Obama Administration changes backtracks in Syria, stating that regime change is not imperative.

Link:  U.S. accepts Russia's stance regarding Bashar al-Assad.


In a move which reflects the complete collapse of coherent policy in the latter days of the Obama Administration, United States Secretary of State John Kerry announced this week that the U.S. no longer believed that "regime change" was necessary in Iraq.  Until now, the U.S. policy had been squarely behind the conviction that a future, peaceful Syria would not have Bashar al-Assad as it's Chief of State.  In fact, U.S. policy (and money) had been focused on various indigenous Syrian groups who were opposing both the Assad regime and ISIS.  Over the years, Syria has been a thorn in the side of U.S. foreign policy in the Levant, basically because of the Syrian Ba'ath Party and two men, Hafez al-Assad and his son Bashar.  Both men ruled Syria as Presidential strongmen, tolerating no opposition, playing any internal opposition of against each other, and declaring "death to Israel" at just about every opportunity.  Syria and the Assad-led Ba'athists had no reason to expect generosity from the United States.  In fact, a good argument can be made that Syria has on more than a few occasions has supported terrorist actions against U.S. civilians and property.  But for some reason, the U.S. State Department chose this week to make up with Assad.  No need to ask why.  The reason the Obama Administration removed its previous insistence that Assad had to go is because the United States Department of State has become unwilling to oppose Russia on any terms.

Earlier this year, the conflict in Ukraine was headline news.  Watching the drama unfold was fascinating, as Russia openly manipulated an emasculated Europe and United States, to solidify its annexation of Crimea and set the stage for further dismemberment of Ukraine down the road.  The only action the Obama Administration was willing to take to confront Russia was the threat of more sanctions.  No doubt the sanctions regime that eventually took hold caused some disruption in the Russian economy, but the Russian people are used to sacrifice, and over the years they have shown their disdain for the use of economics as a weapon; the Germans tried to starve Russia in both the first and second World Wars, and failed miserably both times.  At this moment in time, Putin is running the show.  The EU, NATO, and the United States show no real inclination to stand up to Russian aggression, and the Chinese seem to be content to watch from the sidelines.  Russia intends on destroying ISIS and remaking the Middle East, but according to its designs, which include Iran as a regional superpower.  The disappearance of the United States has been breathtaking.  Both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are scrambling to confront the threat of a nuclear Iran, supported by Russia as the world's sole superpower.  Putin has laid his cards on the table; he is determined to rewrite the legacy of the Cold War, this time with Russia as the winner.  His timing has been perfect, with U.S. President Barack Obama apparently uninterested in facing down his Russian counterpart.  For the moment, what Russia wants, Russia gets.  In 2016, a new President moves into the Oval Office; will it be too late to set things right again?

Russia to host Syrian peace conference; any Assad opposition that the Russian's haven't killed will be invited to attend.

Links:  A. ISIS considered strong suspect in downing of Russian passenger jet over Sinai.
            B. Russian action in Syria strengthens Iran.
            C. Russian sending clear message to Syrian civilians about support for Assad.

Since the destruction of a Russian passenger jet over the Sinai on October 31, the international community was left to decide the veracity of claims of responsibility by ISIS.  Although ISIS proved that it had influence in the Sinai last year when an ISIS group attacked an Egyptian military compound, many questioned their ability to actually carry out a successful attack on a passenger plane.  Sadly, it seems to be more apparent everyday that ISIS was indeed responsible for this tragedy, which resulted in the deaths of 224 mostly Russians on holiday at Sharm el-Sheik in Egypt.  In addition, experts now believe that an onboard bomb was most likely responsible for the crash.  This event raises the stakes in the war against ISIS.  As most European nations and the United States come to grips with the likelihood that open-border policies have allowed ISIS operatives into the EU and the U.S., security and inspection procedures at airports, ports, and other likely targets will have to be reviewed and increased when necessary.  Any person having access to a passenger plane on the ground or a tourist cruise liner in port will have to be vetted and searched.  This includes regular employees like pilots, cabin crew, ship officers and crew, maintenance and repair staff, medical personnel, refueling crews, and food and beverage suppliers, for a start.  This necessary policy will cause a decided inconvenience for many, but ISIS has shown no regard whatsoever for civilian lives.  If they can successfully access a Russian passenger plane on the ground at an Egyptian Airport (Egyptian Airport Security has a solid reputation), then western nations can not take chances.

Regarding the current conflict in Syria, the latest entrant into the war has decided hold a peace conference.  Russia intends to invite all factions involved in the conflict to this conference in Moscow, including Syrian opposition to Russia's favorite, de facto Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.  Two questions must be answered before the conference commences: will the Assad opposition boycott the conference?  How many members of the Assad opposition feel safe to travel to Moscow, in light of the beating they have taken from Russian bombs in the last two weeks?  As Russia continues to build its own anti-ISIS coalition, this conference is an important opportunity for Vladimir Putin to demonstrate that Russia is indeed a power-broker in the Syrian theater.  No doubt the United States, which labeled the conference "premature", will send representatives, in order to not appear "unconstructive".  Russia will use the conference as another chance to build up the credentials of its ally, Iran.  The captive audience in attendance, diplomatic representatives of China, the United States, European nations, Israel, Turkey, and other concerned parties, will see Iran treated as the dominant regional power in the Persian Gulf.  Russia wishes to perpetuate this idea as often as possible, hoping that the international community will eventually see it as a "fait accompli".  How Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates respond will be pivotal.  The Gulf monarchies understandably do not want to see Iran become the most powerful leader in the Persian Gulf region.  Iran is tied to Shi'a fundamentalism like ISIS is tied to Islamic extremism.  The Gulf states are quick to point out Iran's support for Hezbollah, and Iran responds with accusations of Saudi financial support for ISIS.  Up to now, this effort to reform Iran's image has been basically diplomatic, but for the world to truly consider Iran in a new light, something monumental must occur.  Russia is aware of this fact, and intends on Being the "Eastern Hammer" which will be used to destroy ISIS.  Russia, of course, and her budding coalition, will be the "Western Hammer".  Once Iran has isolated and minimized the U.S. presence in Iraq, then it will be free to deploy regular divisions from Iran into Iraq, to attack ISIS.  By then, Russia will be in a position to fully engage ISIS in the west.

The stage is being set for Russia and Iran to deliver the world from the greatest threat since Nazism.
Wouldn't it be nice if someone else had stepped up to tackle this problem with the conviction of Vladimir Putin. 

The world needs a leader to stand up to ISIS; can Putin fill the role?

Link: Putin using media and military to make headlines in Syria.

Over the last two years, the world has become a much more dangerous place.  Russia seems intent on presiding over the dismemberment of Ukraine, Libya has become a magnet for jihadist groups, Iran, arguably the world's foremost exporter of terrorism, has been given open access to purchase modern military equipment, and ISIS seems unstoppable as it racks up battlefield victories in Iraq and Syria.  What the international situation calls for is the arrival on the scene of a true leader.  Barack Obama does not have the courage or the conviction to be that leader, and the various European Heads of State  are permanently frozen in "surrender" mode.  Whose left?  What about Vladimir Putin?  Sure, I'm disturbed by Russian aggression in Ukraine, but the situation in Donbas and Crimea does not present a current threat to world peace.  Let's take a serious look at the danger posed by the continued existence of the Islamic State for Iraq and al-Sham, or the Islamic State for a Caliphate in the Levant, or ISIS/ISIL, or whatever name suits you.  Simply put, this Islamic Extremist Organization is about Death.

ISIS claims to be singularly focused on the creation of a new Islamic Caliphate.  The most recent Caliph was embodied in the form of the last Sultan of the Ottoman Empire.  What is a Caliph?  A Caliph is the spiritual leader of the Islamic World, and the Caliphate is intended to be whatever geographical area that accepts his total authority.  At times, ISIS has claimed to be only interested in Syria, but that interest was expanded to include Iraq, upon the ill-timed withdrawal of U.S. troops.  Now we here the area of interest has expanded to include "The Levant" which is a colonial term used to describe Syria, Lebanon, Israel/Palestine, and Jordan.  The reality is, ISIS is a plague with world domination goals.  The organization has spread to Africa, South America, Southeast Asia, Europe and the United States.  Quite a reach for a group only interested in The Levant.  As for its Modus Operandi, ISIS flourishes through the spread of tyranny, domination and mass murder.  The tools most frequently utilized are terror and fear.  Its ability to spread to so many disparate communities, including the Philippines and Kenya, allows ISIS to spread its message like a virus.  How are they able to convince so many young people to join?  ISIS provides the one thing missing in the lives of young people from the poorest corners of the earth: hope.  For the individual, ISIS provides sustenance, and in many instances, a little money to send home.  And at the end of the day, anyone who dies in pursuit of the Caliphate, will most certainly qualify as a martyr.  For the hundreds of thousands of unemployed, hungry young men in places like Cairo, Nairobi, Damascus, Sana'a, the Balkans, Chechnya, Tajikistan, Somalia, and Libya, ISIS puts a gun in their hands and gives them not only something to do, but something powerful to belong to.

