Archive for June 29, 2015

Popularity Regained

June 29, 2015

How Russia, China, and IS Have Made the US Popular Again

By Rob Spalding and Adam Lowther Via The Diplomat


Old Glory still glorious. [Photo Credit: Reuters]

(You’ve got a friend. – LS)

In July 2014, Salon, the online magazine, loudly proclaimed that “the American century is over.” They were not the first to do so – numerous books and articles had made similar claims over the preceding years. Their arguments boiled down to this: America will continue as a world power, but not the dominant world power. In short, American power is declining while the power of states like China, Brazil, and India are rising. This growing chorus of “America is in decline” has spawned a vigorous debate on both sides of the political aisle, with little agreement. While pundits may continue to debate the issue, Americans are left to wonder, is American power truly in decline?

As if sensing that the end is near, many Americans see a nation beset by economic, military, and political challenges and can’t help but think there might be some truth to the pessimism they hear. Abroad, an increasingly bellicose Russia has invaded Ukraine; China has planted its flag in the South China Sea and is building islands as a display of power; and the Islamic State is spreading across the Arab world and even recruiting Americans to fight on American soil. In spite of these clearly undesirable events, there is good reason to believe things are not as bad as they seem.

While this may seem a strange position to take, the reality of our strategic circumstance is far more positive than world events suggest. What many seem to forget is that the United States is not alone in facing these new challenges. Instead, allies and partners are looking to the United States in ways we have not seen since the Cold War. Let us explain.

Russia 

Russian President Vladimir Putin tasted post-Cold War globalism and didn’t seem to like what he found. There can be little doubt that Russian power is significantly diminished in a world where nuclear weapons are not the sine qua non they once were. After all, how does a nation with a declining population, little vertical economic integration, and powerful oligopolies that control a corrupt economic system make its way in the world? It doesn’t.

Therefore the next best thing is to go back to what you know. Unfortunately, we do not live in 1945 and despite Putin’s best attempts to make this a classic two-player game between Russia and the United States, the truth is much more complicated. Europe, while not militarily strong, is integrated and developed and has no desire to see the Iron Curtain fall again. The result of this is that Russia is isolated and the United States – despite all its foibles and missteps – is eminently huggable once again. Thanks to Russia, America is popular from Britain to Russia’s border, something not seen since dissidents covertly took courage from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty broadcasts during the Cold War.

Perhaps Stephen Pifer of the Brookings Institute illustrates this change in perspective best when he writes of the NATO nuclear mission, “His [Putin] nuclear chest-thumping, on top of Russia’s seizure of Crimea and support for the conflict in eastern Ukraine, has consequences. Five years ago, many in NATO questioned the need to keep U.S. nuclear bombs in Europe. Today, that debate has largely gone silent, and plans are moving forward to modernize the bombs and their delivery aircraft.”

China

China, too, is playing its part in making America popular again. Yes, China is flexing its muscles as it moves toward its century-long plan of national rejuvenation, but in so doing it is spooking its neighbors. Despite China’s economic clout, the nations of the region want the United States to be a part of the future so that it can play a central role in balancing Chinese power and acting as a brake on Chinese aggressiveness. Here again, some try to place the United States and China in a two-player game. Yet American alliance relationships in Asia, which are now stronger than ever (thanks to China), must be considered when judging interactions in the Asia-Pacific.

China too is hedging. Its “One Belt, One Road” policy ensures that it has an alternative to conflict with the United States if the Chinese government cannot convince the U.S. to vacate the premises. Today, China faces the unenviable position of having numerous sea-lane chokepoints for its imports and exports – upon which its economy relies. It is probable that its efforts in the South China Sea are focused not only on defending their lines of commerce and communication (LOCCs), but are also a way to gradually push the United States out of the region – much in the way you boil a live lobster by slowly raising the temperature in the pot. Beijing is well aware of its own strategic weakness. China would not have to defeat just the United States in Asia, but the U.S. alongside its many partners and allies – a far more daunting task.

Islamic State

With the Middle East in turmoil and Iran close to a nuclear weapon, the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) is essentially attempting to establish the eighth caliphate at a time when many governments in the region are seeking broad stability, which the United States can aid in providing. Rather than looking at recent American foreign policy in the region as the cause for the Islamic State’s rise, it is probably better to go back to the last caliphate. The seventh caliphate – the Ottoman Empire – ended in 1924. Its demise saw the rise of a secular Turkey under Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. He saw the abolition of the caliphate as necessary if Turkey was going to develop into a modern state. Meanwhile, the rest of the Middle East was divided by the victorious powers, in the wake of World War I, in ways inconsistent with the region’s long history. A number of dictatorships arose to keep the malformed borders of these new states from erupting into violence.

The Islamic State is seeking to return the region to a pan-Islamic form of government – the historical norm – and as such is presenting the region with the same dilemma that Ataturk faced almost a century ago: Will the Middle East see the universal application of sharia law or will the region adopt a more secular form of government like the one envisioned by Ataturk? Until this is decided by the eventual defeat or success of the Islamic State, and proper borders are delimited in the region, we can expect turmoil in the Middle East.

Whatever the outcome, there is one thing for certain – leaders in every capital from Riyadh to Tehran want America to remain actively engaged in the region, even if they don’t always like what it does. Thanks to the Islamic State, the United States has more friends in the region than ever. While the Arab world decides its fate, it sees America as a crucial player in any solution.

American Alliances and Partnerships

Early in World War II, Winston Churchill explained his desire to see the United States join the war against Nazi Germany saying, “There is at least one thing worse than fighting with allies – and that is to fight without them.” Even a cursory study of Churchill’s actions as prime minister clearly suggest that he valued allies and the United States in particular. Indeed it was the American alliance he felt was necessary to Britain’s survival. If Churchill could just convince the Americans to join the war, German defeat was certain.

