left behind to inflict casualties on the marines via traps, and carefully set ambushes in ideal locations. The Taliban doesn’t have that many people, relatively, so it can’t afford a true stand up fight. However, if it can exact roughly equal casualties with US forces via lots and lots of IEDs (perhaps thousands have already been planted) and some well coordinated ambushes, this upcoming fight becomes a strategic victory for them, particularly in terms of Information Warfare.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Feb 4th 2010
*Breaking News*
British MI5 indicates that the latest threat to airliners may not, in fact, be explosives carried in the nether regions. However, the idea of using female bombers and placing the explosives in traditionally taboo areas on / in their bodies is gaining traction in the jihadist community. It's PETN based breast augmentation.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=123758
It sounds nutty at first, but it makes perfect sense when you think about it. Without being juvenile, you would have to really palpate the area to notice that it didn't feel right. Can you imagine the havoc it would cause if women now had to have their breasts groped up in order to board a plane? How about if someone who didn't actually have a bomb got frisked? And they were Muslim / Arabic looking / had an Arabic sounding name? All you can eat trial lawyer smorgasboard.
British MI5 indicates that the latest threat to airliners may not, in fact, be explosives carried in the nether regions. However, the idea of using female bombers and placing the explosives in traditionally taboo areas on / in their bodies is gaining traction in the jihadist community. It's PETN based breast augmentation.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=123758
It sounds nutty at first, but it makes perfect sense when you think about it. Without being juvenile, you would have to really palpate the area to notice that it didn't feel right. Can you imagine the havoc it would cause if women now had to have their breasts groped up in order to board a plane? How about if someone who didn't actually have a bomb got frisked? And they were Muslim / Arabic looking / had an Arabic sounding name? All you can eat trial lawyer smorgasboard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)