Again, anyone one of a dozen nations, if properly motivated and mobilized, could defeat ISIS on the present battlefields of Iraq and Syria.  Even with their F5s and stolen Iraqi Migs, I believe the Iranians could vanquish ISIS.  In fact, a coalition of Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E. and Kuwait could probably get the job done as well.  Ideally, the United Nations would sponsor the creation of an international military coalition to destroy ISIS.  There was a day when the President of United States would ideally fit into the role of political leader of this coalition, given the amount of diplomatic relationships and influence the United States enjoys.  But it doesn't appear that our current President is up for the job.  Just when it appeared that no one was willing to take the job, Vladimir Putin announces that Russia has decided to aggressively re-engage in Syria, in opposition to ISIS.  Vlad puts his money where his mouth is; Russian heavy tanks, artillery, and necessary troop-support equipment has started to arrive in Latakia, on Syria's northwestern coast.  If the Russians so chose, a dedicated offensive campaign against ISIS, that utilizes whatever resources are necessary (and with the "no troops on the ground" assistance from the U.S. and Europe), would eventually crush ISIS.  But the elephant-sized question in the room, is can we allow Putin to become that leader of an international coalition to defeat the worst of the bad guys, when in the first paragraph, we identified Putin as one of the (lesser) bad guys?

In every post on this blog that focuses on Ukraine, I have made my pro-Ukrainian stance obvious.  I'm not Ukrainian, nor do I have any close Ukrainian friends.  I support Ukraine simply because they are a nation attempting to become more free and democratic, that has been invaded by its more powerful neighbor.  I will continue to support Ukraine, but I'm willing to avert my gaze for a period of time, if it will encourage Putin to dive head-first into the battle to defeat ISIS.  I recognize this evil organization for what it is, and what it has the potential to accomplish.  The time to smash ISIS is now, when it is still basically in its infant state.  Can you imagine the kind of conflicts that are raging in Iraq and Syria, also happening in South Africa, Argentina, and Thailand?  Unfortunately, its not as far-fetched as it was a year ago.  Someone with international influence has to stand up and build a coalition to destroy ISIS, and it needs to happen now.  Since no one else wants it, as far as I'm concerned, Putin has my total support to assume the job. 

Thoughts on the Nuclear Treaty with Iraq and partisanship in general.

Link: Netanyahu voices concern over removal of sanctions.

Ever year our nation seems to become more politically partisan, with everyone claiming to be independent, but Independent candidates getting no traction whatsoever.  No doubt if an Independent (meaning not Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian) candidate arrived on the scene who had Donald Trump's bank account, we might see a very competitive election.  But the system is built to support the two existing parties and the established methods for raising campaign funds.  Independent candidates can never expect to come close to raising the kind of money that a serious Republican or Democrat can.  Aside from that fact, we don't believe an Independent candidate would be representative of the United States electorate, anyways.  In 2015, we are an opinionated nation, and people feel very strongly about the validity of their perspectives.  w guess we're no different.  When we hear someone expressing an opposite viewpoint, we do my best to give them a fair shake. But at the end of the day, after almost half-a-century on this planet, we have confidence in our opinions.  And something important we've learned along the way: don't get mouthy and loud about issues in which you have no knowledge or experience.  Here at "Mukhabarat, Baby!", we have made a point to avoid posting opinionated commentaries regarding the United States economy.  Sure, we have opinions, but I'm not an economist.  I do, however, consider myself to be knowledgeable on issues of diplomacy and foreign policy.  Some readers may consider our site to be partisan,  but you can be sure that we support our positions with evidence.

I recently read an article which introduced ten retired U.S. Army Generals who had come out in support of the Obama Administration's Nuclear Treaty with Iran.  Its our understanding that the United States Army has hundreds of certified, true Generals among us, the vast majority of them retired.  Something tells me, that if I made a bit of an effort (and you know, to protect this president, the media would make the effort), I could round up ten Generals who believe that the Reptilian People live amongst us.  In other words, finding ten Generals to agree on something doesn't get you very far, especially when we are considering something as patently awful as this Treaty.  The three issues that bother me the most about this treaty have nothing to do with the controversial subject of nuclear proliferation.

My first complaint has to do with a handful of U.S. citizens that are currently locked away in Iranian prisons.  Not surprisingly, each one is being accused of having insulted Islam, being an enemy of the Islamic Republic, or a spy for the Zionists, or just a plain spy, period.  The charges are bogus; they are in jail because they are U.S. citizens, and the Iranians thought that they might come in handy someday as bargaining chips of some sort.  Normally, given the seriousness of the negotiations between the United States and Iran, you would have expected U.S. negotiators to have tried tooth-and-nail to make the release of our citizens part of any agreed-upon treaty.  Can you believe that this president was so obsessed with the issue of his legacy that he allowed the Iranians to remove the subject of the prisoners/hostages from the negotiations, without the slightest complaint?  How can a sitting U.S. president agree to a treaty with a foreign power that holds U.S. citizens in its jails, as hostages?  The Administration has gone on record stating that the charges against the prisoners are false, and yet they were forsaken.  What if that were your parent, or your sister, sitting in that Iranian jail?  I wonder if they had promised to vote Democrat in the next election, if he might have tried a bit harder to have them included........

My second complaint: what steps has Iran taken that justify the lifting of weapons sanctions?  A nation EARNS removal from a weapons embargo, at least that's the way it's been up to now.  Does Iran continue to financially support terror groups around the world?  Absolutely, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen (dumping the Houthis in with Hezbollah is a bit of a stretch...we ask your indulgence).  Iran also provides tremendously important support to the flailing regime of Bashir al-Assad in Syria.  Where else does Iran export weapons and warfare?  Iraq is a good example; the Shi'a militias/Popular Mobilization Units (PMUs), which have become so important in the struggle against ISIS in Iraq, include the Badr Organization, Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq, Mahdi Army, and Kata'ib Hezbollah.  Each group is trained and supplied by Iran.  As for the Iranian Armed Forces, they are in serious need of updated materials.  The Iranian Air Force is still flying a combination of ancient U.S.-made F5s (from the days of the Shah), and Migs that it stole from Iraq during the initial Gulf War.  And unlike the Chinese, Indians, Israelis and South Africans, the Iranians have had little success utilizing older equipment, and creating an indigenous weapon by incorporating home-grown innovations and technologies.  The Iranians need radar, jets, bombers, cargo planes, tanks, armored personnel carriers, computerized targeting equipment, missiles, and artillery, and their navy needs submarines and frigates.  Luckily, the economic sanctions will make it difficult for Iran to go on a shopping spree, now that the weapons-sanctions have been lifted.  Wait....ALL sanctions are being lifted, aren't they?  That means billions of dollars for Iran to buy what it wants.  And once the Saudis and the U.A.E. realize that Iran is not only closer to a nuclear weapon, but that they are modernizing their Armed Forces as well, we will see a nice little arms race develop in the Persian Gulf.  Its not Rocket Science, folks.

For all practical purposes, our last major complaint has already been covered.  We believe that the Iranians should have been obliged to disavow the exportation of terror and the support of terrorist groups.  It may have been just show, but at least we could make them look a bit foolish on an international stage.  In reality, Iran should have been required to limit its aid to groups like Hezbollah and the Houthis to strictly humanitarian goods.  In the end, nothing was asked of Iran.  They were not asked to disavow terror, and they were not asked to dismantle certain facilities in Iran whose sole function is the processing of weapons-grade nuclear material.  They were asked to halt all research into nuclear weapons-related projects, and to permit regular inspections.  The Iranians refused to agree to the inspections, until Secretary of State John Kerry took a knife and severed the last set of balls that existed in this treaty, which was the option for unannounced inspections.  What did Kerry agree to instead?  The inspectors must request the opportunity to inspect each respective site, and that request must be made three weeks in advance of the actual inspection.  To add to the absurdity, the Iranians reserved the right to DENY the request.  In truth, what would we do?  If the Iranians said, "we don't give you permission to inspect that particular site", would we automatically re-apply the sanctions?  Would be take back the money that would have poured into Iran by then?  And what about all the new upgraded military hardware....do you think they will return it, no questions asked?

Previously, we were convinced that the 2010 New Start Treaty was the worst treaty ever negotiated by a U.S. Secretary of State.  John Kerry has proved us wrong, and in the same administration, no less. 

Allies look to the U.S. to expand its military profile in the region; Turkish Air Force bombs both PKK and ISIS targets.

Links: A. Turkish Air Force hits both Kurdish/PKK and ISIS targets.
           B. BBC comments on Turkish air strikes.

The current environment in the Middle East and the Levant (can't we just go back to using Mesopotamia?) has evolved so dramatically in the last month that regional players have been obliged to review, adjust, and re-apply strategies.  The treaty drafted between Iranian officials and representatives from the United States and various European interested parties (the Foreign Minister of Austria was involved, and I swear to you that I have cans of corn older than he is) has been approved by the United Nations and now must be reviewed by the U.S. Congress and the Iranian Parliament.  For the most part, the Iranians love this treaty, so the real test will be in the U.S. Congress.    Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (who, along with Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman, constitute the Gulf Monarchies) have unleashed their diplomats and foreign friends to investigate the possibility of acquiring nuclear weapons without having a production facility.  Being rich in fossil fuels, The Gulf Emirates have no need for nuclear power; but you can guarantee that they will be looking to purchase a nuclear weapon or three and a delivery system effective enough to at least act as a deterrent (how far are Tehran and Qom from King Khalid Air Force Base?).  Not surprisingly, since the United States is responsible for the Iranian nuclear treaty, its allies in the region (including Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E., Kuwait and Iraq) fully expect the U.S. to strengthen its military presence and involvement in the region.  The argument will be that since the U.S. took it upon itself to make the region all the more dangerous, then the U.S. needs to share in the security responsibility.  Obviously the Administration agrees, as diplomats have been scurrying to various capitals, including Baghdad and Jerusalem/Tel Aviv, to discuss the possibility of new arms treaties.

