Iranian Aircraft Carriers in the Gulf of Mexico - Satire

 Exclusive: New Iranian Commando Team Operating Near U.S.

(Tehran, FNA) The Fars News Agency has confirmed with the Republican Guard’s North American Operations Command that a new elite Iranian commando team is operating in the U.S.-Mexican border region. The primary day-to-day mission of the team, known as the Joint Special Operations Gulf of Mexico Task Force, or JSOG-MTF, is to mentor Mexican military units in the border areas in their war with the deadly drug cartels.  The task force provides “highly trained personnel that excel in uncertain environments,” Maj. Amir Arastoo, a spokesman for Republican Guard special operations forces in North America, tells Fars, and “seeks to confront irregular threats...”

The unit began its existence in mid-2009 -- around the time that Washington rejected the Iranian leadership’s wish for a new diplomatic dialogue. But whatever the task force does about the United States -- or might do in the future -- is a sensitive subject with the Republican Guard.  “It would be inappropriate to discuss operational plans regarding any particular nation,” Arastoo says about the U.S.

January 30, 2012 "Tom Dispatch" - - Okay, so I made that up.  Sue me.  But first admit that, a line or two in, you knew it was fiction.  After all, despite the talk about American decline, we are still on a one-way imperial planet.  Yes, there is a new U.S. special operations team known as Joint Special Operations Task Force-Gulf Cooperation Council, or JSOTF-GCC, at work near Iran and, according to Wired magazine’s Danger Room blog, we really don’t quite know what it’s tasked with doing (other than helping train the forces of such allies as Bahrain and Saudi Arabia). More

 Given that the US has at least two carrier battle groups in the Persian Gulf, which is not America's geographical sphere of influence, Iran having aircraft carriers in the Gulf of Mexico should not disturb the Pentagon in he least. Editor.

The Rohingya: Myanmar's outcasts

 This article is the first in a series by Ambassador Akbar Ahmed, a former Pakistani high commissioner to the UK, exploring how a litany of volatile centre/periphery conflicts with deep historical roots were interpreted after 9/11 in the new global paradigm of anti-terrorism - with profound and often violent consequences. Incorporating in-depth case studies from Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, Ambassador Ahmed will ultimately argue that the inability for Muslim and non-Muslim states alike to either incorporate minority groups into a liberal and tolerant society or resolve the "centre vs periphery" conflict is emblematic of a systemic failure of the modern state - a breakdown which, more often than not, leads to widespread violence and destruction. The violence generated from these conflicts will become the focus, in the remainder of the 21st century, of all those dealing with issues of national integration, law and order, human rights and justice. 

 

Washington, DC - The image of a smiling Daw Aung San Suu Kyi receiving flowers from her supporters is a powerful message of freedom and optimism in Myanmar, the symbol of democracy in a country which has known nothing but authoritarian oppression for decades.

Yet few ask one of the most pressing questions facing Daw Suu Kyi. How will she deal with the Rohingya?

"The Rohingya," you will ask. "Who are they?"  

The Rohingya, whom the BBC calls "one of the world's most persecuted minority groups", are the little-publicised and largely forgotten Muslim people of the coastal Rakhine state of western Myanmar. Their historic lineage in Rakhine dates back centuries, as fishermen and farmers. Over the past three decades, the Rohingya have been systematically driven out of their homeland by Myanmar's military junta and subjected to widespread violence and the total negation of their rights and citizenship within Myanmar. They are a stateless Muslim minority.

The continued tragedy of the unrecognised Rohingya, both in Myanmar and as refugees abroad, casts a dark shadow over the bright hopes and prospects for democracy in a country plagued by violence and civil war. Suu Kyi is ideally placed to extend democratic reforms to all ethnic peoples, including the Rohingya, in a free Myanmar. More

 

Is the World Really Safer Without the Soviet Union? By Mikhail Gorbachev

 January 29, 2012 “The Nation” — Since the breakup of the Soviet Union twenty years ago, Western commentators have often celebrated it as though what disappeared from the world arena in December 1991 was the old Soviet Union, the USSR of Stalin and Brezhnev, rather than the reforming Soviet Union of perestroika. 

Moreover, discussion of its consequences has focused mostly on developments inside Russia. Equally important, however, have been the consequences for international relations, in particular lost alternatives for a truly new world order opened up by the end of the cold war.   

