Archive for February 23, 2013

West’s next move: Hezbollah on hit list? | ArabNews

February 23, 2013

West’s next move: Hezbollah on hit list? | ArabNews.

West’s next move: Hezbollah on hit list?

Ali Bluwi

Saturday 23 February 2013

Last Update 23 February 2013 2:27 am

In the second half of the 1970s, Zbigniew Brzezinski — the then national security adviser in Jimmy Carter administration — propounded the idea of religious curtain to confront the Soviet Union, particularly after the latter’s occupation of Afghanistan. Washington did what it took to pave the way for preparing the atmosphere in some countries by propping up some religious parties.
Against this backdrop, Amal — a Lebanese movement — came to the fore as a result of Israeli-Iranian-American agreement. It was followed by the Iranian Revolution in 1979, Hezbollah in 1982, the Islamic Salvation Movement in Sudan in 1985 and finally Hamas in 1987. However, Hamas claims that it came into being as a result of Israeli actions.
Later on, other religious movements surfaced as well. Here, we can refer to Taleban, which was formed in 1996, and the Welfare Party — an Islamist political group — in Turkey in 1983. One can also refer to the Islamist revival in Algeria in 1989, giving birth to the Islamic Salvation Front.
The main reason for the rise of Islamist movement was the need to contain the spread of communist parties, which had spread tentacles and to check the influence the Soviet Union in the region. Interestingly, America alternated its policy with regard to some revolutionary and Pan-Arab countries especially toward Libya, Iraq, Egypt, Algeria and Fatah movement in Palestine.
In addition, Washington sought to reinforce the internal strife between religious and Pan-Arab parties. It was during this era that Washington encouraged the sectarian struggle between Sunnis and Shiites especially after Iran built its policy based on its national and sectarian agendas.
Instead of confronting the Soviet Union — that eventually collapsed in 1989 — these religious parties got involved in the sectarian power struggle.
In his three books, Fouad Ajami — the Lebanese-born American university professor — argued that Washington should put its money on the Shiites rather than on the Sunnis.
In 2005, the king of Jordan warned against the Shiite Crescent that would stretch from Iran to Syria to Lebanon.
After the retreat of the communists in the beginning of the 1990s, religious parties were allowed to participate politically despite the fact that there were misgivings that these parties do not genuinely believe in democracy. In Algeria, the Salvation Front won some 188 seats out of 288 seats in 1991 elections. Not surprisingly, the ruling party did not win more than 16 seats. The Islamist party won national democratic elections, proving to be immensely popular. However, before the parliamentary seats could be taken, the Algerian military violently overturned democracy at the behest of the West.
Also in 2005, Hamas gained some 76 seats out of 132. Following the election, Israel detained many of the movement’s leaders, thus causing a semi separation between Gaza and the West Bank.
The winds of change began to blow in 2010 with all political and security analysts attributing it to the success for the Development and Justice Party (AKP) in Turkey. Then AKP-led government in Ankara advised Washington to reassess its policy toward the Muslim world and the Middle East.
There was a conference — supervised by former US Secretary of the State Medline Albright — which suggested that Washington change its policy toward the region. This took place at a time when Ankara thought that there was a chance to generalize the Turkish Islamic model as opposed to the Iranian model. Back then, three projects came to the fore: The American, Turkish, and Iranian projects. Iran supported the Shiites in Iraq, Lebanon, Bahrain and Yemen. It also reinforced its strategic alliance with Syria and the Shiite communities in the rest of the Muslim and Arab world. Additionally, Iran used Jerusalem and the Palestinian cause as an instrument of its foreign policy.
In 2008, America reached a deal with the Muslim Brotherhood under the patronage of Turkey. In January 2011, the Arab Spring took off with a sort of understanding with the military establishments both in Egypt and Tunisia.
In 2012, Osama Bin Laden’s killing ushered in a new era for the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brothers assured both America and Israel for its support for Turkish-Israeli ties. For this reason, Hamas ended its war with Israel in 2012 declaring a 20-year truce. It is only then some started talking about Hamas’ need to acknowledge Israel within 1967 borders. The withdrawal of Hamas and other Palestinian Islamic factions left Hezbollah and other radical groups on their own in the forefront. For this reason, Hezbollah was left with no options other than supporting the Assad regime. But this time Hezbollah’s arms are directed against both Lebanese and Syrians.
At the beginning of 2013, some Israeli fighters targeted a convoy transporting weapons to Hezbollah. In July 2012, Bulgaria accused Hezbollah of being involved in exploding near an airport, killing some Israeli tourists. Prior to that, India and Georgia accused Hezbollah and Iran of trying to assassinate Israeli diplomats in their countries. Just the beginning of this month, an Israel commando unit assassinated the leader of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Hassan Shatiri. Some source close to Hezbollah linked the assassination with the effort to direct the Western pubic opinion against Hezbollah. They expect that the objective of such a campaign is to put Hezbollah on the list of the terrorist groups. Washington Institute sees that the party is involved in criminal actions in Europe and in actions to destabilize Lebanon.
In his last speech on Feb. 16, 2013, Hassan Nasrallah refuted these accusations and instead threatened Israel. He realized that a series of criminal actions committed by his party would drive the international community to put the party on the terrorist lists. After the decline of its Syrian ally, Hezbollah had no choice but to hope to achieve a phony victory in Syria as in the case of Hamas that declared a 20-year truce. This begs the question whether Hezbollah was on the agenda in the last American-Russian meeting and whether there was a bigger deal?