Also, Turkey has decided to become more aggressive on the military front, bombing both PKK (Kurdish Worker's Party) and ISIS (Islamic State) targets simultaneously.  Turkey's attack on the PKK ended an unofficial truce between Ankara and the Kurdish independence organization that had existed since 2013. Before conducting the PKK raid, Turkey concluded an agreement with the United States for the use of the U.S. Air Force Base at Incirlik, Turkey, by the allied air coalition currently active against ISIS targets in Syria and Iraq.  Its obvious that Turkey timed its attack on the PKK only after placating U.S. efforts to use Incirlik.  Also, Turkey sweetened the pot a bit by also bombing ISIS targets in Syria.  We strongly suspect that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is planning to call for elections in the fall.  His decision ratchet up military attacks on PKK targets after a two-year unofficial cease-fire is calculated to appeal to the Turkish voters, who are opposed to the PKK by a large percentage.  At the same time, Turkish military action against ISIS, and the relaxation of opposition to the use of Incirlik, will no-doubt help to repair a damaged relationship with the United States, which is another issue that is very important to the average Turkish voter.

If Turkey were to decide to become one-hundred percent involved militarily in the efforts to defeat ISIS, the impact on the battlefield would be staggering.  Similar to a full Iranian intervention in Iraq, the Turkish military would make short-order of ISIS, especially given that the Turks do not play with the same rule book as the United States.  Turkey would have no hesitation using ISIS tactics to combat ISIS, which is one of the most effective ways to combat organizations of this nature.  Any squeamishness or hesitance to act as barbarously as ISIS is automatically accepted as a sign of weakness, and used to ISIS' advantage, especially when utilizing the world press and social media.  But Turkey will not be the agent of destruction for ISIS, because that result would leave Bashir al-Assad and his depleted regime military as the next biggest-fish in Syria.  Erdogan despises Assad and will do nothing to aid the Syrian de-facto president and his Syrian Ba'ath Party cronies.  Ideally, Iranian and Turkish diplomats and military leaders would convene a summit and create a military plan (with the U.S. and its European allies in full support) to destroy ISIS from two directions.  Can you imagine two militarily powerful Muslim nations working together to destroy the world's worst terrorist threat of all time?  It would send a tremendous message about the power of peace, and set an example for Christian nations to follow (Russia/Ukraine).  Again, it won't happen, and not just because Erdogan hates Assad.  The deep, ingrained prejudice that Sunnis and Shi'a have for one another will prevent any serious Muslim coalition.  The best that can be hoped for is continued cooperation between the much smaller Sunni tribal groups in Iraq, and the Popular Mobilization Units/PMUs (Shi'a militias).  The tripartite grouping of the supposed secular Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), and the Shi'a PMUs and Sunni tribal groups, has been kept in a very delicate balance up to now.  The reason it has succeeded is because very little pressure has been exerted, i.e. the groups haven't been forced to merge as a fighting unit.  Also, every effort is being made to keep one group from getting more credit for battlefield victories than the others.  This effort has not always been successful. 

Obama's treaty with Iran surpasses Neville Chamberlain in sacrificing international security in search of a political legacy.

Links: A. ISIS a beneficiary of the Obama/Iran nuclear treaty.
           B. Putin assisted with Obama/Iran nuclear treaty.

So, Vladimir Putin heartily approves of the treaty agreed to by the Obama Administration and the Islamic Republic of Iran.  In fact, President Obama is quick to praise Putin for being helpful during the negotiations.  How quickly we forget who we are dealing with.  Have we forgotten the 298 dead civilians from Malaysian Airlines flight 17, whose lives were lost because Putin agreed to use advanced Russian military hardware in the Ukrainian conflict.  Unfortunately, he didn't lend the experts who know how to use the equipment, and the result was a civilian airline being mistaken for a military flight.  The world understands and excepts this reality, along with many others that show Putin to be a megalomaniacal dictator, intent on returning Russia to the military prominence of the Cold War.  Every effort made by the United States on behalf of de-escalation of violence and the end of nuclear proliferation, up to now has been met with cold, hard opposition by Putin in Russia.  The Russians never sided with the United Nations in its efforts to force Iran to steer away from militarizing its nuclear research.  But now, because Putin approves of this treaty, he's become "a friend".  And those of us in this country, including many who have served in uniform and sacrificed limbs for national security, are called "overheated and dishonest" by Obama.  And now we are told that the Administration has been working on a "rapprochement" with Russia, and has started putting pressure on the Ukrainian government to be more conciliatory to the Russian-backed terrorists, I mean separatists, who are trying to detach entire pieces of Ukraine for annexation by Russia.

I have no doubt that this Administration did not spend one second considering the consequences of this treaty on the current unstable situation in the Persian Gulf and the Levant.  All that mattered was to keep the goal in sight, and the goal in this instance was a treaty of some sort to allow Obama to leave office claiming credit for some foreign policy initiative.  I don't understand why he just didn't focus on one of his other, previous foreign policy initiatives; he's had six years so there must be something, right?  Fat chance.  Our foreign policy over the past six years has been as knee-jerk as a reflex in a doctor's office.  Under President's Reagan, Bush, and even Clinton, our government continued the tradition of initiating positive change in the world.  The last six years have been singularly about responses, not initiatives.  Now for a bit of simple, common-sense.  ISIS is a religiously Sunni-affiliated organization, as is Al-Qaida.  Iran, with the lifting a sanctions, which conservatively will release as much as one hundred billion dollars to the Iranian treasury, will rapidly become a dominant force in the Persian Gulf.  The ballsy involvement with the Houthis in Yemen has already demonstrated this Iranian Administration's determination to expand its international influence.  Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates, who are already suspected of having some funding connections to Sunni extremism, will look upon recent developments as a return to the Battlefield of Karbala.  Even if the Iranians were to fulfill their obligations according to this treaty, in five years they would again be free to pursue whatever type of nuclear research they desire.  There are a number of questionable facilities that are part of the Iranian nuclear research program, which can have no purpose other than the construction of a nuclear weapon.  It would have been nice if our negotiating team had at least requested that the Iranians shut these facilities.  But as far as I know, nothing was requested of the Iranians whatsoever, except the need for unannounced inspections.  Well, we saw how far that demand went.

Lets welcome Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. to the nuclear arms race.  Lets also congratulate Sunni extremists everywhere, who will now be able to use the growing power of Shi'a Iran as a recruiting and fundraising tool.  This treaty is so flawed that I think its time I took a sabbatical from reviewing its contents.  Instead, I will pick up another debate which is near and dear to my heart.  In 1993, President Clinton signed a law making it illegal for active duty military personnel to be armed on base.  I can't recall if this law was preceded by some incident involving firearms and active duty personnel, but I can tell you that the United States is not the same country as it was twenty-one years ago.  Our Federal Law Enforcement and Intelligence experts stress the likelihood that Islamic extremists are living within our communities, waiting for the order or the opportunity to strike.  On a number of occasions, we have already seen that military installations are prime targets.  This is the world we live in today, 2015.  Our young men and women who volunteer to put their lives in jeopardy for national security, should not be deprived of the ability to defend themselves.  Are we supposed to tell these soldiers that we can trust them enough to die for their country, but they can't be trusted enough to carry a weapon on base?  What an absurd law.  I'm not afraid to state the obvious, and point directly to former President Bill Clinton: if that law had not passed in 1993, its probable that at least some of the victims of Thursday's attack would have been armed.  I will leave the rest of that assumption up to the reader..... 

True to form, Obama bargains away our National Security in a vain search for a legacy.

Links: A.  CNN: Landmark treaty reached with Iran.
           B.  Fox News: Iran deal worse than expected.
           C.  Basics of 2010 New Start Treaty with Russia.

Earlier today, during a discussion regarding the Nuclear Treaty the Obama Administration and our European allies have crafted, I expressed my opposition.  Almost immediately, I was accused of being so opposed to the current Administration that my opinions had become very "predictable".  My reply to the young lady was to describe myself as "consistent", especially when discussing governments that openly export terrorism and are responsible for the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of U.S. soldiers.  As for my opposition to the Obama Administration, I can only speak from my personal life experience and my conscience.  I voted against Obama on both occasions, along with almost fifty percent of the rest of the country.  I don't feel isolated in my opposition to his policies, nor do I consider myself a radical.  Most importantly, I'm always prepared to back up my perspective with facts.

I have been patiently waiting for the 2016 Presidential Debates so I can hear Hillary Clinton's defense of the 2010 New Start Treaty negotiated and signed with Russia.  This treaty reduces our nuclear arsenal by one-third, while China and Russia are modernizing theirs.  I addition, the Obama Administration has delayed funding for ground-based interceptor (GBI) missile and radar sites that we promised to install in the Czech Republic and Poland.  This delay was the result of loud complaints from Russia regarding this proposed defensive capability.  Unbelievably, the Obama Administration has gone further and hinted at a willingness to unilaterally deactivate one-third of our nuclear arsenal, as behind-the-scenes discussions take place regarding the next round of U.S.-Russian arms talks.  All of this is taking place while Russia slowly swallows up big chunks of Ukraine, and laughs off our repeated attempts to "sanction" them into playing nicely.