Seventy-five years later, little has changed in the sense that many nations still look to the United States for the preservation of their security when things look bleak. Today, America has more allies and partners than it has the time and resources to support. With Russia, China, and the Islamic State flexing their collective muscles, the world looks to the United States to take the lead. Yet, it is not 1941 and not everything is possible through American power alone.

Some regions have the capabilities required to address their own security challenges. Europe, for example, is sufficiently united and developed to deal with Russia’s hybrid war in Ukraine. The Indo-Asia-Pacific is also capable of balancing China’s rise. The Middle East is less capable of dealing with continued strife in the region, but the fundamental answer to the region’s problems must be answered by the nations and peoples of the region. In all three regions, America’s breadth of diplomatic, economic, and military power combine with like-minded nations to balance those who would return us to the days of power politics.

Solution

What then is America’s role in aiding its allies and partners? While the United States must always adhere to the specific obligations of its treaties, it can play a vital role in serving as a voice of reason during challenging times. By championing the values and institutions that led to the current wave of prosperity, which has endured for 70 years, the United States can ensure the continuance of prosperity at home and abroad. Promoting the institutions envisioned at the end of World War II is important for preventing future calamity.

When adversaries or competitors do seek to change the status quo through naked force, the United States must continue to stand with its allies and partners if it wants to remain the leading global power some have forgotten it still remains. Accepting the mantle of leadership being placed on American shoulders, from Tokyo to Berlin, may not always be easy, but the security and prosperity enjoyed over the past seven decades is built upon its willingness to do so. Cultivating friends and getting them to cooperate is as much for America’s benefit as theirs.

With a growing economy, world-class university system, innovative society, and the best military in the world, the United States is well placed to lead in the century ahead. It might not be called “the American century,” but the future will be one Americans can be proud of.

 

Iranium: Mullah Madness

June 29, 2015

Does Iran Have Nuclear Weapons?

Via The Clarion Project (Published over three years ago, but still relevant.)

(A must see for everyone. A grim reminder of what we’re dealing with. – LS)

US: System reached to let UN inspect Iran military sites

June 29, 2015

US: System reached to let UN inspect Iran military sites

Senior official admits arrangement doesn’t include all facilities, says it wouldn’t be ‘appropriate’ to demand that of Tehran

By AFP and Times of Israel staff June 29, 2015, 7:54 pm

via US: System reached to let UN inspect Iran military sites | The Times of Israel.

Negotiators from five world powers and Iran meet for high-level nuclear talks in Vienna Austria, on June 27, 2015. (US State Department)

Negotiators from six world powers and Iran meet for high-level nuclear talks in Vienna, Austria, on June 27, 2015. (US State Department)

 

An agreement has been reached in talks between Iran and major powers towards a nuclear deal that will give the UN atomic watchdog access to all suspect sites, a senior US official said Monday.

“The entry point isn’t that we must be able to get into every military site — because the United States of America wouldn’t allow anybody to get into every military site — so that’s not appropriate,” the official said.

“But if, in the context of agreement… the IAEA believes it needs access, and has a reason for that, access then we have a process [whereby] that access is given,” the official said on condition of anonymity.

“We have worked out a process that we believe will ensure that the IAEA has the access it needs.”

If the system is agreed to by Iran, it could mark a potential breakthrough in months of negotiations with the Islamic Republic, which has refused to give the International Atomic Energy Agency access to sensitive sites.

“There are conventional purposes, and there are secrets that any country has that they are not willing to share,” the official added.

The access to military sites has been one of the key sticking points in negotiations, with Western powers urging Tehran to open facilities to international inspectors, and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei — who has the last word on the nuclear negotiations — adamantly refusing.

The anonymous US official stated that Washington had long insisted that if the IAEA felt it needed access to a site that was suspect, “then they should be able to get it.

“If that happens to be a military site, then that should be available,” the representative went on, adding that the IAEA had an “institutional responsibility” to explore what the possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program may have been.

US Secretary of State John Kerry warned earlier on Monday — as he awaited the return of Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif from consultations in Tehran — that it was too soon to tell if a nuclear deal with Iran is possible.

“We’re just working and it’s too early to make any judgments,” Kerry told reporters in Vienna following a weekend of intense talks with counterparts from five other major powers and Iran.

In a possible sign, meanwhile, of progress, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that he would arrive on Tuesday, coinciding with the expected return of his Iranian counterpart.

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, speaking in New York, said he would be back in Vienna this week. It was unclear when his British, German or Chinese counterparts might follow suit.

Over the weekend, officials from both sides made clear that their Tuesday deadline to nail down a deal was highly unlikely to be met, although they said they would only extend it by several days.

Zarif flew back to Tehran on Sunday night, as did many of the other ministers.

EU Foreign Policy Chief Federica Mogherini spoke for many late Sunday when she insisted there would be no formal months-long extension, saying that “postponement is not an option.”

In April, Iran and the P5+1 group — the United States, China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany — agreed on the main outlines of a deal that they hope will end a 13-year standoff over Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Under the framework, Iran will dramatically scale down its atomic activities in order to make any drive to make a weapon — an ambition it denies having — all but impossible.

This includes slashing the number of centrifuges enriching uranium, which can be used for nuclear fuel but also in a bomb; reducing its uranium stockpile; and altering the Arak reactor.

In return, the powers have said they will progressively ease sanctions that have suffocated Iran’s economy, but while retaining the option to reimpose them if Iran violates the agreement.

The Strategic Consequences of “Grexit”

June 29, 2015

The Strategic Consequences of “Grexit” The Gatestone InstitutePeter Martino, June 29, 2015

  • Last January, ISIS revealed that it is smuggling terrorists into Europe by hiding them among the immigrants leaving Turkey.
  • “If Europe leaves us in the crisis, we will flood it with immigrants, and it will be even worse for Berlin if in that wave… there will be some jihadists of the Islamic State, too.” — Panos Kammenos, Defense Minister of Greece
  • Greece is a member of NATO. The whole world witnessed how the Defense Minister of one NATO country was threatening other NATO members with unleashing Islamic terrorists on them.
  • A Greek exit will lead to a power vacuum in the southeastern corner of Europe, which Russia (and China) will be only too eager to fill. The Chinese are currently negotiating with the Greek government to acquire an even larger part of the port of Piraeus.