ali.bluwi@yahoo.com

Drones, cyber-defense feature in… JPost – Iranian Threat – News

February 23, 2013

Drones, cyber-defense feature in Iran Guards drill

By JPOST.COM STAFF

02/23/2013 11:37

Iranian Revolutionary Guards launch 3-day military exercise in country’s southeast aimed at improving combat preparedness.

Iran’s Revolutinary Guard

Iran’s Revolutinary Guard Photo: REUTERS

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards began a three-day ground and air military exercise on Saturday, Iran’s Fars News Agency reported.

Fars quoted the spokesman for the Great Prophet 8 war games as saying the drills included intelligence-gathering drones as well as tests of the IRGC’s cyber-defense systems.

Related:

Iran denies backing cell plotting attacks in Nigeria

‘Iran may be advancing new way to produce nukes’

According to Fars, the drills are aimed at “maintaining and improving the combat preparedness of the IRGC ground forces, testing the latest combat systems of the IRGC Ground Force and exercising different asymmetric warfare tactics.”

The exercise was being held in the regions of Kerman, Siriz and Sirjan in southeastern Iran.

At the unveiling of an Iranian manufactured air defense system as part of a military parade in September, Revolutionary Guards General Amir Ali Hajizadeh warned Israel against attacking Iran’s nuclear facility saying, “If the Zionist regime makes such a move, there will no longer be a thing called the Zionist regime.”

On the same occasion, commander of Iran’s ground forces Brig.-Gen. Ahmad Reza Pourdastan told the semi-official Mehr news agency “The enemy will regret it if it one day decides to attack Iran. We will deliver such a response to them that they will regret their act of aggression.”

Click here for full Jpost coverage of the Iranian threat

via Drones, cyber-defense feature in… JPost – Iranian Threat – News.

Iran selects 16 sites for new nuclear power plants | Fox News

February 23, 2013

Iran selects 16 sites for new nuclear power plants

Published February 23, 2013

Associated Press

TEHRAN, Iran – Iran has selected 16 locations for the construction of nuclear power plants as part of a plan to generate 20,000 megawatts of electricity at multiple sites over the next 15 years.

State TV says Saturday that experts at the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran have finished studies to select the best locations across the country. It added that sites were chosen in part for their resistance to earthquakes and military air strikes.

The Islamic republic says it needs 20 large-scale plants to meet its growing electricity needs over the next one-and-a-half decades.

State TV also says that Iran has discovered new uranium resources in the country that will put its reserves at 4,400 tons compared to 1,527 tons three decades ago

via Iran selects 16 sites for new nuclear power plants | Fox News.

Iran’s IRGC begins major ground, air military exercise – Trend.Az

February 23, 2013

Iran’s IRGC begins major ground, air military exercise

 

Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) has begun a major ground and air military exercise that covers the eastern parts of the country, reported PressTV.

The Great Prophet 8 military exercise began on Saturday. The eastern areas that the drill covers include the cities of Kerman, Siriz and Sirjan.

In the first stage of the three-day maneuver, the IRGC Ground Forces attacked mock enemy positions, using intelligence provided by surveillance drones.