The treaty that was hammered out yesterday by John Kerry, his European counterparts, and the Iranian delegation, is even worse than New Start.  A Republican Administration, backed by a Republican Congress, and take effective steps to roll-back the New Start Treaty or rewrite it altogether.  This treaty with Iran establishes so many precedents that will be impossible to reverse.  What are my problems with the treaty?  Lets start with the existing diplomatic environment.  Everyone in the room, including the cleaning man and the lady who refilled everyone's glasses, knew that Kerry was not allowed to leave empty-handed.  He had orders to make every concession necessary in order to secure the Obama Legacy.  Where is the proof to support this allegation?  Just look at the treaty: the Iranians got everything they wanted, and in return we received a few promises that re impossible to verify.  All of DC knew Kerry wasn't allowed to come home without a treaty, and I'm sure Tehran (and Qom) were just as clued-in.  That explains the continued delay after delay.  Sadly, in the end it was only the Iranian complaints that were addressed, as the verification process became so watered down as to make the Saddam Hussein inspection/verification regimen look respectable.

Early on in the negotiations, the Iranians demanded that the conversation be limited to the subject at hand, the nuclear issue.  This removed any chance that suffering families in the United States might get word regarding relatives that have been languishing in Iranian prisons, with no due process.  These are American citizens, and this is how imperative it was for Kerry to get an agreement.  From my optic, their lives don't matter to this Administration.  As an example of just how much carte blanche the Iranians had to rewrite the ground rules, the issue of conventional arms sales were added to the negotiations.  So the U.S. was not allowed to introduce the subject of American citizens in Iranian jails, but the Iranians were able to introduce the subject of sanctions on arms sales to Iran.  Not surprisingly, this issue was included in the final draft.  Sanctions on arms sales to Iran are to be lifted, as they continue to be the world's number one sponsor of international terrorism (Hezbollah, Houthis, etc.).  The Iranians were not required to renounce support for terror, or to join any existing agreement to not engage in weapons proliferation to places like Yemen, Libya, and Syria.

From my perspective, the worst part of the agreement was the controls put on verification.  If our inspectors want to visit an Iranian nuclear research facility, they have to submit the name of the location at least one month in advance.  Even then, there are clauses that allow the Iranians to delay the inspectors.  Even Saddam Hussein had it worse.  Another negative result: you can be sure that both the U.A.E. and Saudi Arabia will become players in the nuclear arms race.  The royal families of the Persian Gulf are well-aware that they fall just below Israel on Iran's nuclear hit-list.  What a mess.

What happened to the days when we expected people to join the ranks of civility and common courtesy amongst nations before they are rewarded?  Wouldn't it have made sense to establish diplomatic relations first, before agreeing to this giveaway?  Monday, he government of Iran had as its official policy, the destruction of Iran.  As for the public policy, the streets were full on Monday of Iranians chanting "Death to America!"  I do not have the expertise or the space to provide a full review of the absolute crap that this treaty contains.  I respectfully ask everyone to read both B and C, to get an honest appreciation of how little our national security means to this Administration.  Amateur Hour in DC.   
        

The rise of a terrorist superpower: the Islamic State in 2015.

Most analysts and military strategists in the United States have focused on the activities of Daesh (Islamic State) in Syria and Iraq.  After all, our equities appear to be most at risk in those two particular theaters.  We have been conducting an Allied Air Campaign  in both areas of conflict for roughly a year, and today, for the first time, we have learned exactly how aggressive this Air Campaign has been.  The Allied Air Campaign (which includes the United States, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Bahrain) is averaging fourteen missions per day against Daesh targets.  In comparison, the U.S. Air Force averaged 800 missions per day against Iraqi and insurgency targets in Operation Enduring Freedom.  When questioned about the low number of missions, the Pentagon pointed out that the targets are more complicated, and the coalition is determined to avoid hitting civilian targets in error.  I will leave that comment to stand on its own.  Recently, Daesh has become more visible in its efforts to expand into other countries.  Saudi Arabia has started to suffer from internal bombings conducting by Daesh operatives, and the presence of Daesh has been noted in Algeria, Mali, Libya, Egypt, Pakistan, Yemen, and Armenia (this includes countries with Islamic extremist groups who have declared their allegiance to Daesh).  Currently, the Islamic State has the momentum in both Iraq and Syria.  In fact, with only the remnants of the regime left to oppose their advance, Syria is beginning to look like a done deal, at least as far as Assad is concerned.  Last week, Daesh operatives captured the Syrian/Iraqi border town of al-Tanf (al-Waleed in Iraq), which is a major victory for the extremist group.  Controlling this entry point will allow Daesh to resupply its forces in Iraq more quickly, and vice versa.  It solidifies their communication and transportation network between the two countries, and will undoubtedly bring more pressure on the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) in Anbar Province.

Outside of Saudi Arabia and a few isolated incidents in other countries, Daesh has yet to conduct a major operation in a theater other than Syria and Iraq....at least as far as we know. This group continues to impress with its planning and patience, and its ability to transform financial support into military equipment and supplies.  No doubt its recent successes on the battlefield have increased the flow of volunteers.  Last summer, when the United States appeared to be taking this threat seriously, there was hope that the Daesh movement would be limited to Iraq and Syria.  But the organization has executed a much more successful military strategy than the United States and its allies.  We celebrated when the Kurds won a few victories in northern Syria, and we rejoiced when the ISF recaptured Tikrit.  But each minor Daesh setback was followed by a major military operation against weak targets.  Although Ramadi wasn't thought to be a weak target.  It became one when the ISF deserted its positions and equipment/vehicles, and left the people of Ramadi to fend for themselves.  The example that the Iraqi Army continues to set (with the exception of a modest-sized number of well-trained, disciplined troops that get deployed whenever the government in Baghdad needs a headlining-grabbing victory somewhere) is only encouraging scores of Sunni in Anbar and elsewhere to back the winner, which at this stage is Daesh.  Each little step east, closer to Baghdad, allows Daesh to seed Sunni communities with locals who have become supporters.  No doubt, actual Daesh operatives are already in place in the bedroom communities of Baghdad.

From a larger perspective, the EU and the United States had better recognize the danger of Daesh "sightings" in Africa and in other Middle East countries.  This extremist group is nothing like we have seen before, with the exception of the Taliban, on a much smaller scale.  It has brought a conventional military capability to an extremist agenda.  These groups feed off the poverty and misery of the third world to recruit and spread a message of hate and blame.  Sadly, in 2015, they have no shortage of expansion opportunities.  We have been concerned for some time with the activities of Al-Shabaab in East Africa, and the potential for recruitment in the townships of Kenya.  There is no doubt that Al-Shabaab and Daesh are in regular communication, and that Daesh is already considering ways to tap into the mountain of discontent that exists in East African townships.  Another troubling development is the easy manner in which Daesh seems to co-opt existing guerilla movements, sometimes even groups that are not Sunni in affiliation.  One would have though that the mass executions and beheadings would have damaged the brand at least to some extent.  But the reality is, at the end of the day, what really impresses is success, which at the moment, Daesh is enjoying in Spades. Anyone that is able to make the United States appear reactionary and unresolved will always attract a certain element of bad guys, but Daesh has managed to force the United States, Saudi Arabia, the EU, the Emirates, and even the Assad regime, stand behind the same target.  As far as Daesh is concerned, they have one enemy that just happens to speak different languages and wear different uniforms.  It would be in our best interest if we also adopted the same approach, instead of continuing with this obsession of separating the motivations of various extremist groups that all share the same goal: the expansion of Islamic extremism and the destruction of the western way of life.

Is Yemen, 2015, a renewal of the Battle of Karbala, 680 AD?

Links: A. Saudi military on Yemeni border.
           B. Is conflict in Yemen a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran?

No need to get out your history books or almanacs, unless you really want to.  The Battle of Karbala was fought in central Iraq in 680 AD, with most religious scholars agreeing that the

violent clash went a long way to settling the question of The Prophet Mohammed's succession.  This is important because the two opponents came to represent the Sunni and Shia elements within Islam.  Until recently, the two groups seemed to co-exist within an awkward kind of avoidance, although on a few occasions, the international community has been given a glimpse of the emotions involved in the Sunni-Shia schism.  Following the first Gulf War, once it became apparent that President George H. Bush was not going to force Saddam Hussein from power, Saddam fired-up what was left of his war machine and butchered thousands of Shia in areas south of Iraq.  Saddam was legitimately concerned that the "Marsh Arabs", as these particular Shia were called, were rising up to possibly threaten his hold on power.  This was the moment in life that I went over to an Encyclopedia and educated myself on the Sunni and the Shia.  Having spent time in Iraq within the last decade, I became familiar with the two groups and the antagonism that basically defines their relationship.  Simply put, since Karbala in 680 AD, the Shia have been looking for a little respect.  For the most part, the Sunni are considered better educated, more intelligent, and wealthier.  The Shia are more the "manual laborers and farmers" of Islam, and they have a tendency to carry a chip on their shoulder as big as Manhattan.