Last weekend, Greece failed to reach an agreement with its three creditors, the European Commission, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. A bankruptcy of the Hellenic Republic is now imminent. If it materializes, a so-called Grexit will follow: Greece will be forced to leave the Eurozone — the group of 19 European Union (EU) member states that use the euro as their common currency. Leaving the Eurozone automatically means that, under the EU treaties, Greece will also have to leave the EU.

1134Across Greece, people have been lining up to withdraw money from cash machines, most of which have run out of money, after the government ordered banks to close for six days starting Monday. (Image source: Reuters video screenshot)

Grexit is likely to lead to economic and political turmoil in Greece, a hugely important strategic country, which borders on an increasingly unstable part of the world. Greece lies on the Mediterranean, fewer than 350 kilometers to the north of the Libyan coastal town of Derna, a stronghold of the Islamic terrorists of ISIS. It was here that, last February, ISIS beheaded 21 Coptic Egyptian prisoners, and vowed to conquer Europe. The threat to Greece’s eastern borders is even greater. Greece is currently being inundated by illegal immigrants, arriving from Turkey by sea. Each day in June, human traffickers were transporting between 650 and 1,000 migrants by boat from Turkish ports to Greece. Last January, ISIS revealed that it is smuggling terrorists into Europe by hiding them among the migrants leaving Turkey.

If Greece leaves the EU, it is highly unlikely that it will try to prevent the illegal immigrants from travelling on to the rest of Europe. On the contrary, in March, Greek defense minister Panos Kammenos vowed to flood the rest of Europe with immigrants if the EU should allow Greece to go bankrupt. “If Europe leaves us in the crisis, we will flood it with immigrants, and it will be even worse for Berlin if in that wave of millions of economic immigrants there will be some jihadists of the Islamic State, too,” the Greek minister said. All the newcomers to Greece, Kammenos said, would be given papers, so they “could go straight to Berlin.” Greece is a member of NATO. The whole world could witness how the defense minister of one NATO country was threatening other NATO members with unleashing Islamic terrorists on them.

A Greek exit from the EU will not only mean a rupture with its Western European neighbors, who are all members of NATO as well, but is also likely to affect the entire Atlantic partnership. It will lead to a power vacuum in the southeastern corner of Europe, which Russia will be only too eager to fill.

Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras was recently in Moscow to sign a gas deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The deal allows the Russians to build a natural gas pipeline across Greece that will carry Russian gas to Europe. The construction of the pipeline will not only create 20,000 new jobs in Greece, but Russia will also pay Greece hundreds of millions of dollars annually in transit payments. Speaking about the pipeline deal, Putin offhandedly remarked to the international media that he saw no support for the Greeks from the EU.

There are also rumors that Athens might allow Russia the use of Greek military bases. Russia is expanding militarily in the Black Sea and the eastern part of the Mediterranean. Greece could also serve as a base for the Russians to strengthen their position in the Balkans. If Greece were to turn its back on NATO, it could become a geographical link between Russia and its Balkan vassal, Serbia — a process that would link the three Christian-Orthodox nations of Russia, Serbia and Greece.

But the Russians are not the only ones closely following the events in Greece and hoping for geopolitical benefits. For some time, China’s influence in Greece has also been expanding. The Chinese state-owed Cosco Group recently bought the container terminal in Greece’s largest port, Piraeus. The port was privatized after demands from the EU. The Chinese are currently negotiating with the Greek government to acquire an even larger part of Piraeus.

Both Russia and China are eager to strengthen their position in Greece if it were to turn its back on Europe and NATO. The consequences of Grexit will not merely be economic. The strategic implications are at least as important, and far-reaching.

10 Ways Iran Has Gutted the Nuclear Deal

June 29, 2015

10 Ways Iran Has Gutted the Nuclear Deal

By Meira Svirsky Mon, June 29, 2015 Via The Clarion Project


Keep walking. Don’t stop. [Photo Credit: Reuters]

(Tick tock. – LS)

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei recently and unequivocally ruled out any inspections of its military sites.  Such inspections were also ruled out by Iranian Chief of Staff Major-General Hassan Firouzabadi, who said visits by U.N. inspectors to Iranian military sites are “forbidden” and a “red line.” The Iranian parliament just proposed legislation banning inspection of any nuclear site that goes beyond “conventional” (i.e. non-military) visits.

However, a group of bipartisan experts, including Olli Heinonen, the former deputy director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), say without the resolution of  the possible nuclear dimensions (PMD) of Iran’s nuclear program – which necessarily would entail inspections – the agreement essentially allows Iran to remain a “nuclear threshold state.”

 

Immediate Cancellation of All Sanctions

Khamenei also recently demanded sanctions relief begin immediately upon the signing of the agreement. However, according to U.S. law, once an agreement is signed, sanctions cannot be lifted until the U.S. Congress reviews the document. Congress has 30 days to review any agreement.

Moreover, even when sanctions are lifted, a fact sheet issued by the U.S. State Department about the deal claims the sanctions will “snapback” instantly in response to Iranian violations of the deal. But tough international sanctions are not like a light-switch that can be flicked on and off.

The Iranian regime is already enticing Western companies with the prospect of lucrative contracts. Governments around the world will likely be willing to tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran when the dollars start rolling in to their economies.

 

No Speaking to Nuclear Scientists

Iran has nixed any speaking to its nuclear scientists by Western inspectors. “They say the right to interview nuclear scientists must be given,” Ayatollah Khamenei said, according to his website. “This means interrogation. I will not let foreigners come and talk to scientists and dear children of the nation who have developed this science up to this level.”