 

Following my election as general secretary of the Communist Party in March 1985, the Soviet leadership formulated a new foreign policy agenda. One of the key ideas of our reforms, or perestroika, was new political thinking, based on the recognition of the world’s interconnectedness and interdependence. The top priority was to avert the threat of nuclear war. Our immediate international goals included ending the nuclear arms race, reducing conventional armed forces, settling numerous regional conflicts involving the Soviet Union and the United States, and replacing the division of the European continent into hostile camps with what I called a common European home. More

 

US DoD 2012 Defence Budget - Priorities and Choices

 Nave delays new nuclear sub by at least two years.

The debate over defense spending will light its afterburner Thursday afternoon, when SecDef Leon Panetta and Army General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, invite us into the Pentagon kitchen and show us how they plan to use their knives to trim $487 billion from military spending over the coming decade.

Before the hyperbole begins (oops – sorry – too late for that) check out this “reader’s guide” to the looming fight by Jeff Smith of the Center for Public Integrity (before that, he was a long-time national-security reporter at the Washington Post). Smith straight-forwardedly answers key questions on the defense budget’s size, its impact on job creation, and to what extent the Adminstration is simply trying to cram a strategy into a skinnier wallet. More

US 2012 Defence Budget - Priorities and Choices

All Silk Roads Lead to Tehran

 Sanctions aren't the answer. If Washington is serious about building a new economic and security architecture across South and Central Asia, it can’t avoid working with Iran.

Speaking last September on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly, Secretary Hillary Clinton articulated the U.S. government's vision of a "New Silk Road" running through Afghanistan. In a throwback to the circuit that once connected India and China with Turkey and Egypt, she argued in favor of a network of road, rail, and energy links that would traverse Central Asia and enable Turkmen gas to fuel the subcontinent's economic growth, cotton from Tajikistan to fill India's textile mills, and Afghan produce to reach markets across Asia. 

By enhancing economic integration, the strategy aims to boost local economies and stabilize the region. There are certainly doubts about the plan's feasibility. But at least, after years of endlessly repeating the myth that Afghanistan is the "graveyard of empires," this new Silk Road recognizes that, from the times of the ancient Persians to Alexander the Great, and through the Mongols, Mughals, and Sikhs, Afghanistan was at the center of global exchange.This effort has the dual benefit of distributing the Afghan burden away from Pakistan, which has long been America's only link to Central Asia. 

 

For decades, Washington's dependence on Islamabad has amounted to U.S. support for a Pakistani military-economic complex that has played a bloody double game in Afghanistan, uses terrorists and militants as strategic weapons, and has proven the world's most flagrant nuclear proliferator. And it's working: By late 2011, increased use of the Northern Distribution Network (NDN) through Central Asia shifted NATO's dependence on Pakistan from bearing nearly 70 percent of its supplies and fuel in previous years to less than 30 percent today. But the NDN comes with pitfalls of its own, giving Russia and Kyrgyzstan increased leverage over U.S. supply lines, forcing the United States to turn a blind eye to unsavory dictators in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, and costing three times more than shipping from the Arabian Sea. More

 

UNDP Calls for “Energy Plus” Approach to Reduce Poverty in Asia and the Pacific

 19 January 2012: A report by the UN Development Programme (UNDP) calls for an “energy plus” approach to sustainably reduce poverty by combining access to modern energy for heating, cooking and electricity with measures for income generation and improvement of health and education services.

 

The report, “Towards an ‘Energy Plus’ Approach for the Poor,” is based of a review of 17 energy access projects implemented by governments, development agencies and the private sector in Asia-Pacific  

The report further explains that energy access projects and programmes that combined the delivery of energy services with income-generating measures – such as business development, information support, access to capital and market linkages measures – had higher potential to reduce poverty sustainably. The report considered projects in the following countries: the Philippines, China, Nepal, Fiji, India, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Timor-Leste, and Vanuatu. [Publication: Towards an 'Energy Plus' Approach for the Poor: A Review of Good Practices and Lessons Learned from Asia and the Pacific] [UN Press Release]

 

Pakistan: Turmoil and Spillover

 Pakistan: Turmoil and spillover  -- Pakistan's economic and security challenges will become more difficult in 2012, driven by weak governance, the spread of extremism, and deteriorating ties with the U.S.. The state will not collapse, but the risk of severe political instability is growing, not just for Pakistan but also the region, as the U.S. withdraws from Afghanistan.

---

Q- What are the Pakistani government's biggest problems?

