Wednesday, April 1, 2015

No Deterrance

errence

 
 


Bout the Persian New Clear deal thingy...

Why is 44 so anxious to have an international agreement that will have no legal standing under the Constitution just two years from now, since it will be just a presidential agreement, rather than a treaty requiring the “advice and consent” of the Senate?
 
There are at least two reasons. One reason is that such an agreement will serve as a fig leaf to cover his failure to do anything that has any serious chance of stopping Iran from going nuclear. Such an agreement will protect 44 politically, despite however much it exposes the American people to unprecedented dangers.
 
The other reason is that, by going to the United Nations for its blessing on his agreement with Iran, he can get a bigger fig leaf to cover his complicity in the nuclear arming of America’s most dangerous enemy.
 
 In 44’s vision, as a citizen of the world, there may be no reason why Iran should not have nuclear weapons when other nations have them. Politically, 44 could not just come right out and say such a thing. But he can get the same end result by pretending to have ended the dangers by reaching an agreement with Iran. There have long been people in the Western democracies who hail every international agreement that claims to reduce the dangers of war.
 
The road to World War II was strewn with arms-control agreements on paper that aggressor nations ignored in practice. Yet those agreements lulled the democracies into a false sense of security that led them to cut back on military spending while their enemies were building up the military forces to attack them.

 

 

Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Forget The Nukes - Kill The Regime

Bomb Iran - Don't Bomb Iran

All the recent stuff about striking Persia's new clear sites may be a smokescreen. If instead, the US were to strike to the Iranian leadership in a decapitation maneuver events could be super favourable.

USAF's Project Checkmate could be used as a regime killing strike.

"Iran, Le Choix des Armes" by Francois Heisbourg shows how.

1st off, the highest levels of the Regime including the Supreme Leader have congregated and met multiple times since 2009 – something they never did after Operation Iraqi Freedom kicked off under 43's auspices.

A massive aerial bombardment, flights of Tomahawk cruise missiles streaking from submarines and naval warships to strike Iranian command and control centers, ministries, telecommunications facilities and Iranian air defenses, especially Russian-made TOR M-1 missile emplacements.

Iranian Naval and air force assets at Bandar Abbas are hit with a combination of missiles and a French- Saudi Amphibious assault from Qatar and the UAE. Waves of Tomahawk cruise missiles streak through Persian aerospace from ships and subs - effectively targetting the Iranian air force - air fields, missile sites and air defense systems are struck down within hours.
Communications are totally co opted or overwhelmed cybernetically. B2 Stealth bombers sortee to to strike IRRGC command and control HQ's.


"American warplanes and missiles carefully avoid striking research reactors in Teheran and Ispahan as well as the nuclear reactor at Bousher--less than 100 kilometers from Kuwait--as well as the centrifuges themselves at Natanz in an effort to prevent the spread of radioactive material to nearby population centers.

However, other missiles producing electromagnetic pulses do knock out
virtually all of Iran's electric grid and computer systems"

Special Forces strike and hold especial clerical compounds in Tehran and Qom right before Friday prayers. Nearly 20% of Iran's ruling praetorian guards and mullahs are captured, killed or missing by breakfast time.

Within 5 days, Iran is reduced to a state of near paralysis, unable in any sense to retaliate militarily, its entire economic infrastructure in shambles. 

Monday, March 30, 2015

al Qaeda Versus ISIS

 
In theory anywrought,  it may seem like aQ and ISIS should be hip and haunch on their drive to change the ME.
 
 
Which do you think is more likely to attract the attention of an 18-year-old boy dreaming of adventure and glory: a badass video with CGI flames and explosions, or a two-hour lecture on the Koran from a gray-haired old man?
 
The Islamic State and Al-Qaeda fundamentally differ on whom they see as their main enemy, which strategies and tactics to use in attacking that enemy and which social issues and other concerns to emphasize.
Although the ultimate goal of Al-Qaeda is to overthrow the corrupt “apostate” regimes in the Middle East and replace them with “true” Islamic governments, Al-Qaeda’s pri­mary enemy is the United States, which it sees as the root cause of the Middle East’s problems.
 