Yet, these “interrogations” are essential for the West to get a clear picture of the military component of Iran’s nuclear program. Documents suggest Iran has researched and made significant progress on nuclear warheads, nuclear ignition systems and other technologies related to nuclear warfare.

 

Restriction on Inspections

A recently released report, Verifying a Final Nuclear Deal with Iran, written by the former deputy director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Olli Heinonen, states that for the agreement to be effective in real terms, verifiability must be a function of “unfettered,” “anywhere, anytime” access and not subject to any bureaucratic procedures which would give Iran time to alter the results of any inspections.

Yet, the Iranian parliament recently proposed legislation forbidding inspection that goes beyond “conventional” visits. Although this is clearly a way of banning inspections of military sites, the sponsor of the bill, Alaedin Boroujerdi, chairman of parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, said his bill was designed to insulate Iran’s negotiators from the West’s “excessive demands.”

 

No Freezing R&D

According to the framework agreement hammered out in Lausanne, Switzerland in April, Iran agreed to “limit domestic enrichment capacity and research and development… for ten years.”

Yet last week, in a live speech televised across Iran, the Ayatollah declared, “Freezing Iran’s research and development (R&D) for a long time, like 10 or 12, years is not acceptable.”

Limiting research and development of Iran’s nuclear technology is mentioned four separate times in the framework agreement, with R&D on advanced centrifuges under a 15-year R&D ban.

 

Retention of Centrifuges

Under the deal, Iran will decrease the amount of operating centrifuges however, not a single one will be destroyed. Iran’s insistence on keeping the centrifuges is strong evidence that it wants to preserve the ability to produce nuclear weapons.

The Institute for Science and International Security says Iran can build nuclear weapons in six to 12 months with only 2,000 to 4,000 centrifuges operating.

Former CIA analyst Fred Fleitz also puts these numbers into perspective. He writes: “5,000 centrifuges are far too many for other peaceful purposes such as producing medical isotopes or fuel plates for the Tehran research reactor. Moreover, it would be far more economical for Iran to purchase reactor fuel rods, fuel plates, and medical isotopes from other countries.”

 

Continuation of Uranium Enrichment

Iran will only enrich its uranium to a level of 3.67 percent. However, in the words of Iranian President Hasan Rouhani, “The country that can enrich to 3.5 percent will also have the capability to enrich it to about 90 percent.”

The initial enrichment to 3.5 percent is actually the hardest part of the enrichment process. It is 7/10ths of the way to becoming bomb fuel. Iran can make enrich to the 90 percent level in about 4.5 months, while others put the time frame as short as six weeks.

 

Retention of Uranium Stocks

Iran is refusing to ship some of its current uranium stock outside of the country. The State Dept.’s fact sheet says Iran will “reduce” its uranium stockpile of 10,000 kg to 300 kg but this isn’t as positive as it sounds.

Previously, reducing this stockpile meant Iran converted this low-enriched uranium into an oxide unsuitable for nuclear weapons production. However, it can be converted back easily.

Two experts from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and Belfer Centre for Science and International Affairs write, “The notion that this puts the material ‘beyond use for bombs’ is simply wrong. The conversion of oxide back to uranium hexafluoride (UF6) gas is not ‘time-consuming,’ is not necessarily ‘detectable,’ and is not particularly ‘technically demanding.’ ”

 

Retention of Nuclear Sites

Under the deal, Iran is allowed to keep every single nuclear site in place, even the underground Fordow site that was almost certainly constructed for making nuclear weapons.

There will no longer be uranium enrichment at the Fordow site, but 1,044 centrifuges will remain and only be used in the context of a nuclear physics center.

What this means it that if Iran decides to scrap the deal, it can still transport uranium to Fordow and immediately begin enriching with those centrifuges. The site can accommodate 3,000 centrifuges, so about another 2,000 could be shipped in and installed.

 

Breakout Time Deception

The deal is hinged on the fact that, under the agreement’s restrictions, the time that Iran needs to build a bomb will increase from the current estimate of two months to one year.

However, this claim was recently and unequivocally refuted by Professor Alan Kuperman, coordinator of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project at the University of Texas at Austin.

In an article recently published in The New York Times, Kuperman proves that with the number of centrifuges Iran is allowed to retain under the agreement, combined with the amount of enriched uranium it takes to make a bomb, the Iranian breakout time under the agreement would only be three months.

 

 

Turkey Plans to Invade Syria, But to Stop the Kurds, Not ISIS

June 29, 2015

Turkey Plans to Invade Syria, But to Stop the Kurds, Not ISIS

The Turkish military is not enthusiastic and Washington may have its doubts, but President Erdogan appears determined to set up a buffer zone.

via Turkey Plans to Invade Syria, But to Stop the Kurds, Not ISIS – The Daily Beast.

The Turkish military is not enthusiastic and Washington may have its doubts, but President Erdogan appears determined to set up a buffer zone.
ISTANBUL—Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is planning a military intervention into northern Syria to prevent Syrian Kurds from forming their own state there, despite concerns among his own generals and possible criticism from Washington and other NATO allies, according to reports in both pro- and anti-government media.

In a speech last Friday, Erdogan vowed that Turkey would not accept a move by Syrian Kurds to set up their own state in Syria following gains by Kurdish fighters against the so-called Islamic State, or ISIS, in recent weeks. “I am saying this to the whole world: We will never allow the establishment of a state on our southern border in the north of Syria,” Erdogan said. “We will continue our fight in that respect whatever the cost may be.” He accused Syrian Kurds of ethnic cleansing in Syrian areas under their control.

Following the speech, several news outlets reported that the president and Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu had decided to send the Turkish army into Syria, a hugely significant move by NATO’s second biggest fighting force after the U.S. military.  Both the daily Yeni Safak, a mouthpiece of the government, and the newspaper Sozcu, which is among Erdogan’s fiercest critics, ran stories saying the Turkish Army had received orders to send soldiers over the border. Several other media had similar stories, all quoting unnamed sources in Ankara. There has been no official confirmation or denial by the government.