Deputy Commander of the IRGC Ground Forces Brigadier General Abdullah Araqi said on Saturday that the Great Prophet 8 drill is aimed at exercising various techniques and tactics by implementing principles of passive defense in asymmetric warfare.

The Iranian commander added that the IRGC Ground Forces were improving their defensive capabilities.

The Ground Forces will use the IRGC’s latest military innovations in the upcoming stages.

Over the past few years, Iran has held several military drills to enhance the defense capabilities of its armed forces and to test modern military tactics and equipment.

The IRGC held a three-day missile drill, dubbed the Great Prophet 7, in the central province of Semnan in July 2012.

In January 2012, the IRGC Ground Forces also held the Shohaday-e Vahdat (Martyrs of Unity) military drill in the eastern province of Khorasan Razavi.

Iran has repeatedly stated that its military might poses no threat to other countries, reiterating that its defense doctrine is based on deterrence.

via Iran’s IRGC begins major ground, air military exercise – Trend.Az.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Start War Games

February 23, 2013

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Start War Games

 

February 23, 2013

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards have begun military exercises in the south of the country.

State media reported that the three-day ground and air manoeuvres started on February 23 around the southern city of Sirjan.

State TV said that the drills are aimed at upgrading the combat readiness of the Revolutionary Guards.

TV footage showed artillery and tanks attacking hypothetical enemy positions.

Tehran has expanded military manoeuvres after international tensions grew over its nuclear programs.

Israeli officials have indicated that they could carry out military strikes to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons.

In response, senior Iranian military officials have repeatedly warned that they would deploy long-range missiles that could target Israel.

via Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Start War Games.

Iran plays al-Qaeda figure to pit Turkey against US

February 23, 2013

Iran plays al-Qaeda figure to pit Turkey against US.

Iran plays al-Qaeda figure to pit Turkey against US

Well, Iran has done it again. The mullah regime in Tehran dropped a ticking bomb on Ankara when Iranian intelligence operatives smuggled Osama bin Laden’s son-in-law Sulaiman Abu Ghaith into Turkey using human trafficking/illegal migration routes. Iranian agents put Abu Ghaith in a luxury Rixos hotel room in downtown Ankara, walking distance from Turkish Parliament, and later disclosed the information to a third country, knowing full well that the intel would be picked up by the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
The plan worked when the CIA alerted the Turkish National Intelligence Organization (MİT) with a tip on Abu Ghaith’s whereabouts, which was in turn passed on to the Turkish police. Abu Ghaith was out dining when the police seized him a day before the US Embassy attack staged by a leftist militant organization in Ankara on Feb.1. Many initially thought the suicide attack was linked to his arrest and was a response by al-Qaeda. They were wrong, but the assumption that al-Qaeda may target Turkey is a valid argument. That is why Iran, after holding Abu Ghaith for 12 years in a detention camp, decided to move him to Turkey.

Iran hopes to kill two birds with one stone by using Abu Ghaith. First, it is trying to draw the al-Qaeda terror network’s attention to Turkey by placing the organization’s former spokesperson in the hands of Turkish authorities. Since Abu Ghaith was stripped of Kuwaiti citizenship after an arrest warrant was issued by the US following the World Trade Center bombing in New York in September 2001, he married Fatima bin Laden, one of bin Laden’s numerous daughters, who is currently living in Saudi Arabia. But neither Kuwait nor Saudi Arabia wanted anything to do with him and refused Iran’s attempt to expel him to those countries.

I believe the threat of al-Qaeda against Turkey has been exacerbated with the detention of Abu Ghaith. After all, this terrorist organization does not consider Turks to be Muslims, and they have on a several occasions warned Turkey that it would suffer the consequences of cooperating with the West. Al-Qaeda, with its radical Wahhabi-Salafist ideology, views Turkey as dar al-harb, a country against which armed struggle or jihad is legitimate. Al-Qaeda terror has already taken its toll on Turkey. According to government data, seven police officers and more than 60 citizens have been killed by al-Qaeda terrorist attacks in Turkey. Simultaneous suicide attacks in İstanbul in November 2003 claimed the lives of 58 people. According to the indictment for the suspects in these bombings, one-third of the money financing the attacks came from Iran. In 2011, the police also seized 600 kilograms of explosives, foiling a planned terror attack by al-Qaeda. In 2012 alone, Turkish police arrested 254 people in various operations against al-Qaeda and its affiliate groups, resulting in the incarceration of 79 suspects.