The Islamic State does not follow Al-Qa­eda’s “far enemy” strategy, preferring instead the “near enemy” strategy, albeit on a re­gional level. As such, the primary target of the Islamic State has not been the United States, but rather apostate regimes in the Arab world—namely, the Bashar Assad regime in Syria and the Haider al-Abadi regime in Iraq.
Baghdadi favors first purifying the Islamic community by at­tacking Shia and other religious minorities as well as rival jihadist groups. The Islamic State’s long list of enemies includes the Iraqi Shia, Hezbollah, the Yazidis (a Kurdish eth­no-religious minority located predominantly in Iraq), the wider Kurdish community in Iraq, the Kurds in Syria and rival opposition groups in Syria (including Jabhat al-Nusra). And (surprise!) the Jews.
 
Al-Qaeda considers Shia Muslims to be apostates but sees killing sprees against them as too extreme and thus detrimental to the broader jihadist project. Al-Qaeda believes that the “Muslim masses,” without whose sup­port Al-Qaeda will wither and die, do not really understand or particularly care about the doctrinal differences between Sunni and Shia, and when they see jihadists blowing up Shia mosques or slaughtering Shia civilians, all they see are Muslims kill­ing other Muslims.
In fact, Al-Qaeda believes in playing nice with other jihadists in general; the Islamic State does not. Jabhat al-Nusra, Zawahiri’s designated affiliate in Syria and the Islamic State’s rival, works with other Syrian fighters against the Assad regime and, by the low standards of the Syrian civil war, is relatively restrained in attacks on civilians—in fact, at the same time the Islamic State was making head­lines for beheading captured Americans, Jabhat al-Nusra made headlines for releasing the U.N. peacekeepers it had captured.
 
The Islamic State embraces some of these goals, but even where there is agreement in principle, its approach is quite differ­ent. The Islamic State seeks to build, well, an Islamic state. So its strategy is to con­trol territory, steadily consolidating and expanding its position.
Part of this is ideo­logical: It wants to create a government where Muslims can live under Islamic law (or the Islamic State’s twisted version of it). Part of this is inspirational: by creating an Islamic state, it excites many Muslims, who then embrace the group. And part of it is basic strategy: by controlling territory it can build an army, and by using its army it can control more territory.
 
Al-Qaeda in theory supports a caliphate, but Zawahiri envisioned this as a long-term goal. Back in the day, although Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri supported Al-Qaeda in Iraq publicly, in private they did not approve of its declara­tion of an Islamic state in Iraq. In particu­lar, Zawahiri feared that AQI was putting the cart before the horse: you need full control over territory and popular support before proclaiming an Islamic state, not the other way around.
Indeed, Al-Qaeda has never shown much interest in taking or holding territory in order to set up an Islamic state and govern, despite the fact that doing so is one of its stated goals; on the contrary, the only reason it has ever shown interest in territory is as a safe haven and as a place to set up training camps.
 
The two groups’ preferred tactics reflect these strategic differences. Al-Qaeda has long favored large-scale, dramatic attacks against strategic or symbolic targets. The Islamic State evolved out of the civil wars in Iraq and Syria, and its tactics reflect this context.
The Islamic State seeks to con­quer, and thus it deploys artillery, massed forces and even tanks as it sweeps into new areas or defends existing holdings. Terror­ism, in this context, is part of revolutionary war: it is used to undermine morale in the army and police, force a sectarian backlash or otherwise create dynamics that help con­quest on the ground.
 
Military efforts also matter tremendously. For Al-Qaeda, the constant drone campaign has diminished its core in Pakistan and made it harder for it to exercise control over the broader movement. For the Islamic State, defeat on the ground will do more to diminish its appeal than any propaganda measure. Washington should also work with regional allies to ensure cooperation on in­telligence and border security.
 
Only time will tell how this all ends, but in the immediate future, some degree of continued infighting between Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State is the most likely outcome. The good news is that the fight within may consume much of the two groups’ at­tention; the bad news is that anti-American violence or high-profile attacks in the Mid­dle East may become more intense as each side seeks to outmatch its rival.
 
Yet while spikes in violence may occur, such infighting will undermine our enemies’ ability to shape regional politics, diminish both movements’ influence and discredit jihadism in general.
 


Friday, March 27, 2015

To Stop Iran...


May have to gird our loins and commence bombing!

For years, experts worried that the Middle East would face an uncontrollable nuclear-arms race if Iran ever acquired weapons capability. Given the region’s political, religious and ethnic conflicts, the logic is straightforward.
 