In the last fifty years, the Shia, who are the majority in only two countries (Lebanon being a plurality, folks), have fought fiercely for causes that they support.  Following the revolution in Iran in 1979-1980, which deposed the Pahlavi Dynasty, the Shia-led government of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini threw everything but the kitchen sink at Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War.  Since then, the Shia seem to be more comfortable standing up for their interests.  In Iraq in 2005, the Shia were quick to create militias to defend Shia communities and Holy Sites, when it became apparent that certain anti-U.S. groups were going to incite various causes to violence.  The Iranians were more than happy to provide training and equipment to these militias, who are even more powerful and active today than they were during the insurgency.  The Iranian government, and the Guardian Council in Qom, must be pleased by the expression of free will exhibited by the Shia Houthis of Yemen.  The Houthis have been around for sometime, and to their credit, they tried a number of non-violent approaches to the former government over the years, in an attempt to end discrimination against the Houthi community.  Eventually they were compelled to resort to violence, and the Yemeni government, already under siege from Al-Qaeda, was a bit of an easy target.  Today, as April passes us by, The Houthis are in control of the capital city of Sana, and are strategically positioned to move against Yemen's second city (and port/economic lifeline), Aden.  Interestingly enough, just to the east of Aden lies a reasonably large area which is controlled by (Sunni) Al-Qaeda.  And just when things couldn't get any more confusing, the Royal Saudi Arabian Air Force, which continues to recognize the legitimacy of the recently removed Yemeni government, has started bombing Houthi forces. 

Why do the Saudis care if the Houthis run the table in Yemen?  Who knows, they may do a better job than the last few thugs that sat in Sana.  Actually, the answer is simple: the Saudis cannot continence a Shia government on the Arabian Peninsula (Bahrain is an island, so it doesn't count), and certainly not with a common border.  Publicly, the Saudis claim that they are only trying to restore peace and the democratically elected Yemeni government.  The truth is, the Saudis and the Iranians can't stand each other, and the Houthis have been heavily supported by Iran since the beginning.  Mark my word, the Saudis will do whatever is necessarily to guarantee that the Iranians do not have a presence on the Arabian Peninsula.  Just as I was starting this post, I noticed a news report come across the wire (yes, folks...I'm so cool and important that I have one of those "news wires") that Iranian warships were headed for Yemen.  Now that would be an

Yemen

escalation along the lines of Kennedy and Khrushchev back in 1962.  Then, as I was looking for an additional article, I came across The Times Of Israel piece titled, "Iran sends battleships to Yemen amid standoff with Saudis".  I had to take a break, I was laughing so hard.  A journalist actually WROTE that header, and then added a photo of a warship the size of a shrimp boat flying the Iranian flag!  I guess "battleships" ain't what they used to be.  Regardless of my welcome moment of humor, be assured that the Iranian navy only has a handful of ships that are capable of sailing as far as Yemen.  The people of Aden need not lose any sleep; I can categorically guarantee that tomorrow morning when they wake up and look in the direction of the Indian Ocean, they will not see Iranian battleships on the horizon.

Which brings me to my next point of interest.  This is something my friend Jennifer and I have been discussing for a few weeks now.  Occasionally the media will release a story that mentions "Saudi ground forces", or "Saudi armor being moved to the Yemeni border".  For the moment, this is the most important issue that comes to my mind.  The Saudis have committed themselves to some level of conflict by conducting air operations against Houthi targets in Sana and other strategic locations.  If the Houthis were to go head-to-head against the Saudi military, the result would be beyond ugly.  It would be a monumental mismatch.  As far as I know, what was the Yemeni Army is still making noise in and around Aden (Houthis on one side, Al-Qaeda on the other....one hell of a spot to be in).  If so, then in all likelihood the Houthis have not taken possession of the most modern and useful military vehicles and equipment.  So we are talking about Abrams tanks, state-of-the-art Artillery (trained in the Iraq war), fully-equipped infantry and special forces, support from helicopter gunships and guided missiles, etc., on one side, and the Houthis on the other.  A few months back I commented that I had seen a video of the Houthis storming some government building in Sana, and actually saw a guy on a camel, with a musket. Holy Lawrence of Arabia, folks.  Well, at least, historically, we are on the right continent.

The Saudis should make short work of the Houthis, and then what?  Clean out Al-Qaeda from eastern Yemen?  Now here is the potential complication that I have been discussing with Jennifer.  Everyone keeps talking about a Saudi ground invasion as if its a simple operation.  No way.  The Saudi armor is normally home-based in the north of the country and around Riyadh (I'm sure some units are also deployed in the Mecca/Medina/Jeddah triangle).  Would the Saudis transport their armor and artillery down west, to the coast, then down the coast road to Yemen?  Or is there another route that skirts the Rub al-Khali?  Whatever the case, for Saudi Arabia to relocate a military force large enough to finish the job at hand (the destruction of the Houthis), it would involve the mobilization of multiple divisions.  All of this activity should be visible for the world to watch on satellite.  I have yet to hear any media announce that a full-scale Saudi military build-up is taking place near Najran or Abu Arish.  So if it hasn't been noted, then how can it be taking place?  Now I'm taking a big chance with this post, because I'm writing it four days before it will see the light of day.  Many things can happen since then which would resolve the issues I have pointed out.  But as things stand today, from the perspective of this armchair general, I do not believe Saudi Arabia is preparing a full-out ground invasion of Yemen.     

Big Surprise.....Iran Agrees To A Treaty.

Links: A. Treaty With Iran Faces Opposition
           B. Difficulty Of Inspecting/Verifying Iran's Nuclear Research


To no one's surprise, the Obama Administration's negotiators returned home with a Treaty that was acceptable to the government of Iran.  This State Department, which has proven to be so woefully inept in the Middle East, Ukraine, South America, and everywhere else for that matter, manage to accomplish what no one in a decade has been able to do: get the Iranians to agree to a Treaty which would prohibit (through verification) the weaponizing of Iran's nuclear capabilities.  Up to this point, the Iranians have been claiming that their only interest in nuclear research is to create energy for peaceful purposes (electricity).  This type of research would be easy to monitor and verify.  But the Iranians do not want Inspectors.  Tehran argues that the United States, Russia, India and Pakistan achieved nuclear power without having "their sovereignty insulted", therefore why should Iran be made the exception?  The last few years have borne a disturbing resemblance to the games of Saddam Hussein, with a mixture of diplomacy and indignation used to propel the Iranians ever so closer to their goal.  Obviously the goal of the Iranian government is to develop a nuclear weapon not that free electricity wouldn't be a useful side benefit.  Tehran would become the first Shi'a nation to achieve this goal, and the second Muslim country after Sunni Pakistan. 

On its face, this issue appears to be all about the security of Israel.  Over the years, various different governments in Tehran have expressed the same desire, to participate in the destruction of Israel.  The most recent government has toned things down a bit, but that hasn't relaxed anyone in Tel Aviv.  But the issue goes much deeper.  Iran has bitter enemies in the Muslim world, especially in the Persian Gulf.  Once the Obama Administration announced that discussions were taking place with Iran, their Saudis immediately ratcheted up their interest in nuclear power/weapons.  The Saudis understood, just as we did, that the announcement of negotiations was nothing more than a warning that the deal was on its way.  The idea that this team of negotiators would come back empty-handed was, frankly, ignorant.  Obama needs this Treaty badly, as his opportunities to build some sense of a Legacy to his two-terms in office are dwindling.  We have Obamacare, The end of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", and the removal of military forces from Iraq.  We are somewhat in the midst of an effort to reform the Immigration system, but I'm not clear on how things will work themselves out, so I can't add that to the Legacy just yet.  But a signed treaty with the Islamic Republic of Iran, that provides the Iranians with peaceful nuclear power and no weapons, something the United Nations was unable to do, would be a very nice platform on which to start building that Legacy.

I do not pretend to understand much about physics, and atomic energy was never my strong suit at University.  But understanding the basics of the Iranian conundrum is not difficult.  In order to produce nuclear power, enriched uranium is necessary.  Because Russia has a ten-year contract to fuel Iran’s only power reactor at Bushehr, Iran has no present need for enriched uranium to generate civilian nuclear energy.  But Iran has enriched uranium, and its stockpile is growing.  Why, you ask, would Iran want enriched uranium if their "peaceful ambitions" (i.e., the amount of enriched uranium needed for peaceful purposes) are met by a contract signed with Russia?  The reality is, nuclear weapons require uranium that has been enriched at a higher grade that what Russia is contracted to deliver.  Now here is where things get complicated.  Please, please hang with me, folks.  You will be glad you did.  Lets talk about centrifuges.

Centrifuge:  A machine with a rapidly rotating container that applies centrifugal force to it's contents, typically to separate fluids of different densities.  After uranium has been mined, it is processed to separate the pure uranium from the ore, which results in uranium oxide.  Uranium oxide contains two types of uranium: U-235 and U-238. U-235 is what you need if you want to make a bomb or fuel a nuclear power plant. But the uranium oxide from the mine is about 99 percent U-238. So you need to somehow separate the U-235 from the U-238 and increase the amount of U-235. The process of concentrating the U-235 is called enrichment.  Having the capability (and the centrifuges) to enrich uranium is the key to creating a nuclear weapon.  The United Nations repeatedly expressed to Iran that a demonstrably peaceful plant would be no problem, but the Iranians have other plans.  if Iran were not interested in nuclear weapons, then this issue would be complete. 