The government refused to comment on the reports. Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said “the necessary statement” would be issued after a regular meeting of the National Security Council, which comprises the president, the government and military leaders, this Tuesday.

The reports said up to 18,000 soldiers would be deployed to take over and hold a strip of territory up to 30 kilometers deep and 100 kilometers long that currently is held by ISIS. It stretches from close to the Kurdish-controlled city of Kobani in the east to an area further west held by the pro-Western Free Syrian Army (FSA) and other rebel groups, beginning around the town of Mare. This “Mare Line,” as the press calls it, is to be secured with ground troops, artillery and air cover, the reports said. Yeni Safak reported preparations were due to be finalized by next Friday.

There has been speculation about a Turkish military intervention ever since the Syrian conflict began in 2011. Ankara has asked the United Nations and its Western allies to give the green light to create a buffer zone and a no-fly area inside Syria in order to prevent chaos along the Turkish border and to help refugees on Syrian soil before they cross over into Turkey. But the Turkish request has fallen on deaf ears.

The latest reports fit Erdogan’s statement on Friday and the government position regarding recent gains by Syrian Kurds against the Islamic State. The Syrian Kurdish party PYD and its armed wing YPG, affiliates of the Turkish-Kurdish rebel group PKK, have secured a long band of territory in northern Syria from the Syrian-Iraqi border in the east to Kobani.

Ankara is concerned that the Kurds will now turn their attention to the area west of Kobani and towards Mare to link up with the Kurdish area of Afrin, thereby connecting all Kurdish areas in Syria along the border with Turkey. Erdogan expects that the Syrian Kurds, whose advance against ISIS has been helped by airstrikes from the U.S.-led coalition, will go on to form their own state as Syria disintegrates after more than four years of war.

PYD leader Saleh Muslim denied that Syria’s Kurds intend to do this.

But Turkey’s leaders are not convinced that is true. The daily Hurriyet reported Erdogan and Davutoglu wanted to “kill two birds with one stone” with a military intervention along the Mare Line. One aim would be to drive ISIS away from the Turkish border, depriving the jihadists of their last foothold on the frontier and thereby cutting off supply lines. Such a move would tie in with the U.S. strategy to contain and weaken ISIS.

A second goal of the operation would be closer to Ankara’s own interests. The English-language Hurriyet Daily News quoted one source saying there was a need to  “prevent the PYD from taking full control over the Turkish-Syrian border,” and also to create a zone on Syrian territory rather than in Turkey to take in new waves of refugees.

But the military is reluctant, the reports said. Generals told the government that Turkish troops could come up against ISIS, Kurds and Syrian government troops and get drawn into the Syrian quagmire. Retaliation attacks by ISIS and Kurdish militants on Turkish territory are another concern.

Finally, the soldiers pointed to the international dimension. The military leadership told the government that the international community might get the impression that Turkey’s intervention was directed against Syria’s Kurds, the newspaper Haberturk reported.

Turkey’s NATO partners, some of whom have deployed troops operating Patriot missile defense units near the Syrian border to shield member country Turkey against possible attacks from Syria, are unlikely to be happy with a Turkish intervention.

Turkey’s pro-government press insisted there were no tensions between civilian and military leaders in Ankara. “If the government says ‘go,’ we will go in,” the pro-Erdogan daily Aksam wrote, attempting to sum up the military’s stance in a headline.

On Sunday, fighting broke out between ISIS troops and FSA units near the town of Azaz, close to the Turkish border crossing of Oncupinar. News reports said ISIS was trying to bring the Syrian side of the border crossing under its control. The area of the latest clashes lies within the “Mare Line” cited as the possible location of a Turkish incursion.

Iran deal deadline postponed as officials say Tehran backtracking

June 29, 2015

Israel Hayom | Iran deal deadline postponed as officials say Tehran backtracking.

Representatives to the nuclear talks arrive and leave Vienna as talks stall less than 48 hours before the original deadline • Negotiators aim to agree to a deal by July 9 • Western diplomat: It feels like we have moved backward on some technical issues.

News Agencies and Israel Hayom Staff
European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini in Vienna, where talks are being held

|

Photo credit: Reuters

The Iranian negotiations that never end

June 29, 2015

The Iranian negotiations that never end, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, June 28, 2015

(Please see also, On eve of Iran deal, US retreats on inspections of nuclear past, speeds up sanctions relief — DM)

yh

The negotiations will drag on endlessly until a nuclear bomb test is televised complete with chants of “Death to America”. And the appeasers who got us into this will assure us that they don’t really mean it.

********************

It is quite possible that no matter how many concessions Obama makes, there will never be a final agreement with Iran. The deadlines have already been extended so many times that the only reliable thing about the negotiations is that somewhere near the edge, the negotiators will declare that they are close and extend the formerly final deadline some more. And then some more again.

There is currently disagreement over the last agreement that was agreed to in order to extend the deadline. If you find that confusing, so does everyone else.

According to the British Foreign Minister, “There are a number of different areas where we still have major differences of interpretation in detailing what was agreed in Lausanne.”

We are no longer negotiating the issue; instead we’re negotiating the negotiations. The last attempt at getting the PLO to negotiate with Israel collapsed at the negotiating the negotiations stage when the Israeli pre-negotiation appeasement was deemed insufficiently appeasing by the PLO and John Kerry.

Obama will have to offer the Iranians even more concessions, on and under the table, to get them to negotiate the negotiations. Iran’s past nuclear work won’t be looked at and now even nuclear inspections may be off the table. At this rate, we’ll soon be negotiating how many bombs Iran gets, how many bombs it gets to use and then how many countries it gets to nuke.

We’ve already gone from an agreement to shut down Iran’s nuclear program to an agreement to temporarily slow it down to a probable short term agreement with sanctions relief and no inspections. Obama has officially disavowed a military solution so the only thing for Iran to negotiate is how to extract the most sanctions relief without actually conceding anything that matters.