The second motivation for Iran was to put Turkey in conflict with the US over the ensuing extradition brawl. The talks between American and Turkish officials have not resulted in handing Abu Ghaith over to the US, and this has already created a rift between Ankara and Washington, adding a new item to a long list of differences. There is a huge array of legal issues that need to be sorted out here, which makes it very difficult to extradite Abu Ghaith to the US. What is more, the Turkish authorities are very concerned that the extradition will further agitate the terrorist organization and put the lives of Turkish citizens at risk.

Since Turkish law defines terrorism as attacks against Turkish citizens and the state, Abu Ghaith did not break the anti-terror law in Turkey. Unlike the highly controversial description of a “non-combatant” in US law, Turkey does not have an equivalent term in its criminal justice system. This stands as quite a contrast to other al-Qaeda trials in Turkey. In February 2007, a Turkish court sentenced Luay Sakka, who was a Syrian financier and al-Qaeda operative, to life in prison because he was linked to the 2003 İstanbul bombings, in addition to 48 other defendants who received various jail sentences. Sakka was also connected to the Zarqawi network and was responsible for the deaths of US troops in Iraq. He was also plotting a terrorist attack on Israeli cruise ships in Turkish ports when he was arrested in August 2005.

There is a legal framework for extraditions between the US and Turkey governed by the treaty on extradition and mutual assistance in criminal matters signed in Ankara on June 7, 1979 which entered into force on Jan. 1, 1981. According to Article 7 of this treaty, the US should have submitted a detailed request explaining the offense committed, charges leveled against him, arrest warrant, facts of the case and relevant laws. Article 10 of the treaty also requires that the US furnish this information within two months from the date of arrest or detention. Otherwise, Turkish authorities may decide to let the suspect go. Different definitions of legal rules may complicate the extradition request made under this bilateral agreement.

But this is not the only problem possibly preventing Turkey from handing the suspect over to the US. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) severely limits Turkish government actions in extradition requests as was clearly seen in the case law involving Turkey at the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Because the US still enforces the death penalty in many states and as there have been abundant claims of torture for 9/11 suspects, Turkey may be violating Article 3 of the convention, which says, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” In order to satisfy Turkey’s obligations under the convention, the US needs to provide legal assurances that Abu Ghaith will not be sentenced to the death and won’t be tortured, should he be convicted in a US court of law. A recent example of this predicament was seen in the case of Fraydun Ahmet Kordian, an American citizen with Iraqi roots, who fled the US but was arrested in the airport in Istanbul in 2005 while he was en route on a connecting flight to Iraq. He was later extradited to the US to face double murder charges in California after the US had given assurances that it would not seek the death penalty. Kordian’s lawyers appealed to the ECtHR to halt the extradition process but failed to secure the court’s backing after the US satisfied Turkish concerns under the convention.

If Abu Ghaith decides to apply for refugee status or political asylum in Turkey, then the situation becomes much more complicated. Turkey ratified the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, but maintains that the geographical limitation means it is valid only for refugees from Europe. Though he was stripped off his citizenship in Kuwait, Abu Ghaith illegally entered Turkey via the Iranian border, which means that the 1951 convention protections would not apply. But national regulations adopted since 1994 have allowed non-European asylum seekers to apply for “temporary asylum seeker status” in Turkey pending their resettlement in a third country by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). This is a lengthy process, and whether or not the UNHCR or any third country is actually interested in taking up Abu Ghaith’s case remains to be seen.

The government may think it would probably be a quick fix to deport Abu Ghaith back to Iran, in accordance with national regulations, since that was his point of entry into Turkey, citing risks to national security, public safety and order. Some in government believe that this may be the best course of action under the circumstances. Ankara may invoke the 72-article-long bilateral agreement regulating judicial cooperation on legal and criminal matters between Turkey and Iran that was signed in February 2010 and became law in March 2011. Iran will probably dispute the Turkish interpretation of the relevant articles in this case and refuse to take Abu Ghaith back. However, there are other ways to make him cross the porous border with Iran, as Turkish authorities have done in the past to forcibly eject some irregular migrants.