The plant is almost operational, and the contract with the Russians is in place (and unnecessary, as Iran already has enriched uranium).  The questions remain: will the plant come on-line with some form of Inspections Protocol in place, and will the existing sanctions continue?  Although we have yet to examine even the slightest detail (why not?), the issue of inspections must be addressed because, frankly speaking, it is the most important.  No doubt the treaty includes an Inspections Protocol, but does it contain the necessary elements to guarantee that Iran is not making use of higher grade uranium? Basically, the treaty must address a handful of unavoidable issues:

1) Who is responsible for the Inspections Protocol?  Is it an international organization?
2) Does the protocol include on-site inspections or rely on instrumental data collection?
3) Who will measure the total amount of uranium utilized and the energy produced?
4) Since Iran has no need for the centrifuges, will they be destroyed, or delivered to an outside agency for destruction?
5) If the treaty is violated, what options have been included that will allow for the immediate cessation of all unauthorized activity?

From the moment of the initial announcement, my concern has been with the Inspections issue.  We went through the same bullshit with Iraq; in fact, in the last few years, Iran has been using some of the same excuses and explanations that Hans Blix must have known by heart.  And to think that Saddam Hussein was only hiding his chemical and biological weapons research.  At the end of the day, the person with something to hide is the one who is most likely to delay, and obfuscate, and distract.  When I have the opportunity to review the treaty in detail, I hope that I'm wrong, and that the Inspections Regime is up-to-par.  This would mean that Iran does not get to choose the Inspectors (sorry, Russia and China).  And its imperative that the Iranians agree to some mechanism that will allow for an international agency to have the ability to shut down whatever activity is taking place, that violates the treaty.

Excuse my cynicism, but what will probably occur, is that the Treaty will be full of loopholes, and before long, the Iranians will be in possession of at least one nuclear weapon (you don't normally make just one; I assume the first batch will include at least two).  And let's face it, folks, this is the ultimate "fait accompli".  Its tricky issuing orders to a country with a nuclear weapon.  And then the dominoes appear, as Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E., for defensive purposes only, offer to spend whatever it takes so they can have a few bombs as well.  The Sunni are convinced that the Shi'a can't be trusted with that kind of power, therefore, at least for deterrence sake, a Sunni bomb is needed (Pakistan doesn't count; there is real concern that when the Pakistan delivery system is engaged, it will fly straight up for a mile, then fall right back down).

Let's have a look at the treaty.    

How effective are the Armed Forces of the Persian Gulf? (Part II)

Links A. Global Firepower Ranks the Armed Forces of the World
          B. World's Largest Armies, According to Global Security
          C. Business Insider's 35 Most Powerful Armies

I am fascinated by the Saudi Arabian Armed Forces.  This is a lean, mean, fighting machine, and most people outside of the business of war, don't seem to have a clue.  Since getting involved in two ill-advised wars against Israel, the Saudis have kept a very low military profile.  The Saudi military was content to follow the U.S. lead in the first Gulf War, although Saudi units were in the thick of the fighting and acquitted themselves well (especially armor).  The Royal Family, closely associated with every aspect of the military take full advantage of the situation to create a sense of patriotism that the Kingdom had never previously experienced.  Saudi soldiers were welcomed home with parades and children waving that confusing green flag with the sword and all the spaghetti.  The Saudi's have 315 front line M-1A2 Abrams heavy battle tanks ready at the drop of a pin, and 200 more in storage.  If necessary (however unlikely), they have 290 French-made AMX-30s ready to go, which have been re-conditioned for desert warfare and is a tight little tank in its own right.  The Saudi forces are more than adequate when it comes to artillery, both mobile and stationary, and if you recall, during the first Gulf War, Saddam Hussein started tossing some Scud missiles in the direction of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.  Since then, the Saudis have been determined to find a system similar to the Israeli "Dome", which blocks any incoming missiles.  Until that technology becomes available to the Kingdom, they are more than sufficient with anti-missile and missile intercept systems.  The Saudi ground forces are hardy and pride themselves on their regimen and training.  The Air Force continues to fly U.S.-made F-15S bombers and F-15C fighters, but the mainstay of the Saudi fighter squadrons is the Typhoon Eurofighter.  The purchase of the Eurofighter came as a bit of a surprise and involved some controversy with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who somehow was involved with negotiations.  The U.S. had been hoping that the Saudi Air Force would upgrade to F-16s, F-18s, or possibly even F-35s.  The Saudis can mobilize 250,000 troops in a matter of days.  I read a news report recently which hypothesized that the Houthi issue in Yemen exposed a weakness in the Saudi military.  In a way, the comment is accurate.  If the Saudis wanted to military intervene in Yemen, I have no idea how they would pull that off.  All of their armor is pointed in another direction, and PCS'd on the other side of the country.  Fortunately, a handful of elderly Eastern European women with gas could wipe out the Houthis, so I don't think the Saudis really have much to worry about.  I do think its a bit of a waste, the Saudi military being all shined up, trained, and ready to go, with the world's most modern equipment, but not having a war to fight. By the way, its important to remember that the stature of the military in the Kingdom has very little to do with any perceived threat from the outside.  The impressiveness of the military is a direct reflection of the Royal family.

The military of the United Arab Emirates is similar in many ways to that of Saudi Arabia.  Just to show off, lets name all seven of the Emirates: Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Fujairah, Umm al-Quwain, Sharjah, Ajman, and Ras al-Khaimah.  The UAE is an amazing country and I highly recommend it to everyone except couples who like to kiss in public, and Gay folks. (Gay and like to kiss in public but want to stay in the Gulf?  Try Oman.)  The beaches are magnificent, the hotels and modern developments are awe-inspiring, the de-salinization plants are state-of-the-art, and the Russian prostitutes are everywhere....at least at night, in the lobbies of hotels.  If you think you have seen wealth in Beverly Hills or the Hamptons, you haven't seen anything until you've visited Dubai.  The Emiratis spend a great deal of money on the military and on the intelligence services.  The UAE Air Force is exceptional.  The government has approached this branch of the Armed Forces with a sense of import.  Currently, the UAE flies roughly 60 recently refitted F-16S and 50 French Mirage 2000-9, which have also been refitted with the latest hardware.  The Air Force has a superior support network and a budding Helicopter capability.  The training is also exceptional, and the pilots have been receiving some valuable experience over the skies of Iraq and Syria, as part of the U.S. coalition of allies.  In the late 1990s, the Emiratis chose a heavy battle tank other than the U.S.-offered Abrams.  The UAE purchased 388 French-built Leclerc heavy battle tanks, which are, next to the Abrams, arguably the best heavy tank on the battlefield (I respect French military equipment...so shoot me).  The Navy has 11 corvettes of three separate makes, all very fast and capable of offensive operations.  The Navy lacks even one Frigate, which is probably a good thing...I can't imagine its use, in a coastline like the UAE's.  Recently, the UAE has been focusing on fast attack craft and support vessels for naval operations.  Overall, the navy meets all the requirements without really excelling in any particular area.  The UAE does not expect to get invaded anytime soon, but the need to keep its heavy tanks in good performance order is essential.  If Saudi Arabia suffers a border incursion of any kind (IS), the UAE will be determined to aid the Saudis as much as possible.  Aside from the armor, the superior UAE Air Force will be welcome.

Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar shouldn't mind being thrown together into one paragraph.  I'm sure its not the first time.  Of the three smaller Gulf nations, Kuwait has the more prolific military.  Following the first Gulf War, the Royal family was determined to put up a bit more of a resistance, should Saddam come knocking again.  Even though the official statistics list the Kuwaiti army as having 11,000 soldiers, somehow they have managed to purchase over 200 U.S. 1-A2 Abrams tanks.  to supplement the Abrams, Kuwait purchased 400 Humvees, roughly 100 self-propelled howitzers, over 200 anti-tank guided weapons, and, the cherry on the cake, 27 Russian-made BM-30 Smerch multiple launch rocket systems.  Can they even fit all this shit into Kuwait?  More reasonably, the Kuwaitis purchased 35 F-18 Hornets, along with multiple support aircraft, 18 Apache Attack Helicopters, and about 100 separate air defense system units (including SAM and the UK Starburst).  Neither Qatar nor Bahrain pretend to have use for a major Armed Forces.  Qatar does have 62 German-made Leopard tanks, which given the source are bound to be bad ass (and their reviews agree).  Qatar relies on less than 20 French-made Mirages and a handful of older helicopters to round-out its Air Force.  The standing army is somewhere near 13,000.  Bahrain also has a small army, with no tanks (they used to have less than 100 M60s; current location, unknown).  The Air Force is respectable, with 17 active and modern F-16s, and 4 squadrons (36 in total) of older attack helicopters.  Both Qatar and Bahrain have sizeable and well-trained security services.  If the U.S. or Saudi Arabia requested military assistance from Qatar and Bahrain, I see some useful Mirages and F-16s, possibly some attack helicopters, and 62 German Leopard heavy battle tanks.  Both navies are negligible, although Bahrain is in possession of an older former U.S. Frigate and a handful of guided missile patrol craft. 