And each time it looks like there’s progress, the Supreme Leader winks and pulls the rug out from under Kerry. Everyone from the Viet Cong to the Sandinistas to Assad has learned how easy that is, so that the more we concede, the more Iran demands. The negotiations approach a finish line and then stall.

Or as an anonymous official put it, “It feels like we haven’t advanced on the technical issues and even gone back on some.”

But that’s typical for the Middle East where no agreement is final and negotiations are just a means of taking the temperature of the other side while keeping them off guard. Agreements are not solemn arrangements, they are a theatrical display. What we take absolutely seriously, they view as a farce.

The Iranian negotiations with an agreeable lackey who pulls back at the last minute and a dictator behind the scenes who denounces the whole thing are a repetition of the disastrous Israel-PLO peace process which have been going on and off for decades with no actual peace or even much of a process.

The only purpose of such negotiations is to extract concessions without actually giving anything in return. Countless preliminary agreements can be negotiated, but no final agreement comes into being. The entire process runs on misleading claims of success by Western negotiators. The terrorist leaders tell their own people that they are committed to destroying the infidels, but this is dismissed as “appeasing the hardliners” by our own negotiators who are desperately invested in their credibility.

The more Iran acts out, the more the negotiators are forced to misrepresent the scale of the disaster to keep the negotiations going. The Iranians lie to the negotiators. The negotiators lie to us. Then the Iranians recant the possible concessions that they dangled as bait in front of the negotiators and the negotiators tear out their hair and promise us that the whole thing will be settled with an extension.

Of course the only way that anything will actually be settled is with Iran getting nuclear weapons.

The negotiations are just tools for getting cash and wearing out the nerves and sanity of the West. After enough years of aimless negotiations, an actual Iranian nuke will seem like a relief. The warnings of Netanyahu and the Republicans will be ignored as the appeasers who promised that sanctions and then sanctions relief would stop Iran’s nuclear program, who assured us that Iran did not want weapons, will cross their hearts and swear that Iran won’t actually use the nukes they swore it would never get.

Obama’s rhetoric is already tipping in that direction. Iran is a rational actor, he insists. And of course it is. But what’s rational by the standards of a theocracy that believes it’s ushering in an age of supreme Shiite rule on earth may differ from the standards of reason for a progressive who believes he’s ushering in an age of supreme liberal rule on earth. And neither Obama nor the Supreme Leader are any good at tests of reason such as eschewing magical thinking and understanding that words mean something.

Iran’s apocalyptic theology and power games require nukes. Obama has chosen to ignore its missile program while pretending to believe that a country swimming in oil needs a civilian nuclear program.

And once he ignored those, it was easy not to sweat the small stuff.

Like the PLO, Iran has responded to the negotiations by escalating its violence, seizing parts of Yemen, attacking ships in international waters and becoming more blatant in its defiance of America. But that’s how dictators even outside the Middle East respond to appeasement. No regime that is built on force can possibly view a show of weakness as anything except an admission of enemy impotence.

Peace negotiations with terrorists are terrorism by another means. The negotiations are a confession of weakness that destabilizes the region. And even when they do succeed in their goal of splitting supposed moderates from hardliners, the hardliners tend to win out making everything even worse than it was before. But the moderates are usually just hardliners in suits with a college degree.

When Obama announced that there was no military solution to Iran’s nuclear program, he had stated out loud that he would not stop the program and that the negotiations were a face-saving measure. The admission came after Obama refused to stop Iranian attacks on Persian Gulf shipping.

Obama expects that Iran will oblige him with a meaningless agreement that he can show off to the cameras, but Iran’s leaders understand the theater of diplomacy better than he does. Their goal is to humiliate the United States so as to show their own dissidents and the region that America can’t protect them. And that is the real purpose of the prolonged and pointless negotiations.

It is quite possible that there will never be an agreement. That Iran will force Obama to make countless concessions, not only on the sanctions or on its nuclear program, but on its presence in Yemen and Iraq, as he already appears to have done, using the promise of a final agreement that will never come.

Obama’s desire for a deal has allowed Iran to roll him not only on sanctions and nukes, but on regional dominance. After all the prestige he has invested in the negotiations, he can’t allow them to collapse.

The negotiations will drag on endlessly until a nuclear bomb test is televised complete with chants of “Death to America”. And the appeasers who got us into this will assure us that they don’t really mean it.

In Turf War with Afghan Taliban, Islamic State Loyalists Gain Ground

June 29, 2015

In Turf War with Afghan Taliban, Islamic State Loyalists Gain Ground

BY:
June 29, 2015 9:20 am

via In Turf War with Afghan Taliban, Islamic State Loyalists Gain Ground | Washington Free Beacon.

 

By Hamid Shalizi

SURKH DEWAL, Afghanistan (Reuters) – Fighters loyal to Islamic State have seized substantial territory in Afghanistan for the first time, witnesses and officials said, wresting areas in the east from rival Taliban insurgents in a new threat to stability.

Witnesses who fled fighting in Nangarhar province told Reuters that hundreds of insurgents pledging allegiance to Islamic State pushed out the Taliban, scorching opium poppy fields that help to fund the Taliban’s campaign to overthrow the Afghan government.

They also distributed directives purportedly from Islamic State’s Middle East-based chief Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, although it was not clear whether he issued them for the Afghan theater or if previous edicts may have been translated.

“They (IS loyalists) came in on many white pickup trucks mounted with big machine guns and fought the Taliban. The Taliban could not resist and fled,” said Haji Abdul Jan, a tribal elder from Achin district.

Jan, who saw the early June clashes before fleeing to the provincial capital of Jalalabad, said some villagers welcomed the new arrivals.

“Unlike the Taliban, they (IS) don’t force villagers to feed and house them. Instead, they have lots of cash in their pockets and spend it on food and luring young villagers to join them.”