As in other nuclear proliferation cases like India, Pakistan and North Korea, America and the West were guilty of inattention when they should have been vigilant. But failing to act in the past is no excuse for making the same mistakes now. All presidents enter office facing the cumulative effects of their predecessors’ decisions. But each is responsible for what happens on his watch. 44’s approach on Iran has brought a bad situation to the brink of catastrophe.
 
In theory, comprehensive international sanctions, rigorously enforced and universally adhered to, might have broken the back of Iran’s nuclear program. But the sanctions imposed have not met those criteria. Naturally, Tehran wants to be free of them, but the president’s own director of National Intelligence testified in 2014 that they had not stopped Iran’s progressing its nuclear program. There is now widespread acknowledgment that the rosy 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, which judged that Iran’s weapons program was halted in 2003, was an embarrassment, little more than wishful thinking.
 
Even absent palpable proof, like a nuclear test, Iran’s steady progress toward nuclear weapons has long been evident. Now the arms race has begun: Neighboring countries are moving forward, driven by fears that 44's diplomacy is fostering a nuclear Iran. Saudi Arabia, keystone of the oil-producing monarchies, has long been expected to move first. No way would the Sunni Saudis allow the Shiite Persians to outpace them in the quest for dominance within Islam and Middle Eastern geopolitical hegemony. Because of reports of early Saudi funding, analysts have long believed that Saudi Arabia has an option to obtain nuclear weapons from Pakistan, allowing it to become a nuclear-weapons state overnight. Egypt and Turkey, both with imperial legacies and modern aspirations, and similarly distrustful of Tehran, would be right behind.
 
Ironically perhaps, Israel’s nuclear weapons have not triggered an arms race. Other states in the region understood — even if they couldn’t admit it publicly — that Israel’s nukes were intended as a deterrent, not as an offensive measure.
 
Iran is a different story. Extensive progress in uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing reveal its ambitions. Saudi, Egyptian and Turkish interests are complex and conflicting, but faced with Iran’s threat, all have concluded that nuclear weapons are essential.
 
The former Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Turki al-Faisal, said recently, “whatever comes out of these talks, we will want the same.” He added, “if Iran has the ability to enrich uranium to whatever level, it’s not just Saudi Arabia that’s going to ask for that.” Obviously, the Saudis, Turkey and Egypt will not be issuing news releases trumpeting their intentions. But the evidence is accumulating that they have quickened their pace toward developing weapons.


 
This gold standard is now everywhere in jeopardy because the president’s policy is empowering Iran. Whether diplomacy and sanctions would ever have worked against the hard-liners running Iran is unlikely. But abandoning the red line on weapons-grade fuel drawn originally by the Europeans in 2003, and by the United Nations Security Council in several resolutions, has alarmed the Middle East and effectively handed a permit to Iran’s nuclear weapons establishment.
 
The inescapable conclusion is that Iran will not negotiate away its nuclear program. Nor will sanctions block its building a broad and deep weapons infrastructure. The inconvenient truth is that only military action like Israel’s 1981 attack on Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor in Iraq or its 2007 destruction of a Syrian reactor, designed and built by North Korea, can accomplish what is required. Time is terribly short, but a strike can still succeed.
 
Rendering inoperable the Natanz and Fordow uranium-enrichment installations and the Arak heavy-water production facility and reactor would be priorities. So, too, would be the little-noticed but critical uranium-conversion facility at Isfahan. An attack need not destroy all of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but by breaking key links in the nuclear-fuel cycle, it could set back its program by three to five years. The United States could do a thorough job of destruction, but Israel alone can do what’s necessary. Such action should be combined with vigorous American support for Iran’s opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran.
 
44’s fascination with an Iranian nuclear deal always had an air of unreality. But by ignoring the strategic implications of such diplomacy, these talks have triggered a potential wave of nuclear programs.
 
 The president’s biggest legacy could be a thoroughly nuclear-weaponized Middle East.
 
Pic - "We have made some progress but there are still gaps, important gaps, and important choices that need to be made by Iran in order to move forward.”

Thursday, March 26, 2015

ISIS Crisis


As the JV cats devour more turf - The Islamic State’s rise is, in other words, not over, and it is likely to end up involving an attack on America.

