Posted tagged ‘Obama’

U.S. Demands Greater Oversight on Iran Nuke Program

March 9, 2016

U.S. Reverses Position, Demands Greater Oversight on Iran Nuke Program Obama administration repeats concern that Iran already violating nuke deal

BY:
March 9, 2016 1:45 pm

Source: U.S. Demands Greater Oversight on Iran Nuke Program

Read also :

Obama Administration: A UN Resolution That Would Divide Israel And Jerusalem Is Back In Play

The Obama administration shifted its stance on Iran’s contested nuclear program Wednesday, writing in a letter to the United Nations that it is concerned the international community’s nuclear watchdog organization is not fully reporting on potential Iranian violations of the nuclear deal.

The administration also renewed concerns about Iran having violated its international commitments by stockpiling too much nuclear-related material. The renewed concerns come after Iran repeatedly test fired ballistic missiles in violation of current U.N. resolutions.

Yukiya Amano, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, said earlier this week that the agency is prohibited by the nuclear agreement from publicly reporting on potential violations by Iran.

The revelation prompted criticism from outside nuclear experts, including a former IAEA deputy director general. The limited reporting could prevent the international community from detecting potential nuclear violations by Tehran, according to these observers.

However, the Obama administration initially dismissed these concerns, with officials telling the Washington Free Beacon and other news outlets that “there isn’t less stringent monitoring or reporting on Iran’s nuclear program.”

One State Department official who spoke to the Free Beacon  Tuesday said it is “a distortion to say that if there is less detail” in the reports, then there is “less stringent monitoring or less insight into Iran’s nuclear program.”

By Wednesday morning, this rhetoric had shifted. The administration now says that the reports on Iran should be more “robust and detailed,” according to a letter submitted by U.S. Ambassador Henry S. Ensher to the IAEA’s board of governors.

“It is vital that the [IAEA] director general continues to provide robust and detailed reporting on Iran’s implementation of its commitments,” Ensher wrote, according to a copy of the letter. “Sufficiently comprehensive information in reports avoids misunderstandings.”

The level of reporting “is essential to ensuring that Iran’s nuclear program is and will remain exclusively peaceful,” Ensher wrote. “Full implementation will assure the international community that Iran’s potential pathways to obtaining a nuclear weapon have been firmly closed off.”

Ensher said the nuclear agreement still permits the IAEA to fully investigate potential Iranian infractions, though it remains unclear how much of this information will be made public going forward.

“It is important to note that the IAEA retains its full authorities to investigate any new concerns that may arise in Iran, including any new concern regarding weaponization-related activities,” he wrote.

Ensher also disclosed U.S. concerns that Iran is currently violating the deal by stockpiling too much heavy water, which is used in a nuclear reactor.

“We note with serious concern Iran’s temporary accumulation of heavy water in excess of its agreed stockpile limit, and welcome the quick actions taken to remedy this inconsistency with Iran’s commitments,” Ensher wrote.

Foreign policy insiders say that the Obama administration’s shift on the issue is emblematic of its dealings with Iran.

“This reversal is the latest in a seemingly unending stream of Iranian illegality and sanctions violations that the administration initially tried to ignore, then tries to justify, and then, finally, promises to deal with,” said one senior foreign policy consultant who has worked closely with Congress on the Iran issue.

Meanwhile, Iran for a second day in a row test-fired ballistic missiles, which is a violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions.

The Obama administration implemented new sanctions on Iran in January for similar behavior.

Wednesday’s launch included missiles that were marked with rhetoric advocating the destruction of Israel and the United States.

Sen. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.) called the second missile test “a direct threat to Israel on the same day Vice President Joe Biden is actually visiting Jerusalem.”

“Since the enactment of the flawed nuclear deal, the U.S. has under-enforced current sanctions on Iran’s ballistic missile program,” Kirk said. “Today is another example of this administration’s policy of they are ‘not supposed to be doing that.’ Instead, we should send the president bills to stop Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, as well as the Ministry of Defense, Aerospace Industries Organization and other related entities driving the Iranian ballistic missile program.”

Iranian State Television Flaunts Anti-Israel Ballistic Missile Launches

March 9, 2016

Iranian State Television Flaunts Anti-Israel Ballistic Missile Launches

BY:
March 9, 2016 1:45 pm

Source: Iran | Missile | Israel

For the second day in a row, Iranian state television has broadcast propaganda videos that show the launch of several ballistic missiles with anti-Israel intent.

A video released Tuesday shows the inside of an underground tunnel used for launching the missiles. It features an Israeli flag painted on the ground which Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, members are meant to walk over on their way to launch.

Wednesday’s video shows another two missiles labeled with “Israel must be wiped off the Earth” in Hebrew. Persian-language media headlines included the Hebrew message in order to emphasize the IRGC’s anti-Israel intentions. The missiles were reportedly precision-guided Qadr missiles that put Israel within striking range.