A- There is the weak economy, the government's deteriorating finances, a hostile military, judges spoiling for a fight over corruption charges, determined militants who have proven they can strike virtually anywhere inside the country, and worsening ties with a key source of direct and indirect financial aid -- the United States. Flooding last year did considerable damage to exports of rice and cotton, undermining the country's balance of payments position. Higher electricity subsidies and renewed pressure for large financial bailouts for cash-strapped public sector enterprises (especially airlines and railways) will also limit the government's ability to mind the budgetary gap.

The best thing this government has going for it is that neither the opposition nor the military wants responsibility for this mess and aren't ready to try to force the ruling party from power -- at least not yet.

Q- How does the beginning of withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan feed these problems and what is the risk of spillover?

A- A smaller U.S. footprint in the region will feed financial insecurity in Pakistan, because Washington will probably reduce development aid to the country and roll back Coalition Support Funds, a reimbursement program for Pakistan's counter-terrorism cooperation. Pakistan isn't totally dependent on U.S. aid, but it does plan on external financing from the U.S. and other donors when it prepares a domestic budget. More

 

Multilateral Cooperation For Security

The Institute of Strategic Studies, Islamabad (ISSI) organized the seminar titled “Multilateral Cooperation for Security: The Example of Chemical Weapons Conventions (CWC)”, with the collaboration of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Quaid-e-Azam University Department of International Relations, Institute of Strategic Studies, Research & Analysis (ISSRA), National Defense University (NDU) and the South Asian Strategic Stability Institute (SASSI).

Left to Right: Shakir Bachaa, Dr. Ahmet Uzumcu - D-G OPCW, Dr. Maria Sultan - D-G SASSI, Dr. Zafar Jaspal 

The Director-General of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPWC) Dr Ahmet Uzumcu acknowledged Pakistan’s immensely constructive role in helping the OPCW reach its target of a world free of chemical weapons. In his address, Dr Uzumcu recognized that the value and importance of multilateralism depended greatly on sustainable progress. He said that the case of chemical weapons in particular should provide hope and encouragement, describing the objective of the CWC as encompassing peace and security as the collective responsibility of all member states and verified the destruction of over 71 percent of international weapon stockpiles. More

Three Pots of Tea

 Peace in Afghanistan Depends on Its Leaders, Neighbors, and Security Forces

There are three key ingredients for peace in Afghanistan. Afghan leaders must negotiate a peace. Afghan neighbors must respect the peace. And Afghan soldiers and police must keep the peace.

Only the Afghan parties should take part in the formal negotiations over their country’s future. But all of the major external stakeholders, including India, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, and the United States, should conduct parallel, less-formal discussions, with a view to exercising convergent influence on the Afghan parties. All potential parties to a peace treaty accept that the Taliban must be involved in negotiations and granted some role in the resulting government. 

As for keeping the peace, there is likely no organization in the world other than the U.S. Army that can train security forces on the scale needed in places like Afghanistan. But current U.S. Army doctrine is insufficient for this task, and Western models for security forces may not work in Afghanistan. Developing and fielding 

host-nation forces that take the unique context of the country into account will be critical. So will be the army’s selection of advisers and preparation of leaders.

Pacifying Afghans and Their Neighbors

Agreement among the main Afghan parties is a necessary but not sufficient condition for peace. Unlike Iraq and Yugoslavia, which are strong states riven by even stronger ethnic antipathies, Afghanistan is a weak polity that has been torn apart by its near and more-distant neighbors, not unlike the hapless sheep that is pulled apart by mounted riders in buzkashi, the Central Asian version of polo. Until these neighboring countries sense that there is a credible endgame for an Afghan peace accord that protects their interests, they have every incentive to continue meddling destructively and to promote divisions among Afghans. To succeed, any peace process must include Afghanistan’s neighbors. More

Iran, the U.S. and the Strait of Hormuz Crisis

 The United States reportedly sent a letter to Iran via multiple intermediaries last week warning Tehran that any attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz constituted a red line for Washington. 

The same week, a chemist associated with Iran's nuclear program was killed in Tehran. In Ankara, Iranian parliamentary speaker Ali Larijani met with Turkish officials and has been floating hints of flexibility in negotiations over Iran's nuclear program.

This week, a routine rotation of U.S. aircraft carriers is taking place in the Middle East, with the potential for three carrier strike groups to be on station in the U.S. Fifth Fleet's area of operations and a fourth carrier strike group based in Japan about a week's transit from the region. Next week, Gen. Michael Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will travel to Israel to meet with senior Israeli officials. And Iran is scheduling another set of war games in the Persian Gulf for February that will focus on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' irregular tactics for closing the Strait of Hormuz.