By the way, in another twist of history, Muammer Güler was the governor of İstanbul when al-Qaeda struck with coordinated attacks in 2003, and he oversaw the implementation of government measures to go after the network in the country’s biggest metropolitan city. Now, he is interior minister, and al-Qaeda may come back again with the shadow of Abu Ghaith. It will be interesting to see how this saga eventually plays out.

Obama and Netanyahu aid Khamenei’s campaign for Iran’s next president

February 23, 2013

Obama and Netanyahu aid Khamenei’s campaign for Iran’s next presidentDEBKAfile Exclusive Report February 23, 2013, 11:44 AM GMT+02:00Tags: Iran nuclear Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Barack Obama Binyamin Netanyahu elections Yes we are close…Yes we are close… The Obama administration was unmoved by the IAEA finding that Iran had installed 180 advanced centrifuges had been installed at Natanz. Indeed, the White House said Thursday, Feb. 21 that “a diplomatic solution is still possible” for resolving nuclear issues with Iran.The International Atomic Energy Agency report came out the next day: The new IR-1m centrifuges installed in Natanz were said to enrich uranium three times faster than the outdated machines used at Natanz until now, considerably shortening Tehran’s path to a nuclear bomb. The IAEA also noted faster than expected progress in setting up the Arak plant for producing plutonium.These findings mean that the red line drawn by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu before the UN General Assembly last September – when he said Iran must not be permitted to stock 250 kilos of near weapons-grade uranium of 20 percent purity – is approaching faster than the “late-spring-early summer” deadline he set for stopping Iran before it can build a nuclear bomb.Yet, in the response to the IAEA finding of Thursday, Netanyahu’s office said only, that the report’s findings “prove that Iran continues to advance quickly to the red line” and “Iran is closer than ever to achieving enrichment for a nuclear bomb.”Administration sources report that the US is continuing to push Iran for one-on-one talks after the six powers face Iran in Kazakhstan on Feb. 26 – even though a secret round a couple of months ago was a flop. Gary Samore, the Obama aide who set it up, has since quit the White House and moved over to Harvard University.Yet Barack Obama stands by diplomatic engagement and “increased pressure” sanctions as the sole means of preventing Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has put the US president on the spot, debkafile’s intelligence sources report: He is calling in a debt. He respected Obama’s request to refrain from spoiling his campaign for reelection in November and held back from delivering the “October surprise” widely predicted by US media.Now, Tehran faces a presidential election in June and Khamenei wants to be sure that the US doesn’t upset his plans. His foremost aspiration is to block the path of the retiring president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s in-law to the presidency and replace him with a nondescript, uncharismatic figure handpicked by himself who is also a competent administrator and qualified to haul Iran out of its economic morass. Not all of Iran’s troubles are caused by sanctions; Ahmadinejad’s reign has seen plenty of dysfunction and corruption.Extreme violence is already bedeviling the Iranian campaign up to and including threats of assassination. The supreme ruler is bidding the Obama administration for some peace on quiet on the diplomatic front.According to our sources, Iran’s stormy election campaign will hold Tehran back from any real diplomatic breakthrough or progress toward definitive nuclear weaponization until a new president is elected and forms a government, some time in the fall.At the same time, the ayatollah is playing a complex double game by keeping diplomatic tensions high and avoiding any real dialogue with Washington. Indeed, he may even welcome tougher sanctions and military threats for boosting his candidate for president and letting Ahmadinejad’s candidate in for punishment at the hands of the suffering Iranian voter.Hence, the crossed signals from Washington, Europe, Israel and the IAEA. On the one hand, alarm over Tehran’s rapid advance toward a nuclear weapon capability, while on the other, insistence on doing nothing substantial beyond futile palaver to stop it. All four are playing into the ayatollah’s hands.

via Obama and Netanyahu aid Khamenei’s campaign for Iran’s next president.

Hagel’s damaged brand

February 23, 2013

Hagel’s damaged brand | The Times of Israel.

While they will no doubt lose the confirmation battle, Republicans have already achieved victory in the policy war

February 22, 2013, 11:11 pm
Former Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, President Obama's choice for defense secretary, testifies before the Senate Armed Services Committee during his confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, Jan. 31 (AP/Susan Walsh)

Former Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, President Obama’s choice for defense secretary, testifies before the Senate Armed Services Committee during his confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, Jan. 31 (AP/Susan Walsh)

WASHINGTON — Few issues have focused Washington’s contentious energies in recent weeks more than the nomination of former Nebraska senator and maverick Republican Chuck Hagel to the post of defense secretary.