Amir Ali Hajizadeh, commander of the IRGC aerospace division, said that the tests were meant to intimidate Israel.

“The reason we designed our missiles with a range of 2,000 km (1,200 miles) is to be able to hit our enemy the Zionist regime from a safe distance,” Hajizadeh said. “Israel is surrounded by Islamic countries and it will not last long in a war. It will collapse even before being hit by these missiles.”

Iranian officials have brushed off the launches as part of their national defense capabilities, arguing that they are not in violation of the nuclear agreement implemented in January. The nuclear deal will free Iran from ballistic missile restrictions in eight years.

However, the tests do stand in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231, which states that Iran should not partake in “any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons.”

Speaking in Jerusalem Wednesday, Vice President Joe Biden said that the U.S. would “act” if Iran violated the nuclear deal and would keep an eye on threatening conventional military activity.

“There is no need to doubt that the United States has Israel’s back,” Biden said.

 

Iran Breaks With Arab States in Backing Hezbollah

March 9, 2016

Iran Breaks With Arab States, Continues Backing Hezbollah Iran blames Jews for forcing Arab states to designate Hezbollah as terrorist group

BY:
March 9, 2016 11:40 am

Source: Iran Breaks With Arab States in Backing Hezbollah

Read also :

Obama Administration: A UN Resolution That Would Divide Israel And Jerusalem Is Back In Play

Iranian leaders publicly broke ranks this week with major Arab Gulf nations in a series of statements criticizing these regional powers for formally designating Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.

The Gulf Cooperation Council, or GCC, a regional governing coalition comprised of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait, and Bahrain, announced last week that it is formally designating the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah a terrorist organization.

The GCC joins the United States, Israel, Canada, and a host of other nations in labeling Hezbollah a terrorist organization. These nations, including Saudi Arabia, have already taken steps to blacklist organizations and individuals associated with Hezbollah.

The decision by the coalition of Arab states to go after Hezbollah has sparked outrage in Iranian government, which is now claiming that “Zionists” secretly orchestrated the GCC’s effort.

Regional experts view Iran’s pushback as a sign that Tehran’s ongoing support for extremist groups has made it a pariah among other Arab nations, which have expressed concern Iran will spend the billions of dollars it received as part of the recent nuclear agreement to fund Hezbollah’s terror activities.

“No doubt the move was made upon an order by the Zionists and the sworn enemies of Islam and Great Prophet Mohammad,” said Major Gen. Hassan Firouzabadi, the Iranian Armed Forces chief of staff, according to Iran’s state-controlled press.

Iranian leaders vowed to continue its support for Hezbollah, which is responsible for killing Israelis and Americans in terror attacks.

“Despite efforts by the House of Saud [Saudi Arabia] and its regional and trans-regional allies, Hezbollah’s deep-seated position will remain intact,” Firouzabadi said. “It will not shift the balance of power in the region. It will not help the Zionists extend their grip on the occupied Palestinian territories.”

Sadeq Larijani, the head of Iran’s judiciary system, also blamed Jewish interests for the GCC’s latest move.

“The resistance movement of Hezbollah in Lebanon protects the integrity of Arabs and Muslims against the Zionist regime,” Larijani said Monday.

Iran’s foreign ministry also took aim at the GCC, specifically Saudi Arabia, which has had poor relations with Iran since its embassy in Tehran was burned down in January. Jaberi Ansari, the spokesman for Iran’s foreign ministry, accused the Arab states of aligning with “the occupiers of Palestine.”

“Certain Arab countries are against the Hezbollah resistance movement,” Ansari said. “The movement represents the efforts and ideals of Muslim nations for independence, freedom, justice, and integrity. Hezbollah stands against the Israeli oppression, occupation, racism, and terrorism.”

“Those who are behind the move are knowingly or unknowingly undermining the interests of the Muslim nations,” Ansari claimed.

Regional experts described the verbal conflict between Iran and the GCC as a sign that Hezbollah is becoming increasingly toxic on the international stage.

“It’s getting harder for Iran to defend Hezbollah on the world stage,” Jonathan Schanzer, a former terrorism finance analyst at the U.S. Treasury Department, told the Washington Free Beacon. “The United States, Israel, Canada, France, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the UK, the EU and Australia have all designated the group, in some form, as a terrorist organization—and it’s increasingly clear that their concerns have increasingly less to do with Hezbollah’s terrorist activities against Israel, and more to do with the group’s global footprint.”

The nuclear deal helped to fuel the GCC’s designation of Hezbollah, according to Schanzer, who serves as vice president of research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

“Ironically, had Iran not signed the nuclear deal, it’s unclear whether the recent terrorist designations would have taken place,” Schanzer said. “But with Iran set to receive $100 billion in sanctions relief, one major concern is that Hezbollah will receive a significant portion of those funds for the purpose of terrorist attacks and other activities that would further destabilize the Middle East.”

“With Iran no longer under sanctions, the world is more alarmed about the activities of this Iranian proxy than ever before,” he said.