While tensions are escalating in the Persian Gulf, the financial crisis in Europe has continued, with downgrades in France's credit rating the latest blow. Meanwhile, China continued its struggle to maintain exports in the face of economic weakness among its major customers while inflation continued to increase the cost of Chinese exports. More

 

Policy draft to mitigate climate effects

 PAKISTAN’S climate change policy whose draft took more than a year to be readied is now under print and may be presented to the federal cabinet for approval in a few weeks.

The draft will unveil an action plan to mitigate adverse effects of extreme weather events as witnessed in 2010 and again in 2011 and likely to face more such happenings in the years to come.

The subject is partially covered by Pakistan Environmental Protection Act 1997 and the National Environment Policy, 2005, but they have proved to be ineffective for lack of implementation of the suggested measures. A high-level committee appointed by the prime minister to coordinate actions on climate change has failed to meet even once in the past three years.

How far the climate change policy will succeed in motivating the bureaucracy to meet the challenge is difficult to foresee. But the magnitude of the challenge — rise in temperatures, frequency of heavy rains and floods, large-scale damages to property and infrastructure, rehabilitation of climate refugees and losses in agricultural output — is too enormous that it hardly provides any room for lethargy, inefficiency and corrupt practices on the part of relevant authorities.

The draft will address the issues of adaptation to the changes in climate and their impact on sectors such as irrigation, energy, crop patterns, clean water, transport, disaster management and capacity building of several departments. Besides, people in Pakistan will have to be prepared to learn to live and cope with most of the changes in climate in the future. More

 

13 Reasons For The US Not To Attack Iran

 A U.S. ambassador in Europe was recently asked by an Israeli ambassador what could be done to improve the lousy relations between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Obama. He replied: “Every once in a while, say thank you.”

The American ambassador added a couple of other thoughts. “Maybe, once in a while, ask the president if there’s anything you can do for him. And above all stay out of our election-year politics.”

This sharp riposte reflects Obama’s fury at several things: the way Netanyahu has gone over his head to a Republican-dominated Congress where he is a darling; Netanyahu’s ingratitude for solid U.S. support, including the veto of an anti-settlements resolution at the United Nations last year and opposition to the unilateral Palestinian pursuit of statehood; the delaying tactics of Netanyahu reflecting his conviction Obama is likely a one-term president; and Netanyahu’s refusal to pause a second time in settlement building for the sake of peace negotiations.

I would add a further piece of advice to Netanyahu if he cares about his dysfunctional relationship with Obama — and he should because Israelis know the United States matters and might be disinclined to re-elect a man who has poisoned relations with Washington. That advice is: Do not attack Iran this spring or summer.

Netanyahu is tempted to bomb Iran in the next several months to set back its opaque nuclear program and — despite a call from Obama last Thursday and messages from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta — has declined to reassure the United States that he will not. Several factors, Iranian and American, incline Netanyahu to move soon.

The first is the Israeli judgment that Iran is close to “irreversibility” in its pursuit of the various elements — from uranium enrichment to trigger mechanisms — needed for a nuclear warhead. The start of enrichment at the Fordow underground facility near Qum intensified these concerns, as has Iran’s bellicose tone in response to threatened oil sanctions. More

 

Western intelligence sources tell Time Magazine Israel's Mossad targeted Iranian scientist

 Western intelligence sources told Time magazine on Friday that Israel’s Mossad is responsible for the latest assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientist.

A magnetic bomb was attached to the door of 32-year-old Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan’s car during the Wednesday morning rush-hour in Tehran. His driver was also killed. Sources tell the magazine Israel was behind three previous assassinations of scientists. 

A senior Israeli official told is quoted in the report as saying “yeah, one more… I don’t feel sad for him.”On Saturday, Iranian state television said that Iran had evidence the United States was behind the latest assassination. We have reliable documents and evidence that this terrorist act was planned, guided and supported by the CIA,” the Iranian foreign ministry said in a letter handed to the Swiss ambassador in Tehran, state TV reported.“The documents clearly show that this terrorist act was carried out with the direct involvement of CIA-linked agents.” 

 The Swiss Embassy has represented U.S. interests in Iran since Iran and the U.S. cut diplomatic ties shortly after the 1979 Islamic revolution.Tension has mounted between Iran and the West as the United States and European Union prepare measures aimed at imposing sanctions on the Iran’s oil exports, its economic lifeblood.The United States and Israel have not ruled out military action if diplomacy fails to resolve the nuclear dispute.Also on Saturday, the Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. has stepped up contingency planning in case Israel launches a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. More

Superpower Adrift In An Alien World

Here’s the ad for this moment in Washington (as I imagine it): Militarized superpower adrift and anxious in alien world. Needs advice. Will pay. Pls respond qkly. PO Box 1776-2012, Washington, DC. 