Three reasons why such an attempt is inevitable:

 

ISIS’s Strategy Practically Demands It
 
Imbued with existential hatred against the United States, the group doesn’t just oppose American power, it opposes America’s identity. Where the United States is a secular democracy that binds law to individual freedom, the Islamic State is a totalitarian empire determined to sweep freedom from the earth. As an ideological and physical necessity, ISIS must ultimately conquer America. Incidentally, this kind of total-war strategy explains why counterterrorism experts are rightly concerned about nuclear proliferation. The Islamic State’s strategy is also energized by its desire to replace al-Qaeda as Salafi jihadism’s global figurehead. While al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and ISIS had a short flirtation last year, ISIS has now signaled its intent to usurp al-Qaeda’s power in its home territory. Attacks by ISIS last week against Shia mosques in the Yemeni capital of Sana’a were, at least in part, designed to suck recruits, financial donors, and prestige away from AQAP. But to truly displace al-Qaeda, ISIS knows it must furnish a new 9/11.

 Its capabilities are growing
 
Today, ISIS has thousands of European citizens in its ranks. Educated at the online University of Edward Snowden, ISIS operations officers have cut back intelligence services’ ability to monitor and disrupt their communications. With EU intelligence services stretched beyond breaking point, ISIS has the means and confidence to attempt attacks against the West. EU passports are powerful weapons: ISIS could attack — as al-Qaeda has repeatedly — U.S. targets around the world.  
 
An Attack on the U.S. Is Priceless Propaganda
 
For transnational Salafi jihadists like al-Qaeda and ISIS, a successful blow against the U.S. allows them to claim the mantle of a global force and strengthens the narrative that they’re on a holy mission. Holiness is especially important: ISIS knows that to recruit new fanatics and deter its enemies, it must offer an abiding narrative of strength and divine purpose. With the group’s leaders styling themselves as Mohammed’s heirs, Allah’s chosen warriors on earth, attacking the infidel United States would reinforce ISIS’s narrative. 

Of course, attacking America wouldn’t actually serve the Islamic State’s long-term objectives. Quite the opposite: Any atrocity would fuel a popular American resolve to crush the group with expediency. (Make no mistake, it would be crushed.) The problem, however, is that, until then, America is in the bull’s eye.

Pic - "Off Shore Balancing - again..."




 

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Those Summer Of Love Borders

"Got to admit - it's getting better - a little better all the time (Can't get no worse)"

Aside from the delightful little Sgt Pepper ditties the All You Need Is Love Summer of Love bequeathed the world, there are also those magical pre war 1967 borders betwixt Little Satan and what is now termed something something Palestine.

Getting Little Satan to unAss borders au courant is like a new exclusive idea via 44

This is actually old news - 43 lol'd the 1967 idea way back before Surge Time

"...As part of a final peace settlement, Little Satan must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties. … In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Little Satan populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949."

Only now - 44 wants to redo the borders back to pre 1967

If a new and independent Palestine conducts Westphalian Statecraft - creating Mutual Military Assistance Pacts, leasing bases to foreign militaries, crafting alliances etc., events could spiral out of control with funintended consequences of immense  proportions.

If one K'Ssam too many starts exploding skyscrapers in Tel Aviv or her near abroad is compassed with scary armies by governments - or semi state backed non state terroristical actors  - that routinely call for Little Satan's destruction - Little Satan could launch a preventive pre emption herself - to wipe clean and draw again the face of the Middle East - resulting in an even more bigger Little Satan - that will make 1967 look quite tame.


Pic - "Moreover, an agreement that pulls the IDF out of the West Bank right now, with ISIS and Hezbollah and Iranian troops roaming around Syria, is a formula for war and terror in Jordan and Israel."

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

"Death To America"

 
Iran’s Supreme leader called for “Death to America” on Saturday, a day after 44 appealed to Iran to seize a “historic opportunity” for a nuclear deal and a better future, and as Secretary of State claimed substantial progress toward an accord.
Supreme Leader exhorted the faithful that Iran would not capitulate to Great Satan and not to buy into any anti regime feelings. When the crowd started shouting, “Death to America,” the ayatollah responded: “Of course yes, death to America, because America is the original source of this pressure.”
“They insist on putting pressure on our dear people’s economy. What is their goal? Their goal is to put the people against the system”
The ancient Ayatollah did get one thing right about 44's Unserious Foreign Policy -
“The politics of America is to create insecurity.”
Pic - Supreme Leader is dying - and the cats up next may not be particularly interested in maintaining deals cut in good faith"