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah also slammed the GCC over the weekend, saying in a video message that Saudi Arabia and its allies in the coalition are losing credibility.

Ralph Peters on US-Iran Relations: ‘I Hate To Say This, But We’ve Lost This One’

March 9, 2016

Ralph Peters on US-Iran Relations: ‘I Hate To Say This, But We’ve Lost This One’

BY:
March 9, 2016 11:33 am

Source: Ralph Peters | Iran

Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters responded Wednesday to the Iranian launch of a ballistic missile that had ‘Israel must be wiped out’ written on it, saying that the Obama administration has positioned America as the perpetual loser in U.S.-Iran relations.

“Our president and the secretary of state have painted themselves into a very dangerous corner in which whatever we do or fail to do, we’re the losers,” Peters said.

Iranian hardliners who launched the missile are out to prove that they hold power both inside Iran post-parliamentary elections and on the global stage post-nuclear agreement, he said.

“This is the Revolutionary Guards and hardliners showing everybody who is still in charge, because, elections not withstanding, the people who hold the guns hold the power,” Peters said.

He said that the launch violates a U.N. Security Council resolution and shows that Iran is “rubbing it in” America’s face that they can “do whatever they want” after the nuclear deal because of the Obama administration’s weakness. As an example, Peters referenced the detention and “torment” of 10 U.S. sailors by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, after which Secretary of State John Kerry thanked the Iranians for their cooperation.

“They can do whatever they want now because this terribly flawed nuclear deal was front-loaded with benefits for Iran, and the benefits we get, if we get them, are spread out over the long-term,” Peters said.

He said that the economic ties Iran is now forging are difficult to sanction even if Obama wanted to punish Iran for the missile launch.

“Even if President Obama decided to abrogate that bad nuclear deal and resurrect sanctions against Iran, it wouldn’t work because Iran has been flooded with European and global corporations signing contracts right and left,” Peters said.

In all, he said, the outlook for a strong U.S. role in relations with Iran is dim.

“I hate to say this about my country, but we’ve lost this one,” Peters said.

Peters is known for his blunt assessments of the Obama administration’s foreign policy. In the past, he has called Obama a “total pussy” on live television.

Obama Administration: A UN Resolution That Would Divide Israel And Jerusalem Is Back In Play

March 9, 2016

Obama Administration: A UN Resolution That Would Divide Israel And Jerusalem Is Back In Play

By Michael Snyder, on March 8th, 2016

Source: Obama Administration: A UN Resolution That Would Divide Israel And Jerusalem Is Back In Play

According to the Wall Street Journal, the White House is considering drastic measures to reboot the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.  Among those measures is a UN Security Council resolution that would set the parameters for a two state solution and that would recognize East Jerusalem as the official capital of a Palestinian state.  If Barack Obama makes this move, it will almost certainly be before the election in November.  I had previously reported that France was ready to introduce a similar UN Security Council resolution back in September, but at that time the French backed off because they did not have full support from the Obama administration.  But now that Obama is approaching the end of his term, he suddenly seems more willing to make a bold move.

Remember, this is not just some Internet rumor.  This comes directly from an article that was just published in the Wall Street Journal that claims to have top White House officials as the source of this information.  According to those anonymous officials, the Obama administration is now ready to potentially move forward with the kind of UN Security Council resolution that I mentioned above…

The strongest element on the list of options under consideration would be U.S. support for a Security Council resolution calling on both sides to compromise on key issues, something Israel had opposed and Washington has repeatedly vetoed in the past.

The article goes on to say that the parameters of an agreement for a two state solution would be based on the 1949 armistice line but would allow for land swaps so that many Jewish settlements that have been built since 1967 would not be swallowed up by the new Palestinian state.

The Palestinians would be required to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and East Jerusalem would receive full UN Security Council recognition as the capital of a new Palestinian state.  This is something that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has promised that he would never agree to.

But Barack Obama appears to be completely fed up with Netanyahu at this point, and that is why the White House is now strongly considering moving forward with a UN Security Council resolution.  Needless to say, this would represent a dramatic change in policy from previous administrations.  Here is more from the Wall Street Journal

Mounting a push for a Security Council resolution would be a significant shift in U.S. policy and one the Israeli government has feared could marshal international sentiment in a way that could make it harder to resist making concessions. Such a move could further strain already tense relations between Messrs. Obama and Netanyahu, who have clashed over U.S. diplomacy with Iran and the administration’s past attempts to forge a Middle East peace agreement.

Last year, the White House threatened to allow action at the U.N. to proceed without objection from the U.S. after Mr. Netanyahu said during his re-election campaign that he wouldn’t support a two-state solution. The Israeli leader subsequently walked back his statement, and the White House didn’t follow through with its threat.

Right now, 136 nations already formally recognize a Palestinian state.  But a Palestinian state has never had full UN Security Council recognition because the United States has always blocked efforts in that direction.