Here’s the way it actually went down in Washington last week: a triumphant performance by a commander-in-chief who wants you to know that he’s at the top of his game.When it came to rolling out a new 10-year plan for the future of the U.S. military, the leaks to the media began early and the message was clear. One man is in charge of your future safety and security. His name is Barack Obama. And -- not to worry -- he has things in hand.Unlike the typical president, so the reports went, he held six (count 'em: six!) meetings with top  Pentagon officials, the Joint Chiefs, the service heads, and his military commanders to plan out the next decade of American war making. And he was no civilian bystander at those meetings either. On a planet where no other power has more than two aircraft carriers in service, he personally nixed a Pentagon suggestion that the country’s aircraft carrier battle groups be reduced from 11 to 10, lest China think our power-projection capabilities were weakening in Asia. 

His secretary of defense, Leon Panetta, spared no words when it came to the president’s role, praising his “vision and guidance and leadership” (as would Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Martin E. Dempsey).  described Obama’s involvement thusly: “[T]his has been an unprecedented process, to have the president of the United States participate in discussions involving the development of a defense strategy, and to spend time with our service chiefs and spend time with our combatant commanders to get their views.” More Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities For 21st Century Leadership

 

International security requires multilateral cooperation

 ISLAMABAD - The speakers at a seminar on Tuesday stressed upon the need for mutual and sincere cooperation for the prohibition of chemical weapons in the emerging international security threats. 

The Institute of Strategic Studies, Islamabad (ISSI) organised the seminar titled “Multilateral Cooperation for Security: The Example of Chemical Weapons Conventions (CWC)”, with the collaboration of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Quaid-e-Azam University Department of International Relations, Institute of Strategic Studies, Research & Analysis (ISSRA), National Defense University (NDU) and the South Asian Strategic Stability Institute (SASSI).

Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPWC) Director General Dr Ahmet Uzumcu acknowledged Pakistan’s immensely constructive role in helping the OPCW reach its target of a world free of chemical weapons. In his address, Dr Uzumcu recognized that the value and importance of multilateralism depended greatly on sustainable progress. He said that the case of chemical weapons in particular should provide hope and encouragement, describing the objective of the CWC as encompassing peace and security as the collective responsibility of all member states and verified the destruction of over 71 percent of international weapon stockpiles. 
He said that the development of national preparedness was an essential task so that the states could respond appropriately in the eventuality of an attack or accident. He said that more than 2,000 verifications had been conducted in over 80 countries. He concluded by acknowledging the support extended by Pakistan to the OPWC and projected that by 2016, only one percent of weapons will remain to be destroyed. 
Disarmament and CWC National Authority Director General Dr Irfan Yousaf Shamsi emphasised that the CWC was the only international treaty in recent history that had unilaterally and un-categorically called for the complete destruction of chemical weapons. According to Dr Shami, both the CWC and the OPWC were fundamental cornerstones in international disarmament. More

 

Another Iranian nuclear scientist killed: part of 'covert war'?

 Tehran blamed the death of Iranian nuclear scientist Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, a deputy director at the Natanz enrichment facility, on the US and Israel.

Iranian officials decried the assassination of a scientist involved in Iran's nuclear program in Tehran today, claiming that Israel was behind the latest strike as part of a broader covert war waged by the US, Israel, and the West to slow Iran's nuclear efforts. The attack – reported by witnesses to be carried out by two men on a motorcycle, who affixed a magnetic bomb to the target car in north Tehran – fits a pattern of previous killings of Iran's nuclear scientists. It comes as Washington is increasing pressure with sanctions targeting the Central Bank and Republican presidential candidates threatening military action against Iran. 

 

The scientist killed, Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, was a deputy director at Iran's Natanz uranium enrichment facility, a professor, and a chemistry graduate of Tehran's prestigious Sharif University of Technology. Iranian officials claimed the assassins were working for Israel and the US. “The terrorist action was carried out by the hirelings of the Zionist regime and those who claim to be fighting terrorism,” Iran’s First Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi told a cabinet meeting, according to the semi-official Fars News Agency. He condemned the killing as "evidence of [foreign] government-sponsored terrorism" and vowed that it would not stop "progress" of Iran's nuclear program. More

 

The US-Iran Economic War compliments of American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)

 This amendment - for all practical purposes a declaration of economic war - was brought to you by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), on direct orders of the Israeli government under Prime Minister Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu. 