Republican senators have delayed, chastised and publicly humiliated the nominee at every opportunity. Democrats, while quietly toeing the line for the president, have expressed their own reservations and even, discreetly, asked the White House if there wasn’t a better candidate available.

What’s surprising is not the level of opposition to Hagel’s candidacy, but that it surprised anyone when it surfaced. Hagel has been an outspoken critic of many of the signature Republican foreign policy positions of recent years, vociferously opposing Bush’s Iraq policy, openly calling for diplomatic contact with terror groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, and speculating with apparent equanimity that the ayatollahs of Iran would responsibly wield a nuclear weapon.

Considering the gap between many of his positions and those of even Democratic senators, it should also not surprise anyone that the fight over Hagel has not been a clean one. His detractors suffered a blow this week when one of the growing number of circumstantial claims against him — that he once received money from a nonexistent group called “Friends of Hamas” — turned out to be either an honest misunderstanding of a joke, or a dishonest one.

Hagel’s supporters, meanwhile, have been forced to tread carefully around the fairly obvious point that the former senator has spent the past few months disavowing — with suspiciously convenient timing — the very positions that have come to define him politically.

In the end, nearly everyone in Washington concedes that Hagel will be the next secretary of defense. The president has stood by his choice, and the arithmetic, at least in the Senate, is heavily tilted in favor of the president.

Why, then, have Hagel’s opponents clung so stubbornly to their doomed campaign? In the pro-Israel camp, most centrist groups, including the camp’s 900-pound gorilla AIPAC, have pointedly sat out the fight, in no small measure because they didn’t want to be seen to lose it.

What do groups such as the Emergency Committee for Israel, Christians United for Israel or ZOA, not to mention senators Lindsey Graham, Kelly Ayotte, John McCain, Ted Cruz, and others, gain from continuing to challenge the confirmation?

Simply put: while they will no doubt lose the confirmation battle, in an important sense they have already won the policy war.

Since Obama’s reelection victory in November, the parties in Washington have jostled for position in an attempt to determine the political significance of the reelection. Obama has signaled a more aggressive commitment to pursuing progressive domestic policies while Republicans have tried to show they still have some power to hinder their implementation.

By opposing Hagel’s nomination so stridently, his opponents have already forced the former senator to publicly retract and apologize for past statements and views. And by continuing the fight, they have almost guaranteed that Hagel’s tenure as secretary of defense will be hopelessly politicized. Both Republicans who dislike him and Democrats who grudgingly backed him will be watching the new secretary closely for signs of weakness or a return to his unpopular past views.

It’s an especially inauspicious start following the widely celebrated and largely apolitical tenures of the past and current defense secretaries, Bob Gates and Leon Panetta. Hagel will begin his tenure with a level of partisan suspicion and dislike unknown since the end of Donald Rumsfeld’s term in 2006.

As one astute Republican observer told the Times of Israel this week, “the relationship is totally poisoned. I can’t imagine that Chuck Hagel can be a successful secretary of defense. Here’s a guy who over half of the Senate gave a vote of ‘no confidence’ to last week. The feeling was his personal heroism would enable him to go into the Pentagon with the political capital to cut the budget. He may in fact be confirmed, but it’s hard to see how he will be able to work. He’s going to be limping into the Pentagon.”

And a veteran Democratic activist: “Hagel’s already lost. Democrats will be relieved if he’s gone; they don’t like him on Israel, on Iran and because he’s a Republican.”

As several observers have noted, Obama’s very insistence on Hagel as his defense chief suggests that Hagel’s opponents are right to be worried, that the nomination means something. When it comes to foreign and defense policy, Obama’s first term was marked by continuity with the Bush policy. The timetables for withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan largely followed those established before Bush left office. They were driven by the professional planning staff rather than any change in thinking in the Oval Office.

Hagel’s nomination matters because it signals to many in Washington, and around the world, that Obama is looking to dramatically reshape US foreign policy.