Many people don’t realize this, but if Obama throws his support behind such a resolution, it would be considered binding upon both the Israelis and the Palestinians.  The following comes from Israel National News

A Security Council resolution would be binding upon all parties, unlike General Assembly measures which are non-obligatory recommendations. Such a resolution would remain in force even after the president leaves office next January, effectively shaping the future of American policy in the region for Mr. Obama’s successors.

The resolution would require Israel cease construction over the Green Line and would force Israel to recognize eastern Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine.

Needless to say, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would be absolutely furious if the Obama administration pushes forward with a UN Security Council resolution that would attempt to dictate a solution to the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Perhaps this explains why Netanyahu just cancelled a meeting with Barack Obama at the White House later this month

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declined an offer to meet President Barack Obama at the White House later this month and canceled his trip to Washington, the White House said on Monday, citing Israeli news reports.

Netanyahu’s decision to nix his U.S. visit marked the latest episode in a fraught relationship with Obama that has yet to recover from their deep differences over last year’s U.S.-led international nuclear deal with Iran, Israel’s arch-foe.

Of course there are lots of reasons why Netanyahu would potentially be upset with Obama.  In addition to the ridiculously bad Iran deal, we should also remember that Obama tried to help defeat Netanyahu during the last Israeli election, and the Wall Street Journal has reported that the Obama administration has been actively spying on Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders.

Barack Obama has stabbed Israel in the back over and over again, and so it would be absolutely no surprise if he decided to push for a UN Security Council resolution that would permanently divide the land of Israel and the city of Jerusalem.

Unfortunately, such a move would have very serious implications for all of us.  By dividing the land of Israel and the city of Jerusalem, Obama would be cursing our nation, and that is not something that any of us should want.

If Obama is going to do this, it will almost certainly happen before the election in November.

That means that we are looking at roughly an eight month time period.

Personally, because of how the UN schedule works, I would say that the most likely time for such a resolution to be introduced would be in September or October.  But it is definitely possible that it could come sooner than that.

For a long time, Barack Obama has expressed a desire to see the establishment of a Palestinian state before he leaves office.  Netanyahu has always been his nemesis in this regard, but now Obama seems determined to try to make something happen at the United Nations while he still has the power to do so.

Let us pray that he is not successful.

Obama Opposes New Pro-Israel Bill

February 25, 2016

Obama Opposes New Pro-Israel Measures, Will Not Follow Provisions to Help Jewish State White House rejects portions of new bill to help Israel

BY:
February 25, 2016 12:35 pm

Source: Obama Opposes New Pro-Israel Bill

President Barack Obama has announced in a rare statement that he will not follow newly passed measures aimed at boosting the Israeli economy and strengthening ties between the United States and the Jewish state, according to a statement issued by the president.

Obama stated that while he would sign the new trade resolution, portions of which focus on combatting economic boycotts of Israel, he would not enforce certain pro-Israel provisions that order the United States to stop partnering with countries that support the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, or BDS, which aims to isolate Israel.

The president’s rejection of these provisions comes two weeks after the White House issued a separate statement expressing support for every provision of the trade bill except for those focusing on strengthening the U.S.-Israel relationship.

The Obama administration has repeatedly opposed efforts to fight the BDS movement over the past several months, with several senior officials expressing support for European efforts to explicitly label Jewish-made products produced in disputed areas of Israel.

Obama claimed in the statement that his administration does not back the BDS movement. However, he will not uphold parts of the new trade legislation that seek to combat the BDS-backed labeling of Jewish goods, which the Israeli government has described as anti-Semitic.

“Certain provisions of this Act, by conflating Israel and ‘Israeli-controlled territories,’ are contrary to longstanding bipartisan United States policy, including with regard to the treatment of settlements,” Obama said in the statement.

“Moreover, consistent with longstanding constitutional practice, my administration will interpret and implement the provisions in the Act … in a manner that does not interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct diplomacy,” Obama said, making clear he will not enforce any part of the law that he views as legitimizing Israeli settlements.

Rep. Peter Roskam (R., Ill.), who authored the pro-Israel language along with Rep. Juan Vargas (D., Calif.), criticized the administration for not upholding the will of Congress and the American people.

“This law—including the anti-BDS provisions I was proud to author—passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate,” Roskam said in a statement. “Incredibly, President Obama has already announced his intention to prioritize his misguided notions of legacy over the law of the land.”

“We did not provide a statutory menu from which President Obama can pick and choose provisions to enforce,” the lawmaker added. “The president has signed this bill into law—it is now his responsibility to fully and faithfully execute it in its entirety.”

Roskam expressed dismay that “fighting efforts to delegitimize Israel interferes with his diplomacy, but rest assured that I intend to use my authority as chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee.”

Congress has undertaken a series of efforts to boost the U.S.-Israel relationship following a contested debate over the Iran nuclear deal that strained relations between the two countries.

Senate lawmakers, led by Sen. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.), recently filed legislation that would help state and local governments divest taxpayer funds from companies that back the BDS movement.