Their accounts are the clearest sign yet that, beyond a few defections by low-level Taliban leaders and sporadic attacks, Islamic State sympathizers pose a more persistent threat.

IS loyalists, mostly former Taliban disillusioned by the movement’s unsuccessful bid to return to power in Kabul, are accompanied by dozens of foreign fighters, witnesses said.

The IS’ black flag has been hoisted in some areas, and foreign fighters preach in mosques through translators.

The identity of the non-Afghan insurgents is not known. Hundreds of militants from around the world already hide out along the Afghan-Pakistan border.

OMINOUS SIGNS

Local officials said fighters following IS have seized some territory from the Taliban in at least six of 21 Nangarhar districts.

They are Kot, Achin, Deh Bala, Naziyan, Rodat and Chaparhar, according to provincial council chief Ahmad Ali Hazrat and Nangarhar member of parliament Haji Hazrat Ali. Local army spokesman Noman Atefi said IS had established a presence in “seven or eight” districts.

Battles between the rival militants are ongoing in Khogyani and Pachir Agam districts, they said.

While the central government controls the vast majority of Afghanistan, events in Nangarhar are ominous for security forces struggling to contain the Taliban insurgency after most NATO forces withdrew six months ago.

IS supporters have proved ruthless, reportedly beheading several Taliban commanders, and IS’ success in taking over swathes of Iraq and Syria underlines the risks to Afghanistan.

Government officials and the U.S.-led training force question whether IS can gain a significant foothold in Afghanistan, given that direct links with the Middle East have not been proven and the Taliban remains dominant.

However, IS loyalists in Nangarhar are described as organized and well funded.

Under the shade of a mud wall in a makeshift refugee camp in Surkh Dewal outside Jalalabad city, about 30 men recalled encounters with IS fighters. The areas they come from are considered too dangerous for journalists to visit.

Abdul Wali, a green-eyed refugee from Achin in his 20s, said he listened to foreign fighters preaching in Arabic in local mosques through translators.

“They tell them about Islam and what people should do and should not do,” Wali said.

IS fighters also distribute pamphlets “to warn the people against many crimes”, said tribal elder Haji Abdul Hakim from Kot district.

One letter smuggled from Pachir Agam district was purportedly from Baghdadi.

“All Mujahideen fighters are invited to carry out this holy war under one flag, which is the Islamic State,” it said.

“THIEVES AND THUGS”

The Taliban, who issued their own warning to IS not to interfere in Afghanistan, acknowledged losing ground in Nangarhar, but said their rivals were not Islamic State.

“They are thieves and thugs … We will soon clear those areas and free the villagers,” said Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid. The movement ruled Afghanistan from the mid-1990s until 2001, when a U.S.-led campaign helped oust it from power.

Witnesses said IS fighters had established a stricter regime in Nangarhar than the Taliban, who, while still harsh, softened their rule to gain popular support, said Malek Jan, a tribal elder who fled Spinghar, another affected area.

“They (IS) burned poppy fields in Shadal village and banned shops from selling cigarettes,” Jan said.

Opium smuggling and taxing poppy production are key sources of Taliban revenue.

IS loyalists in Nangarhar appeared to have other sources of money. Several people said they had plenty of cash, and some heard militants were selling gold, unusual for the area.

It is unclear where the money is coming from.

While there is little evidence of direct links between IS in the Middle East and militants fighting under its banner in Afghanistan, officials in Kabul worry that money and personnel may begin to flow, taking the war to a new level.

The NATO-led military assistance force said it viewed reports of more money flowing to IS offshoots as “exaggerated”, spokesman Col. Brian Tribus said.

He added NATO had “not seen any indication” that IS had completely driven out the Taliban from parts of Nangarhar, and said any foreign fighters were likely to be global jihadists established in the region, and not newcomers.

AFGHAN FORCES HOLDING BACK?

Government forces in Nangarhar confirmed clashes between the Taliban and IS offshoots, but army spokesman Atefi said they were not targeting IS militants.

Achin’s district chief, Malek Islam, also said Afghan forces were not confronting IS fighters, who he said were “almost everywhere in the district”, but were targeting the Taliban.

“They (IS) haven’t attacked us, and we haven’t engaged them either,” he said.

Islam spoke by phone from Achin’s district center, which the government holds despite having limited control beyond, as is the case in several districts in Afghanistan’s east and south.

Interior Minister Noor ul-Haq Olomi, however, said police had engaged the militants.

“We have launched a couple of clearance operations in some districts of Nangarhar and we will continue to do so to deny any terrorist group territory,” Olomi said in a statement.

Michael Kugelman, a South Asia scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center in Washington, said while most Afghan militants remained loyal to the Taliban, the IS “brand” of more brutal tactics appealed to some younger fighters.

Adding money into the mix could add to the attraction.

“For some hardened and impressionable radicals, bling could be as appealing as barbarity,” he said.

(Additional reporting by Rafiq Sherzad; Writing by Kay Johnson; Editing by Mike Collett-White)

Putin’s Economic Legacy

June 29, 2015

Putin Meets Economic Collapse With Purges, Broken Promises

By Peter Sattler 6/28/15 at 10:17 AM Via Newsweek


A wink and a nod. Meanwhile, the dangerous game begins. [Photo Credit: Unknown]

(What better way to distract the Russian people facing economic woes back home than to invade another country and rally against impending threats from outside forces? – LS)

The corrupt bargain on which Russian President Vladimir Putin built his regime—provision of wealth to loyal officials and a decent standard of living to the people—is in dire straits.

As the economy shrinks and the Kremlin adjusts its expenditures, Putin must be aware that the threat of a coalition of disgruntled officials and powerbrokers—aiming to restore their prosperity—grows daily.

With no intention of being deposed in a palace coup, Putin has gone on the offensive, striking the Russian political elite off-balance through mass dismissals and early elections. This threatens to disrupt established patronage networks and political stability across Russia.