Here's a crash course on how to further wreck the global economy.

A key amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act signed by United States President Barack Obama on the last day of 2011 - when no one was paying attention - imposes sanctions on any countries or companies that buy Iranian oil and pay for it through Iran's central bank. Starting this summer, anybody who does it is prevented from doing business with the US.

This amendment - for all practical purposes a declaration of economic war - was brought to you by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), on direct orders of the Israeli government under Prime Minister Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu. 

Torrents of spin have tried to rationalize it as the Obama administration's plan B as opposed to letting the Israeli dogs of war conduct an unilateral attack on Iran over its supposed nuclear weapons program. 

Yet the original Israeli strategy was in fact even more hysterical - as in effectively preventing any country or company from paying for imported Iranian oil, with the possible exceptions of China and India. On top of it, American Israel-firsters were trying to convince anyone this would not result in relentless oil price hikes. 

Once again displaying a matchless capacity to shoot themselves in their Ferragamo-clad feet, governments in the European Union (EU) are debating whether or not to buy oil from Iran anymore. The existential doubt is should we start now or wait for a few months. Inevitably, like death and taxes, the result has been - what else - oil prices soaring. Brent crude is now hovering around $114, and the only way is up. 

Get me to the crude on time
Iran is the second-largest Organization for Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) producer, exporting up to 2.5 million barrels of oil a day. Around 450,000 of these barrels go to the European Union - the second-largest market for Iran after China. 

The requisite faceless bureaucrat, EU Energy Commissioner Gunther Ottinger, has been spinning that the EU can count on Saudi Arabia to make up the shortfall from Iran. More

 

Analysis: New rules in play when CIA drones return to Pakistan skies

 The current pause in CIA drone strikes in Pakistan is now the longest of Barack Obama’s presidency.It is 55 days (and counting) since a deadly attack on November 17 2011 killed at least seven people. 

 According to the Bureau’s extensive database on drone strikes, the last gap of similar length was in 2008. If things continue in this vein, that record will be broken next Monday (January 16).There was a pause of 59 days between March 16 and May 14 2008 under George W Bush; and a 57-day halt between December 3 2007 and January 29 2008. Before then US drone strikes were highly intermittent, often occurring months apart.Strategy shiftThe current break in drone strikes is enforced. After NATO accidentally killed 24 Pakistani soldiers in November, Islamabad effectively shut down the drone campaign.Weeks later the Long War Journal confirmed that all CIA attacks were officially on hold: ‘There is concern that another hit will push US-Pakistan relations past the point of no return. We don’t know how far we can push them, how much more they are willing to tolerate.’ an official told LWJ.The break coincided with a major policy reappraisal by Washington – and it has given Islamabad room to refocus on its own strategic needs. In the coming weeks CIA drone attacks are expected to resume in Pakistan’s tribal areas. But according to leaks and hints, there are likely to be far less strikes, and far fewer casualties.The Bureau’s records show that CIA drones struck 75 times in 2011. Some 470 to 655 people were killed in the attacks, the majority of them anonymous alleged militants. Among the dead were between 53 and 126 civilians, according to credible reports. Despite these reports, the CIA continues to claim that it has killed no civilians since May 2010. More

 

To Avoid All-Out War Give Iran One Last Chance

 Three years ago, President Barack Obama came into office with a very good idea: He would reach out to the mullahs in Iran to see whether they were interested in rethinking their hate-based relationship with the U.S.

So Obama, despite criticism from Republicans, wrote private letters to the Iranian supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and made a public appeal for a fresh start.

“In this season of new beginnings, I would like to speak clearly to Iran’s leaders,” Obama said in a message broadcast in early 2009. “We have serious differences that have grown over time. My administration is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us, and to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran and the international community.”

When the Iranian people rose up later that year, Obama only tepidly endorsed them, and he was measured in his criticism of the vicious manner in which the Iranian leadership suppressed the protests. He may have been motivated partly by an assessment that the uprising wouldn’t succeed, and that the U.S. would still have to grapple with the Iranian theocracy. His approach was neither morally nor emotionally satisfying, but it showed a certain cold logic.

Nothing happened, of course: The ayatollahs showed no interest in Obama’s entreaties.