The bill comes as more than 20 state governments pursue efforts to combat the BDS movement and divest from anyone who supports it.

China Puts Advanced Missiles on Disputed Southeast Asian Island

February 17, 2016

China Puts Advanced Missiles on Disputed Southeast Asian Island Obama: U.S. military will sail, fly freely in South China Sea

BY:
February 17, 2016 5:00 am

Source: China Puts Advanced Missiles on Disputed Southeast Asian Island

President Obama defended U.S. naval and aircraft operations near disputed South China Sea islands claimed by China on Tuesday as new intelligence revealed Beijing recently placed advanced air defense missiles in the Paracels.

“Freedom of navigation must be upheld,” Obama said, adding “the United States will continue to fly, sail, and operate wherever international law allows, and we will support the right of all countries to do the same.”

The remarks followed a meeting of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, known as ASEAN, in Sunnylands, Calif. Obama and leaders from 10 ASEAN nations agreed to defend the sea from Chinese encroachment.

“We discussed the need for tangible steps in the South China Sea to lower tensions, including a halt to further reclamation, new construction, and militarization of disputed areas,” Obama said.

The president said the United States would continue to help regional states bolster maritime capabilities and resolve disputes peacefully and legally.

Obama said “the United States will continue to stand with those across Southeast Asia who are working to advance rule of law, good governance, accountable institutions, and the universal human rights of all people.”

At the Pentagon, defense officials said recent intelligence revealed that China deployed advanced HQ-9 surface-to-air missiles on Woody Island, in the Paracel island chain in the northwestern part of the sea.

The missile deployment was detected in the past several days, said officials familiar with reports of the deployment.

The buildup of air defense missiles highlights what defense officials said is China’s continuing militarization of disputed islands in the sea.

China has demanded a halt to all U.S. warship transits through the sea, and aerial reconnaissance flights over it.

The HQ-9 is an advanced anti-aircraft system that can also shoot down short-range missiles.

The missiles are likely to heighten tensions as they could be used against U.S. reconnaissance aircraft that frequently fly over the sea.

Retired Navy Capt. Jim Fanell, a former Pacific Fleet intelligence chief, said the HQ-9 is a formidable air defense missile that can cover 125 miles.

“We should not be surprised in the least about this turn of events, as it is in keeping with the strategic trend line of China’s ‘maritime sovereignty campaign’ that has been in place since 2010,” Fanell told the Washington Free Beacon.

China’s Navy chief, Adm. Wu Shengli, announced last month that that China would determine when and how to justify the militarization of new islands. The missiles on Woody appear to be a first step, Fanell said.

“The question now remains whether or not the U.S., Japan, Australia, and the representatives of ASEAN will continue to accede to Beijing’s bullying or will they band together in a ‘unified front’ and begin conducting joint patrols within China’s unofficially asserted territorial seas,” he said. “The time to act is fleeting, each hour, each day of delay will render the situation more dangerous or untenable.”

Rick Fisher, a China military affairs analyst, said the advanced missile deployment is a major military escalation by China in the South China Sea.

“China’s deployment of up to 64 HQ-9 surface-to-air missiles to Woody Island just before the ASEAN summit in California constitutes a major slap against ASEAN and the Obama administration,” said Fisher, who is associated with the International Assessment and Strategy Center.

“It should now be clear that Obama administration diplomacy and freedom of navigation operations are useless in stopping China from militarizing its islands in the Paracel and Spratly island groups,” he said.

China’s military has said the recent passage of a warship near Triton Island in the Parcels could trigger a further military buildup.

Fisher said China could supplement the HQ-9s with long-range YJ-62 anti-ship cruise missiles or DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missiles, which have a range of 870 miles.   

“Nobody is suggesting that the U.S. attack China’s dangerous island bases, but the administration can deploy sufficient counterforce to deter China from using its bases,” Fisher said.

China deployed J-11 jet fighters to Woody Island  last October.

Two months later a U.S. B-52 bomber overflew the disputed Spratly Islands, drawing a sharp rebuke from China’s government.

The commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, Adm. Harry Harris, has rejected China’s expansive South China Sea claims. Harris said in a recent speech that the South China Sea is “no more China’s than the Gulf of Mexico is Mexico’s.”

The Pentagon has said some $5.3 trillion in international trade passes through the sea each year.

China is claiming some 90 percent of the South China Sea as its maritime domain, and has built up some 3,200 acres of new islands where military facilities, including deepwater ports and airfields, are being built.

Woody Island, called Yongxing Island by China, is located about 100 miles southeast of Triton Island, where the guided-missile destroyer USS Curtis Wilbur made a close-in passage on Jan. 30. The Pentagon said the transit was designed to demonstrate freedom of navigation to three claimants to the island, China, Vietnam, and Taiwan.

China has denied it is militarizing the sea and has criticized the United States for what it says are provocative freedom of navigation operations. In addition to the Curtis, the USS Lassen passed within 12 miles of Subi Reef in the Spratlys last October.