As for the Russian people, Putin failed to curb corruption or reform the economy for 15 years. He won’t do so now that he is on emergency footing, and average citizens will suffer as a consequence.

As their situation deteriorates, Russians will not tolerate Putin’s fruitless and autocratic tendencies. The coming chaos among the elite—and hardship for ordinary people—will destabilize Russia in the long term.

Economic Crisis

The collapsing ruble, Western sanctions, Putin’s own ill-designed “countersanctions” and increasing nationalist fervor have prompted dramatic capital flight. By some estimates, capital flight in April was around twice that month’s 1.6 percent drop GDP.

On June 15, the Russian statistics agency Rosstat reevaluated its estimate of GDP shrinkage from 1.9 percent to 2.2 percent. On June 11, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev stated that government income had fallen while expenses actually rose by 3.7 percent.

OPEC’s flooding of the oil market ensures that Russian crude production will increase to maintain revenue, swamping the market and depressing prices. Putin’s December 2014 budget was based on oil at $100 per barrel. The projected 2015 Brent crude price is $61 per barrel.

In response to these shocks, Moscow slashed investment projects by a third, including development of the Far East, Kaliningrad and the North Caucasus. Many Federal Target Programs and Federal Targeted Investment Programs will undergo severe cuts and may be seriously underfunded. Should the crisis persist through 2017, the Kremlin could deepen the investment cuts by 42 percent.

Preemptive Offensive

Recognizing the danger that these cuts may breed dissatisfaction within the government, Putin launched a preemptive offensive. He kicked off his campaign in April by tearing through the security chieftains, the siloviki.

On April 6, he gutted the Ministry of Emergency Situations, firing 19 officials from leadership positions across the country without appointing successors. He moved on the powerful Ministry of Internal Affairs, dismissing its Samara office head; naming new leadership for its branches in Krasnodar, Perm and Stavropol; and replacing the chief of its technology and information department.

Putin also posted two new officials to the St. Petersburg and Transbaikal investigative committees. The next day, he struck at the top of the Kremlin itself, replacing the head of the FSB’s counterintelligence division. On April 9, Putin replaced the head of Internal Affairs in the conflict-ridden Kabardino-Balkaria Republic, and on June 10, Putin fired the Novosibirsk oblast chief of police after he permitted opposition leader Aleksei Naval’niy to organize a “Party of Progress” meeting.

Putin also ran a more nuanced campaign against provincial governors. Between April 16 and June 10, Putin fired 14 governors. Ten of these governors were named “acting governor” until September. Should these leaders fail to adequately support Putin and quell opposition within their regions, they will presumably lose these elections and more malleable people will take their places. Putin offered no such hope for the governors of Krasnodar, Tambov, Penza or North Ossetia, replacing them outright.

The threat of early elections extends beyond the federal subjects. On June 11, MP Igor Lebedev, speaker of the Duma and member of United Russia, announced a bill to move parliamentary elections forward from December to September. This political disruption will shock established patronage networks. The disoriented political elite will be more unpredictable than loyal.

Public Hardship

While acknowledging that Russia suffers severe economic conditions, Medvedev claims that the government will do more with less on social spending. However, hard numbers refute his claims.

Rosstat’s June 11 report saw a year-on-year increase in Russians receiving less than the living wage by 3.1 million people in 2015, up to 15.9 percent of the population. Food prices are up by 17.9 percent, and the cost of non-food products and services increased by 17.7 percent and 16.2 percent respectively. April saw wages fall by 4 percent.

Experts are increasingly projecting a sharp spike in the price of medicine. In March, sources from the Moscow city government and Ministry of Health leaked plans to fire around 14,000 health care professionals and close several branches of local hospitals by 2017. Many, including former Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin, claim that the real crisis is still yet to come.

These new hardships are further exacerbated by the failure to reform the Russian economy or judicial system. For instance, reiderstvo, often translated as “raiding” or “asset-grabbing,” continues unabated, allowing local power brokers to seize private assets without reproach. The role of state officials in reiderstvo operations is expanding, and some argue that instances of reiderstvo are increasing over time with tacit official support.

The Kremlin may expand such opportunities in place of providing direct pay-offs. For instance, the 2014 “foreign agents” law allows Russian officials to declare any foreign firm an “undesirable,” seizing its assets. Predatory officials and the collapsing standard of living will inhibit Russians from improving their lives in any meaningful sense.

As the drivers of the collapse persist, the economic crisis will grind on unabated. The public supports Putin’s authoritarianism because it provides order and prosperity. This crisis undermines the core tenants of Putin’s social contract, delegitimizing his regime and widening the gap between the ruling and the ruled.

And ordinary people are mobilizing. Throughout 2014, businesses banded together to form mutual defense associations in answer to aggressive and corrupt bureaucrats. In November 2014, more than a thousand people marched through Moscow, St. Petersburg and Vladivostok to protest health care cuts.

And despite the supposed support for Putin and his war in Ukraine, general discontent is spilling over into politics. In September 2014, 20,000 people marched against Russia’s aggression in Ukraine. This dissatisfaction held strong through March 2015, with 20,000 marching in memorial for Boris Nemtsov and tens of thousands protesting the war in Ukraine.

Protests are continuing throughout 2015, with thousands rallying in Novosibirsk and Petrozavodsk against government corruption and censorship. This does not signal a united and coherent opposition to the government, but rather suggests a leaderless and pervasive discontent, which government is increasingly unable to control. This may lead to a push against Putin’s regime, but it is just as likely to grow erratic and destabilizing.

Putin rose to power, and kept it, by promising wealth to his supporters and a better quality of life for the masses. Today, the economic crisis is stripping him of the ability to fulfill his obligations.

Putin can clamp down on the political elites, but destabilizing the politicians is likely to only cause more uncertainty. Furthermore, restarting growth for the people would require far too much in terms of reform and reorientation to be palatable.

If Moscow cannot uphold its end of the social contract, it can expect only social unrest and instability to result.