Getting Tougher

Fast-forward three years. The Obama administration is now tougher on Iran than was the administration of George W. Bush. It has imposed the most sweeping sanctions ever placed on the country, including sanctions against the Iranian central bank. It is helping coordinate a threatened international boycott of Iranian oil (IATBXOIL). And, according to diplomatic sources I spoke to last week, it has asked its Gulf Arab allies -- including Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates -- to sharply limit their contacts with official Iranian delegations. More

 

Next Moves on North Korea

North Korean strongman Kim Jong Il may be gone, but the dangers posed by Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile programs persist. Although the long-term future of the regime under the new young ruler, Kim Jong Un, remains uncertain, it is clearly in the United States’ interest to get the much-delayed denuclearization process back on track.

A third round of U.S.-North Korean bilateral talks was to have been held in December but was delayed as news of the elder Kim’s demise broke. Those talks were expected to lead to U.S. food assistance to the impoverished North and the renewal of six-party negotiations addressing North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.

Now, as the symbolically important 100th anniversary of the birth of North Korean founder Kim Il Sung approaches, it is vital that President Barack Obama re-engage the North Korean regime and re-establish a verifiable freeze of North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs before they take yet another turn for the worse. Pyongyang has publicly and privately said it would be willing to impose such a freeze in return for resuming the six-party talks.

Given that further international sanctions and isolation will not alter the North’s behavior or precipitate “regime change,” Republicans and Democrats interested in protecting U.S. and international security have an obligation to put election-year politics aside and support the administration’s efforts to restart the nuclear talks. More

Iran: Pressure and Possibility

Facing intense political pressure, with elections due in March, and economic and currency collapse brought on by sanctions, Iran has ratcheted up its military bluster in the Strait of Hormuz and sent conciliatory messages looking toward new talks on its nuclear program. 

Meanwhile, Iran's regional support is dwindling as Syria's travails continue and its former clients look for other supporters. Military and diplomatic leaders seek to balance a firm line in response to threats to the economically vital strait while avoiding escalation that aids only extremists in Iran. They have gone out of their way as well to debunk a shoddy case for war that overstates Iran's regional power and understates the costs of force to the U.S., our economy and our allies.   

Iran proposes re-opening nuclear talks as its economy, currency reel from sanctions. The Iranian foreign ministry said yesterday that it plans to attend a meeting with international negotiating group known as the P5+1. The New York Times summarizes the pressures Tehran faces: "Iran's economy, already reeling from Western sanctions over its nuclear program, has been hit hard by discussion of new sanctions aimed at its oil exports, the world's third largest. President Obama signed new legislation on Saturday that could penalize buyers of Iranian oil, and the European Union has openly talked of a boycott of Iran's oil. On Tuesday, France urged the European Union to adopt stricter sanctions, including an oil embargo, by the end of the month. Iran's currency, the rial, fell to record lows against the dollar on Tuesday, news agencies reported. Oil prices rose sharply in trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange, with the benchmark contract for crude up more than 4 percent to $102.91 a barrel. The attempts by Iran's leadership to flex the country's muscles on the world stage coincide with efforts to stamp out dissent at home ahead of planned parliamentary elections in March, the first ballot to be held since a disputed presidential vote in 2009 prompted national protests and a severe crackdown." [ISNA,1/3/12. NY Times, 1/3/12.]

Pentagon pledges stability in Strait of Hormuz. Yesterday, in response to an Iranian threat to shut off the Strait of Hormuz, the Pentagon spokesman George Little stated: "The deployment of U.S. military assets in the Persian Gulf region will continue as it has for decades... These are regularly scheduled movements in accordance with our longstanding commitments to the security and stability of the region and in support of ongoing operations... The U.S. Navy operates under international maritime conventions to maintain a constant state of high vigilance in order to ensure the continued, safe flow of maritime traffic in waterways critical to global commerce... We are committed to protecting maritime freedoms that are the basis for global prosperity; this is one of the main reasons our military forces operate in the region." More

The Pentagon Sends US Troops to Israel. Iran is the Unspoken Target

January 2, 2012. Jerusalem. In one of the most blacked-out stories in America right now, the US military is preparing to send thousands of US troops, along with US Naval anti-missile ships and accompanying support personnel, to Israel.

It took forever to find a second source for confirmation of this story and both relatively mainstream media outlets are in Israel. With one source saying the military deployment and corresponding exercises are to occur in January, the source providing most of the details suggests it will occur later this spring. Calling it not just an “exercise”, but a “deployment”, the Jerusalem Post quotes US Lt.-Gen Frank Gorenc, Commander of the US Third Air Force based in Germany. The US Commander visited Israel two weeks ago to confirm details for “the deployment of several thousand American soldiers to Israel.” In an effort to respond to recent Iranian threats and counter-threats, Israel announced the largest ever missile defense exercise in its history. Now, it’s reported that the US military, including the US Navy, will be stationed throughout Israel, also taking part.