The HQ-9 deployment was first reported by Foxnews.com on Tuesday.

The missiles were revealed on commercial satellite imagery along a beach on Woody Island. The missiles were sent there between Feb. 3 and Feb. 14.

During a summit meeting between Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping, the Beijing leader promised not to militarize newly-created South China Sea islands.

It is not clear if the September commitment included Woody Island, about 1 square mile in size that has had a military garrison since 2012.

The Communist Party-affiliated newspaper Global Times published a commentary Saturday criticizing U.S. military operations in the South China Sea as a serious political and military provocation.

“On the surface, Washington calls for international laws and norms, such as freedom of navigation, to be the guiding principle in the South China Sea,” wrote Zhang Tengjun, a research fellow at the China Institute of International Studies in Beijing.

“In fact, it tries to hype up China’s ‘threat’ to regional security and ASEAN’s interests so more ASEAN members will join a US-led front to counter China.”

Exclusive: Whistleblowers Warned Top Spy About Skewed ISIS Intel

February 17, 2016

Exclusive: Whistleblowers Warned Top Spy About Skewed ISIS Intel It wasn’t just the generals who were warned that ISIS intelligence assessments were overly rosy. The office of the director of national intelligence knew, too.

Source: Exclusive: Whistleblowers Warned Top Spy About Skewed ISIS Intel – The Daily Beast

U.S. military analysts told the nation’s top intelligence official that their reports on ISIS were skewed and manipulated by their bosses, The Daily Beast has learned. The result: an overly optimistic account of the campaign against the terror group.

The complaints, lodged by analysts at U.S. Central Command in 2015, are separate from allegations that analysts made to the Defense Department inspector general, who is now investigating “whether there was any falsification, distortion, delay, suppression, or improper modification of intelligence information” by the senior officials that run CENTCOM’s intelligence group.

This second set of accusations, which have not been previously reported, were made to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). They show that the officials charged with overseeing all U.S. intelligence activities were aware, through their own channels, of potential problems with the integrity of information on ISIS, some of which made its way to President Obama.

The analysts have said that they believe their reports were altered for political reasons, namely to adhere to Obama administration officials’ public statements that the U.S.-led campaign against ISIS is making progress and has put a dent in the group’s financing and operations.

Administration officials have denied that the intelligence reports came under political pressure. But Republican lawmakers and presidential candidates have questioned whether the public is being given an honest account of what effect hundreds of U.S. airstrikes have had on ISIS. The allegations of skewed intelligence have come up in several congressional hearings and figured in an early Republican presidential debate.

The analysts made their claims to the ODNI in response to written surveys that were sent out by its Analytic Integrity and Standards Group last year, as part of a “periodic assessment” to take the pulse of the intelligence community, according to U.S. officials.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper was asked about the defense inspector general investigation in September during a congressional oversight hearing. At the time, he gave no indication that his own office was aware through its own channels of the analysts’ accusations.

“It is an almost sacred writ… in the intelligence profession never to politicize intelligence. I don’t engage in it. I never have and I don’t condone it when it’s identified,” Clapper told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

But Clapper sought to downplay what he called “media hyperbole” about the substance of the analysts’ complaints. “I think it’s best that we all await the outcome of the DOD I.G. investigation to determine whether and to what extent there was any politicization of intelligence at CENTCOM,” Clapper said.

A spokesperson for the defense inspector general declined to comment for this story.

In the survey from the ODNI, the analysts accused their superiors of editing or rejecting reports that cast doubt on whether the U.S.-led campaign against ISIS was dealing a crippling blow, and they accused senior CENTCOM intelligence officials of attempting to delete emails and other reports that provided evidence of their manipulations, according to a source familiar with the survey who spoke on condition of anonymity.

CENTCOM said no emails were deleted.

“It is important to allow the DoD IG investigation to run its course. However, I can tell you that neither Maj. Gen. Grove nor Mr Ryckman deleted any e-mails associated with the investigation. In fact, as a matter of CENTCOM policy, all senior leader e-mails are kept in storage for record keeping purposes. CENTCOM continues to cooperate fully with the DOD IG investigation,” Air Force Col. Patrick Ryder said in a statement to the Daily Beast.

It’s not clear when the survey responses were reviewed by ODNI officials, but they were included in a report that was finished by December 2015.

The ODNI chose not to investigate the claims of impropriety on its own because the Defense Department’s inspector general had already launched an investigation, sources familiar with the matter told The Daily Beast. That investigation, which hasn’t been completed, began after more than 50 CENTCOM analysts filed complaints with the Pentagon watchdog in July 2015.

U.S. Central Command, based in Tampa, Florida, is responsible for U.S. military operations across the Middle East, from Egypt to Afghanistan. There are more than 1,000 analysts assigned to assessing intelligence and other data on the security situation of the region. They include troops and civilian intelligence analysts who work for the nation’s various intelligence agencies.