The fight over Hagel won’t end before the the formal vote on Tuesday — and not even then. The forces opposing him, like those who have come out in his favor, including J Street and a handful of “realist” former ambassadors and foreign policy officials, are engaged in a battle over policy, not personality. Republican senators, together with a few Democratic colleagues who will grudgingly vote for his confirmation, will be watching him closely for any perceived missteps in the years to come.

All in all, not an ideal starting point for a defense secretary, especially one whose chief responsibility will be the unenviable task of drastically reducing the budget and size of the department he has been asked to run.

Multi-Billion Dollar F-35 Fleet Grounded – ABC News

February 23, 2013

Multi-Billion Dollar F-35 Fleet Grounded – ABC News.

Feb 22, 2013 4:44pm
ht f35 night flight ll 120207 wblog Multi Billion Dollar F 35 Fleet Grounded

Tom Reynolds/Lockheed Martin

The military has grounded its entire fleet of F-35 stealth fighters, the most expensive weapons program in history, after finding a crack in one of the multi-million-dollar plane’s engines.

The grounding comes just days after the Marine Corps gave its variation of the fighter the green light to fly again after its own month-long grounding for an unrelated problem.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program office released a statement today saying a routine engine inspection on Feb. 19 “revealed a crack on a low-pressure turbine blade of an F-35 engine” and the office took the “precautionary measure” of suspending all F-35 flight operations.

“The F-35 Joint Program Office is working closely with [engine maker] Pratt & Whitney and [primary plane manufacturer] Lockheed Martin at all F-35 locations to ensure the integrity of the engine, and to return the fleet safely to flight as soon as possible.”

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, which has a baseline price tag of over a third of $1 trillion as of last March, represents America’s costly foray into fifth-generation stealth fighters along with the troubled $79 billion F-22 Raptor.

The plane comes in three variants: an Air Force version with standard takeoff and landing capabilities, a Navy version designed to take off and land from aircraft carriers and the Marine version, which is designed to land vertically like Britain’s famous Harrier jet. The military currently has 58 planes total, but plans to purchase more than 2,400 more in order to replace the aging F-16 and F-18 legacy fighters.

The F-35 program has suffered a long history of delays and cost overruns, which officials said is partially because it is one of the most complex weapons systems in history and because it was put into production far too early – before major issues could be found.

This time last year Frank Kendall, then the Pentagon’s Acting Undersecretary for Defense Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, said that the government’s plan to field the plane was so reckless it amounted to “acquisition malpractice.”

The engine itself has not been without controversy as well. For months General Electric teamed up with Rolls Royce to provide the military with an engine to compete with Pratt & Whitney, even though the military repeatedly said a second engine was not necessary. The alternate engine was partially funded by the U.S. government to the tune of $3 billion before it was called off in December 2011.

Despite its well-documented problems, the F-35 is seen by top military and government officials as the backbone of America’s future air power. The F-35 Program Office said it is currently investigating the cause of the engine crack.

Pentagon Grounds All F-35s Following Routine Inspection

February 23, 2013

Pentagon Grounds All F-35s Following Routine Inspection – Truthdig.

Posted on Feb 22, 2013
DOD/Cherie Cullen

The $400 billion boondoggle known as the Joint Strike Fighter suffered another setback Friday, when the Pentagon grounded the first 51 of 2,400 desired jets.

The F-35 was already a tough sell in a post-Cold War world more interested in drones than manned air craft. Delays and overruns have continued to drive up the price of each aircraft and the planes, which first flew in 2006, are still being tested. It’s a good thing, too. At somewhere close to $300 million a pop, you don’t want cracked engine blades turning up. But that’s exactly what the government found during an inspection at Edwards Air Force base in the California desert.

AP:

A watchdog group, the Project on Government Oversight, said the grounding is not likely to mean a significant delay in the effort to field the stealthy aircraft.

“The F-35 is a huge problem because of its growing, already unaffordable, cost and its gigantically disappointing performance,” the group’s Winslow Wheeler said. “That performance would be unacceptable even if the aircraft met its far-too-modest requirements, but it is not.”

The F-35 is the Pentagon’s most expensive weapons program at a total estimated cost of nearly $400 billion. The Pentagon envisions buying more than 2,400 F-35s, but some members of Congress are balking at the price tag.

Read more

—Posted by Peter Z. Scheer. Follow him on Twitter: @peesch.