While American troops will be stationed in Israel for an unspecified amount of time, Israeli military personnel will be added to EUCOM in Germany. EUCOM stands for United States European Command.

In preparation for anticipated Iranian missile attacks upon Israel, the US is reportedly bringing its THAAD, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, and ship-based Aegis ballistic missile systems to Israel. The US forces will join Israeli missile defense systems like the Patriot and Arrow. The deployment comes with “the ultimate goal of establishing joint task forces in the event of a large-scale conflict in the Middle East”. More

Insanity: MAD in a world at risk

After years of delays, Russia has formally leased to India an advanced nuclear-powered submarine. For India, the move is a further indication of its shift towards the modernization of its naval capabilities. Russia, for its part, will be hoping the signing is a step away from a series of accidents that have haunted its navy for over a decade.

“The ceremony to sign the document was held on Thursday at the shipyard in Bolshoi Kamen in the Primorsky Territory, where the Nerpa nuclear submarine is currently deployed,” an official in the Russian Naval Chief of Staff’s office told ITAR-TASS on Friday.

The Indian Navy will now operate an “Akula” II nuclear attack submarine for the next ten years per a special lease agreement. The move should prove a boon to the Indian Navy, giving the country the ability to not only utilize the vessel for combat patrols and train in one of the world’s more advanced nuclear submarines, but also apply lessons learned to its own domestic nuclear submarine program.

“All of the naval tests and performance checks have been completed,” the Russian official explained.

The submarine signing is a welcome piece of good news for the Russian Navy. Russia’s armed forces have routinely been criticized for an alleged lack of focus on safety, especially since the 2000 sinking of the Russian submarine Kursk in 2000. Safety questions were again raised following a recent fire aboard a Russian Delta IV nuclear submarine,which sparked fears of a possible radiation leak. The fire started Thursday at an Arctic shipyard outside the Russian port city of Murmansk where the submarine “Yekaterinburg” was in dry dock. The fire has since been contained, with Russian officials claiming no radioactive contamination as a result of the blaze. Officials have stated the fire beganon wooden scaffolding before going on to engulf the submarine’s outer hull. The Yekaterinburg’s nuclear reactor had been shut down along with its nuclear-tipped missiles and other weaponry having been removed before being placed in dry dock. More

Acquisition and retention of nuclear weapons systems in a world facing dire resource shortages, including food and water, petroleum, rare earths, climate change and sea level rise is beyond insane, it is MAD all over again. All of the risks facing us are conflict triggers and can only be addressed if all nations work together. Who will make the first move towards nuclear disarmament? Editor

U.S. Can't Fight Two Wars at the Same Time Anymore

This week, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is poised to deliver a humbling assessment of America's military capabilities in a budget plan to the White House, reports The New York Times. The gist: The U.S. military of the future will no longer be able to fight two sustained ground wars at the same time. 

The strategic review will outline how the military can cut $450 billion from its budget, amid speculation that Congress may cut an additional $500 billion in the near future. Acknowledging an incapacity to wage two wars is not ideal, notes Andrew Krepinevich, a military expert at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, but it's better than the alternative. "You may risk losing the confidence of some allies, and you may risk emboldening your adversaries," he says. "But at the end of the day, a strategy of bluffing, or asserting that you have a capability that you don’t, is probably the worst posture of all.” So what spending priorities are dragging down the military budget? Here are some of the major ones, highlighted this week by the The Times, The Washington Post and Time. 

Military personnel costs "As it stands now, the Pentagon spends $181 billion each year, nearly a third of its base budget, on military personnel costs: $107 billion for salaries and allowances, $50 billion for health care and $24 billion in retirement pay," report Elisabeth Bumiller and Thom Shanker in the Times. "One independent analyst ... has calculated that if military personnel costs continue rising at the rate they have over the past decade, and overall Pentagon spending does not increase, by 2039 the entire defense budget would be consumed by personnel costs."

Troops in Afghanistan and beyond "Sometime this year, there must be decisions on how to downsize in Afghanistan," write The Washington Post's Walter Pincus, "and what arrangements can be made to keep U.S. forces there after 2014, whether to send military trainers back to Iraq, and how to respond if Congress authorizes dispatching Special Forces to Nigeria to assist in fighting a terrorist group, as it did when U.S. troops were sent to help battle the Lord’s Resistance Army in central Africa." More