The ODNI oversees all intelligence agencies, military and civilian, and is ultimately responsible for ensuring that intelligence reports are free from political influence and bias and that they’re based on sound, verifiable sources of information.

The ODNI standards group was set up by law following the botched intelligence community analysis of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program in 2002 (PDF), which suppressed dissenting views that doubted Saddam Hussein had a viable chemical weapons program. That report, which has been effectively disavowed, was seized upon by senior Bush administration officials to make a public case for invading the country.

The standards group “conducts regular periodic assessments of finished analytic products” and reviews them “for timeliness, objectivity and independence from political considerations, and ensures that the products are based upon all sources of available intelligence and employ the standards of proper analytic tradecraft,” Timothy Barrett, a spokesperson for the ODNI, told The Daily Beast in a written statement. “Intelligence analysis from CENTCOM was reviewed by [the group] in 2015 as a part of the periodic assessment, and the information is available to Congress and the [Defense Department inspector general],” Barrett said.

It wasn’t clear whether the congressional committees that oversee intelligence activities had seen the comments from CENTCOM analysts. According to one source familiar with the document, it has been classified at the “secret” level and cannot be widely shared with lawmakers beyond the two intelligence committees.

A task force composed of staff from three House committees—on intelligence, armed services, and appropriations—is investigating the analysts’ allegations and whether they reflect any systemic problems with intelligence analysis.

It remains unclear whether the analysts’ complaints to the ODNI led to any corrective actions or halted what they saw as an inappropriate practice of selectively altering reports. Three sources who are familiar with the defense inspector general’s investigation told The Daily Beast that the watchdog had conducted interviews with analysts at CENTCOM’s headquarters in Tampa, and had reviewed documents allegedly showing that senior officials, including Maj. Gen. Steven Grove, the command’s intelligence director, and his civilian deputy, Gregory Ryckman, had deleted emails and files from computer systems before the inspector general could examine them.

“The cancer was within the senior level of the intelligence command,” one defense official told The Daily Beast. The pushback by the analysts has been described as a “revolt.”

One person who knows the contents of the written complaint they sent to the defense inspector general said it used the word “Stalinist” to describe the tone set by officials overseeing CENTCOM’s analysis.

Two officials at CENTCOM told The Daily Beast they were not aware of the ODNI’s efforts or the survey that analysts had completed. They said the biggest changes to intelligence practices came in the days after analysts filed their complaint with the inspector general. Army Gen. Lloyd Austin, the commander of CENTCOM, urged analysts to speak up if they felt their assessments were being altered.

In the wake of the allegations of politicizing intelligence, some of the people who receive CENTCOM reports told The Daily Beast that they read them more skeptically.

But the reliability of CENTCOM’s analysis has only become more important since the accusations first emerged. In Afghanistan, the Taliban is resurgent and both ISIS and al Qaeda are trying to expand their footprint. In Iraq, U.S. and Iraqi forces pushed ISIS out of Ramadi, raising hopes that the two nations could launch a similar campaign in Iraq’s second-biggest city, Mosul, which serves as ISIS’s Iraqi capital.

In Yemen, ISIS is weaker but al Qaeda is stronger. And in Syria, Russian strikes are helping forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad reclaim territory in the city of Aleppo. Should that city fall squarely to the regime, Syria would devolve into a war largely between the regime and ISIS, leaving the Western world with no good outcomes for the fate of that state.

Were that to happen, unvarnished analysis on ISIS and the state of the war would be more important than ever.

Saudi Arabia confirms sent aircraft to Turkey to fight against ISIL

February 14, 2016

Saudi Arabia confirms sent aircraft to Turkey to fight against ISIL

February 14, 2016, Sunday/ 10:38:20/ REUTERS WITH TODAY’S ZAMAN

Source: Saudi Arabia confirms sent aircraft to Turkey to fight against ISIL

 Saudi Arabia confirms sent aircraft to Turkey to fight against ISIL

Royal Saudi Air Force jets fly in formation in Riyadh. (File photo: Reuters)

Saudi Arabia confirmed late on Saturday it sent aircraft to NATO-member Turkey’s İncirlik air base for the fight against Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) militants, although Turkish sources reportedly denied arrival of any Saudi aircraft.

Brig. Gen. Ahmed al-Assiri, adviser in the office of Saudi Arabia’s minister of defense, told pan-Arab Al Arabiya television that the kingdom was committed to stepping up the fighting against ISIL and that the move was part of those efforts.

He also said that the current presence in the air base was limited to aircraft and no ground troops had been sent.

“What is present now is aircraft that are part of the Saudi Arabian forces,” Assiri said in response to a question on whether ground troops were included.

Turkey’s Hürriyet daily, however, quoted Turkish military sources as denying the arrival of Saudi jets at the İncirlik air base. According to the military sources, Saudi jets had not arrived at İncirlik yet and their arrival would take two to three weeks, Hürriyet reported.