Yemen is in a state of flux....the mechanism that controls the functions of state has yet to be determined for more than a few days at a time.  The Yemeni military has collapsed and will have to be rebuilt.  The Houthis are in hardly better shape.  The last video I recall of Houthis celebrating in the streets included a man on a camel, carrying a musket that George Washington wouldn't have been seen with.  I'm at a loss as to how these Houthi folks won out, although I suspect that they just waited longer.  The real concern is for the well-being of the U.S. military (and clandestine/civilian) personnel still in country.  Al-Qaeda is primed to take over, given that the U.S. military is exclusively limited to the use of Drones for offensive actions, and the Houthis don't seem to have much in the way of equipment.  I thought the Iranians were trying to make some statement here?  I say we take our young men and women out, and let Al-Qaeda or the Houthis have it.  The Saudis will be forced to deal with the situation, and something tells me that they will make short-work of both the Houthis and Al-Qaeda.  the Omani Air Force is a bit of a surprise, with 12 F/16C/D and 12 Eurofighter Typhoons on the way.  11 BAe 203 Hawks for ground attack, and lots of useful support elements.  The Omani Army is built to suit its environment.  The Royal Army still keeps 38 older Challenger British-made heavy tanks, but is focused more on a rapid-reply offensive capability.  Somehow the Omanis came into possession of one (1) B1 Italian Centauro Monster with 120 mm weapon.  More useful are the 175 Swiss-built Mowag Piranha armored fighting vehicles.  The Royal Omani Navy is impressive, with five new Corvettes (2 built in 1994), 3 more ordered from BAe, 4 fast attack craft, 3 additional Al-Bushra French-made patrol craft, and an amphibious transport vessel.  The Royal Omani Armed Forces have a very close relationship with both the United States and the United Kingdom, so security in Muscat is not an over-riding concern. 

Where The Hell Is Yemen And Why Should I Care?

Links: A. Yemen on Wikipedia
           B. CIA drone kills suspected CIA operatives

Yemen is the Muslim nation that occupies the strategic southwest corner of the Arabian

peninsula.  Depending on your tastes, the landscape can be described in various ways.  The coasts of Yemen include both barren, rocky cliffs and beautiful sand beaches.  The interior of Yemen is mountainous in places, as the Al-Sarat Range bisects northern Yemen.  The entire country is defined by a mountainous interior which falls to the sea on one side and to the Rub' Al Khali (the empty quarter) and Saudi Arabia on the other.  Not surprisingly, Yemen reminds me of the Dodecanese Islands of Greece.  Unless it was raining, Yemen always seemed to be sun-drenched, with little vegetation except for wait-to-shoulder high native shrubs.  Principal agricultural commodities include fruit (mangoes), sorghum, grain, cotton, and qat.  To use a favorite term from my childhood, the Yemenis grow a "buttload" of qat, and it gets exported everywhere.  Travel to Somalia, Kenya, Mauritius, and they will tell you that Yemeni qat is the best.  Heck, as far as I know, it may only grow in Yemen.  I can't recall ever seeing a woman chewing qat, but I'm sure it happens.  Its much like chewing tobacco.  You take a few leaves, squeeze together and put them in your mouth, either between your bottom lip and gums or in the pouch of your cheek.  When you collect enough spit, you do

Man chewing qat in Yemen
Source: Ferdinand Reus 

what comes natural.  Let me tell you, I've seen my share of stoners and potheads, but these qat chewers are just as dedicated.  They chew while working, from sun-up until sun-down, and they partake when relaxing.  I've been chewing tobacco (dipping) off and on for thirty-plus years, so I had to give it a shot.  To tell the truth, I never noticed much except for a bit of a headache that lasted all afternoon. I've heard that its supposed to be a bit like marijuana, but I've never smoked pot, so I can't compare.

Taking a look at Yemen on a map, you can see why I call it "the elbow country": since the end of the civil war between north and south, Yemen resembles an elbow and a bit of a forearm.  At one time, Yemen was a much-valued gem in the crown of the Ottoman Empire.  The area has always been active in trading, and old history books make mention of the port city of Mocha as being an important location for bartering just about everything under the sun.  This is what I love about places like Yemen; it's almost as if time has stood still.  An ancient map of this area identifies Yemen as "Arabia Felix", which translated from Latin means "Happy Arabia".  That same map, which may be centuries and centuries old, will identify cities that still exist today.  No wonder Yemen is a playground for Geographers and Archaeologists.  With the arrival of the Europeans, the usual scenario unfolded.  Portugal wanted it, as did the British.  It was part of the Sultanate of Muscat and Oman for many years, until the arrival of the Ottoman Turks, who created a national border of sorts.  The Turks were removed following the end of World War I and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire (1922), leaving Yemen in the cold, gluttonous hands of the English, who realized that the value in Yemen was strategic, not economic.

Between 1918 and 1967, the territory was in a constant disarray.  The British garrisoned a few of the larger towns, but were unable to subdue the tribal forces who were under various different leaders and, of course, were also trying to slit each other's throats.  Two treaties were signed with the British (in 1934 and 1940), which effectively decided the issue, although conflict continued.  The Yemeni people were able to enjoy a few decades of peace that coincided with the second world war.  But in 1967, the southern half of Yemen (Aden), split from the north.  This led to a civil war which seemed to go on forever.  In May 1990, both sides agreed to unification, and a treaty was signed.  Things were looking up . . . and then Al-Qaeda arrived. 

Shockingly, Al-Qaeda's presence in Yemen was not part of a plot to kill Americans.  Al-Qaeda, which is based on Sunni teachings, became active in Yemen in opposition to the actions of the Houthis, (the Shia Muslims of Yemen).  Yemen is one of those Muslim nations with a large population of both Sunni and Shia.  As has been the model, for many years the Sunni were accused of keeping the Shia (Houthi) from succeeding in business or participating in government.  With a bit of help from Iran, the Houthi armed themselves and started making demands at the end of an AK-47.  The Sunni-led government was in a real pickle.  Al-Qaeda was active in the southern coastal areas around Aden, but Yemeni President (and Sunni) Hadi could not ally himself and his government to Al-Qaeda because the United States was also in town, and up to that point, had been supporting Hadi in his efforts to stay in power.  Believe it or not, the U.S. military largely avoided involvement in the Houthi/Hadi conflict.  The U.S. presence in Yemen was for one purpose; to capture and kill members of Al-Qaeda.  Your see, Al-Qaeda wasn't in Yemen just to represent Sunni interests militarily, Al-Qaeda was in Yemen to provide training to its operatives.

When George W. Bush and the United States invaded Iraq and Afghanistan as part of Operation Enduring Freedom in 2003, we exposed Al-Qaeda's most glaring weakness.  Since we forced the issue into Bin Laden's own backyard, he had no choice but to respond.  The U.S. military engaged fighters from the Taliban, from Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and from other loosely-named but directly AQ-affiliated groups.  The bad guys had to funnel all their resources into the fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there wasn't much time to plan and conduct another 9-11.  But Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri (probably more Al-Zawahiri) realized that the struggle needed something resembling a conventional army.  Recruitment drives went into action, especially targeting ex-military in the UK, France and the United States.  Recruitment also increased dramatically in Africa.  If Al-Qaeda was going to build an army, they needed soldiers. The recruits who showed intelligence were directed towards Al-Qaeda, who continued to be the cerebral part of the machine, while the rest were sent to Yemen, to learn how to be soldiers.  The Houthi development complicated what was turning into a war between Al-Qaeda recruits and armed U.S. drones.

This past weekend, the Hadi government fell.  The capital of Sana'a is calm, and the Houthi appear to be following through with their pledge to keep the peace.  The Houthi are the majority in north Yemen, which bodes well for a bit of down-time to try and group (for all sides).  Fortunately, the U.S. military has been extremely discreet when it comes to Yemen.  A real effort is being made to locate, target, and kill Al-Qaeda operatives.  I don't believe any chances are taken which involve civilians, which at this stage is the correct move.  Why is Yemen important?  Because Al-Qaeda has decided to use it as a training location for its operatives.  As the war in Syria continues, and the connections between Al-Qaeda and ISIS become more apparent, intelligence analysts will start to notice that some ISIS fighters were trained in Yemen, and the overall picture will become much more clear.          

Does Khorasan Exist? Does It Really Matter?

Link: Is There An Actual Group Calling Itself Khorasan In Syria/Iraq?


Wikipedia Definition Of Khorasan


Well, I certainly didn't see this coming.  According to Andrew C. McCarthy and National Review, no group calling itself "Khorasan" exists.  Andrew boldly accuses the Obama Administration of inventing Khorasan to provide an enemy with an unknown wrap sheet; a target that exemplifies the threat as the Administration wants it to appear.  This astounding accusation has taken me by complete surprise.  The commentary is not lengthy but still manages to provide a disturbing amount of supporting evidence.  McCarthy alleges that last week's bombing targets were in fact "Al-Nusra Front" locations as opposed to Khorasan.  Last week I argued that we needed to avoid getting caught in the weeds with all the various branches and groups of Islamic extremists.  I remain convinced that sunni groups with extremist religious affiliations are connected.  McCarthy believes that the Administration is disseminating the incorrect idea that Iraq, Syria, and the Near East in general are home to dozens of separate and distinct Sunni extremist groups ("Jabhat al-Nusrsa", "Al-Qaeda in al-Sharm", "Al-Qaeda in -Magreb", "Al-Qaeda on the Indian Sub-Continent", "Al-Qaeda in Yemen", and on and on) who don't coordinate their activities.  During the 2012 presidential election campaign, President Obama made great hay from the death of bin-Laden and the apparent crippling of Al-Qaeda.  This narrative supported other pillars of his foreign policy.  The enemy is splintered into a herd of squabbling, locally focused, unprofessional groups.  The U.S. military is no longer needed in Iraq or Afghanistan if Al-Qaeda is toast.  The reality is that we evacuated Iraq at a record-setting pace as our enemies, not fifteen or twenty feuding, distinct organizations but a handful of groups united under one cause, rested and watching.