Saudi Arabia has resumed its participation in air strikes against ISIL in recent weeks and US Defense Secretary Ash Carter on Thursday welcomed its commitment to expand its role.

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu told the Yeni Şafak newspaper on Saturday that Saudi Arabia had carried out inspections at the air base in preparation for sending aircraft.

Counter-terror expert warned US Senate: “13% of Syrian refugees support ISIS”

February 11, 2016

Counter-terror expert warned US Senate: “13% of Syrian refugees support ISIS” Counter-terror expert David Harris warned the US Senate about the dangers associated with Canada accepting so many Syrian refugees and the implications that it has for the United States.

Feb 11, 2016, 4:06PM

Rachel Avraham

Source: Counter-terror expert warned US Senate: “13% of Syrian refugees support ISIS” | JerusalemOnline.com

David Harris, a counter-terror expert who serves as the head of the international intelligence program INSIGNIS Strategic Research Inc., recently addressed the US Senate in order to discuss the dangers associated with the fact that the Canadian government has decided to fast-trek the arrival of 25,000 Syrian refugees into Canada and its implications for the United States: “Complications led the government to adjust intake goals to 10,000 before the end of 2015 and another 15,000 prior to 1 March, 2016. By last week, about 15,000 had entered Canada. Reports indicate that Canada might raise its target level and take in 50,000 Syrian refugees by the end of 2016. Given the threat picture in Syria and the scale of the intake, security considerations require thoughtful attention.”

According to Harris, FBI director James Corney highlighted screening difficulties if America would absorb 10,000 Syrians, warning that information gaps could lead to inadequate screening: “If the extensive US intelligence system would have trouble screening 10,000 Syrians in a year, how likely is it that Canada even with valuable US assistance could adequately screen two and a half times that number in four months?”

Harris emphasized that it is important to remember the risk associated with these refugees: “Apart from accounts of a suspected ISIS aim of penetrating international refugee streams, a Lebanese cabinet minister warned in September 2015 that at least two percent of the 1.1 million Syrians in Lebanon’s refugee camps were connected to ISIS extremism. Canada takes refugees from Lebanon’s UNHRC camps. More generally, Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies polls determined that 13% of Syrian refugees in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey had positive views of ISIS. How many more might favor Al Qaeda, the Al Nusra Front, Hezbollah, Assad’s militias and other non-ISIS threats?”

He noted that it is critical to screen for these things when determining which Syrian refugees will be able to come to countries like Canada and the United States but he questioned how easily one can access the history of each Syrian refugee given that they come from a hostile and chaotic country: “We cannot reliably confer with the authorities of such jurisdictions, assuming that an authority exists about many prospective refugees.”

While Canada believes that the risk can be mitigated by barring single adult males, Harris warned that many people can lie about their age, adding that many children both male and female under the age of 18 are part of ISIS: “And what effect would an adult male embargo have on an adult-at-risk gay man and other males targeted by terrorists? Meanwhile, in favoring women with children and men with families, do we know who is actually married to whom and whose children are accompanying whom? Are some ISIS fighters families involved? Would they in turn sponsor relatives?”

Harris also is greatly concerned that there may be security risks for North America’s existing minority communities if there is a huge influx of Syrian refugees given the fact that in Syria, demonizing Jews is a national policy and threatening the lives of members of the LGBT community has reached a crisis point: “And what of importing the people from a region where anti-black racism is an especially serious matter?”

According to Harris, this situation in Canada can also adversely affect the US as Canadians require no visas to enter into the United States and terrorists have taken advantage of this in the past: “Failed milliunium bomber Ahmed Ressam and Ghazi Ibrahim Abu Mezar’s arrest in his Brooklyn bomb factory remind us of the cross border risks.” Harris noted that the Canadian government has assured that the process will be transparent and this should reassure the Canadian public as well as Canada’s allies but noted there is still a great risk involved in taking in so many Syrians: “There is little doubt that those in Canada tasked with the job of screening refugees are doing the best that they can given the constraints but the constraints are significant and we must be realistic about that fact.”

According to CBS News, Guidy Mamann, a Toronto immigration lawyer, also addressed the US Senate hearing and proclaimed: “There are people in our office waiting for years. Why is somebody being allowed to jump ahead of the line? This is not a rescue mission. This is a resettlement mission. The people we are helping have already 
escaped the conflict zone and have already reached safety in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. We are only relocating them and offering them permanent resettlement. We are making no attempt, whatsoever, to 
rescue people who are actually in Syria and who are in imminent danger. When compared to other large groups of refugees, one could easily argue that this group represents a relatively higher-risk demographic. Syria is widely considered to be a major hotbed of international terror. Large parts of Syria are controlled by ISIS which, sadly, enjoys some considerable local support. Virtually the entire country supports one of the three warring factions. All three groups have been associated with assorted atrocities and violations of human rights.” Given this, he argued that Canada should take more time to screen the Syrian refugees.