Andrew managed to squeeze a ton of information and argument into a two-page commentary.  I tried to summarize it in the previous paragraph, and I fear I have not succeeded.  The first link is Andrew McCarthy's actual National Review piece.  I'll do everything I can to disseminate this commentary in social media because I believe it to be incredibly insightful.  The key to winning a war begins with knowing your enemy.  Right now we seem to be a bit confused on the matter.  Why did coalition air elements avoid all of the targets identified as "Khorasan" (U.S. jets only, no Qatari or Saudi jets, bombed Khorasan targets)?  Is it because Khorasan is actually the Al-Nusra Front, and our allies Qatar and Saudi Arabia support Al-Nusra's efforts to topple Assad in Syria?  Again, it brings me back to something we discussed last week.  The United States (note that I did not say "The Coalition") must have solid intelligence regarding the players in Syria and who they represent.  If we truly intend to build and equip an army to tackle the Islamic State on the ground, will a U.S. Officer be in command (at a distance, maybe offshore on an aircraft carrier, so his boots aren't on the ground)?  Without that type of hands-on discipline and authority, how can we expect this Army to do our bidding?  Occasionally I'm overwhelmed by this nightmare scenario of the New Syrian Army, weapons et al, deserting to the IS immediately upon completion of training.  Without troops, how can we prevent something like this taking place?  The burr in my saddle has to do with what becomes of the New Syrian Army after the job is done.  Will they turn on Assad and the regular Syrian Army?  you can bet your ass they will, and then the Russians jump into the picture.

I agree with McCarthy's assessment, but I'm not part of the "told ya so" crowd.  I want the IS wiped from the face of the planet and I want the Obama Administration to accomplish this task and add to his legacy.  I don't believe that the religious extremist terrorist groups are separate, distinct entities that seldom communicate.  I believe the network of cooperation and communication is similar to organized crime.  The goal of keeping numerous small units out in the field confuses the enemy and allows for wider access.  If a former British soldier with highly specialized explosives training is recruited on the streets of Ipswich or York or Harrogate, he will not end up swatting flies out in the middle of the Syrian desert.  He will be utilized to train operatives heading out into the field.  The communication network that the extremist community has created is probably impossible to destroy completely (especially in the UK).  We can hope to intercept calls, steal transmissions, and even occasionally bug the correct phone, but the only real way to listen in on the bad guys is through recruited assets.  We are still living in the world dominated by human intelligence (eventually it probably will be run by artificial intelligence, but who am I, Stanley Kubrick?), so lets hope that our Intelligence Organizations are having success penetrating this monster.

When I read "Vengeance: The true Story Of An Israeli Counter Terrorist Team", by George Jonas, I picked up a tremendous amount of useful information regarding Terrorist Cells in the 1960s and 1970s.  What is most fascinating is that the bad guys still do things the same way.  Old habits are hard to break, says the old cliché. Reading this book I learned that the German Terrorist Cell the "Baader-Meinhof Group" had direct contact with Palestinian and Japanese terrorists.  There is no doubt in my mind that the terrorist groups active in Syria and Iraq are bonded to each other through agenda and necessity....and hatred for the enemy.  I do not support the plan to create a surrogate army to fight the ground campaign against the IS, but since we appear to be committed to that plan, then I want it to succeed 100 percent.  Although we can't have U.S. soldiers of any rank on the front lines with the new Syrian Army we are training, I hope we will be able to direct their movement from a centralized location, i.e. offshore or from a nearby friendly country.  Giving authority to make strategic decisions to Officers within the New Syrian Army would be a mistake until they have proven that they won't immediately about-face on the battlefield and head to Damascus to settle old scores with Bashir.  We will not succeed until this coalition, and the United States diplomatic, intelligence and military elements in particular, accept the fact that we are truly facing only one enemy.  That enemy will grow stronger each time we use foreign affairs to score political points, as the minority Republicans are want to do at the moment.  National Security MUST trump all of that bullshit.

Apologist in Chief

Link: Obama's United Nations Address


I'm sure, somewhere down the road, I will regret the title I chose for this post.  I don't like being confrontational.  I had my share of confrontation in the first forty-eight years, thank you.  As I've said previously, I started this blog as a means of introducing my book to persons interested in national security and intelligence.  Not surprisingly, I have fallen in love with this method of expression and communication, and fully intend to build this blog into something meaningful.  This experience has reminded me that the majority (certainly not all) of persons interested in intelligence collection are conservative.  Frankly put, its no challenge to find someone in the blogoshere who is ready to criticize the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party.  It has been my intention from the beginning to steer clear of politics, and in most instances I believe I have been successful.  But lately, reality has hit me squarely in jaw.  I enjoy writing about issues that don't have a political angle, and I endeavor to avoid politics with a partisan vein.  But I will not ignore this Administration's policies on immigration or any other subject that directly impacts national security.

How is it that President Obama continues to find ways to surprise me? Yesterday, I commented that the Administration might be playing politics with national security.  In fact, I considered the idea that President Obama was conducting an air campaign against Islamic State (IS) targets in Syria in an effort to appear "presidential" just prior to a major national election.  But today President Obama addressed the United Nations and reverted back to his "America is bad".  Judge and Jury Obama declared to the world's representatives that the incident in Ferguson, Missouri was an American "failure".  He also pointed out the continuation of "our own racial and ethnic tensions".  First and foremost, the President of the United States should not be airing our "laundry" in front of tin-horn dictators, thugs, Marxists and psychopaths.  Why was it necessary to mention the events in Ferguson?  Because Obama continues to believe that the United States has not expressed enough contrition and remorse for our supposed worldwide "exploitation".  President Obama was raised in a family of avowed Marxists and America-haters; its no surprise that he detests our legacy.  It took some time for me to reach this point.  I've heard all the conspiracy theories about birth certificates, etc., but I didn't actually believe that President Obama had disdain for his own country until the last few years.  Dinesh, my apologies for not seeing the truth sooner.

During the address President Obama could not resist his trademark "Islam is wonderful and lovely and peaceful and full of butterflies and unicorns" comments.  Women are beheaded in Saudi Arabia and locked up like criminals. In 2004, just outside of al-Kut, Iraq, my colleague Mike and I watched a man beat a group of Shia women with a switch "just because they were women".  Mr. President, if Islam is a religion of "peace", prove it by attempting to build a Christian Church ANYWHERE in Afghanistan, or Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia (I'm sure someone is going to point out that some Churches already exist in these countries.  The key word in my sentence is "build").  Another one of those odd "Obama paradoxes" has me a bit flummoxed.  Obama has spoken on more than one occasion about the need to address homophobia in the United States, and he did us all a favor by ending the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military.  So let me get this straight: in the United States we need marriage equality and to fight the homophobia and bigotry that still exists in our society.  But Islamic countries, whose laws are DIRECTLY predicated on the teachings of the Quran, and who consider homosexuality to be punishable by death, are "peace loving".  Huh?

The prevailing Muslim authority in Nigeria is directly linked to Boko Haram, the group who randomly kidnaps children.  In Algeria, a French tourist was beheaded today by an Algerian-based jihadi group with ties to the IS.  Saudi Arabian women are denied just about every right you can imagine.  We could take a country-by-country tour and I could provide lots of unpleasant stories.  The truth is, I don't believe that the average Muslim person wants to kill anyone, but we must recognize that the issue of international terrorism in this generation is rooted in Islamic countries.  What is an Islamic country?  For my purposes, an Islamic nation is one whose laws are directly derived from the Quran.  I do not refer to Turkey as an Islamic country, even though the population is over ninety percent Muslim.  Turkey's constitution is centered on the secular tradition enshrined by Kemal Ataturk.  What point is President Obama trying to make when he reminds us repeatedly that "Islam is a peaceful religion"?  What exactly does that phrase mean?

The first time I attempted to read the Quran I did not make much progress.  The book does not follow any chronological path, at least none that I could follow.  I picked it up again about ten years ago, and managed to finish the book.  Last year, guided by a Muslim friend (who kindly picked out an acceptable English translation), I read the Quran for a third time.  Its very similar to the Christian Bible in that it has of stories of remarkable characters, astounding events, and useful lessons.  The Quran, again, like the Bible, speaks of sin, punishment, and forgiveness.  The real difference between the Bible and the Quran, is that in today's world, the Quran is being used to exhort people to violence.  This development should not come as a surprise to us Christians, because its exactly what we did a few centuries ago.

For six years we have observed our President approach every international issue from the position of "offending party".  I'm more than over this approach.  No doubt in our history, the United States has been involved in some less-than-proud moments.  At the same time, young Americans have bled in battlefields far and wide, in defense of someone else's freedom.  I am proud to be an American.  My father served in Korea and Vietnam and returned with three purple hearts to show for his commitment.  Whatever it is that bothers President Obama so much that he has spent six years apologizing for America, I say its time to GET OVER IT.  In our short history we have introduced the concept of human rights and liberty to a world that had grown accustomed to servitude.  We have serious domestic issues to address, as does Germany, Malaysia, Laos, Rwanda, Wales, Estonia, and on and on and on.  Its part of the evolution of a society.  Our domestic issues have no business on the international stage.