Posts by RachelEhrenfeld:
- “Iran rejected the American State Department’s annual report on terrorism that revealed Iran has continued its support for terrorism in the last year, claiming the report was politically motivated and an expression of America’s double standards regarding the war on terrorism.
- “Hossein Hamedani, a senior IRGC official, described Syria as “Iran’s strategic depth,” and claimed the objective of Syria’s enemies was to ensure Israel’s security through decreasing Iran’s regional influence and weakening Hezbollah.
Three Iranian fighters were killed when a mine exploded on the Damascus-Daraa road in Syria. - ‘Iran and Syria agreed to broaden cooperation on energy and the fight against terrorism during visits carried out by Syrian interior and energy ministers in Tehran.
“Qods Force commander Qasem Soleimani remains in Iraq; another Iranian was killed by ISIS in Ramadi. Two YouTube videos documented the use of advanced Iranian technology in intelligence gathering by Hezbollah Battalions operating in Iraq under Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards’ aegis. - “Iraqi prime minister paid a visit to Iran, Iranian deputy foreign minister paid a visit to Iraqi Kurdistan and a delegation of Sunni tribal chiefs from the Al-Anbar region paid a visit to Iran to request Iranian aid to combat ISIS…
Canadians: Stick with Harper
August 9th, 2015By Sol. W. Sanders.
You wouldn’t know it from the American media, of course, but Canada too is headed into a national election. And they also just had their first debate. Among the 35 million Canadians, of course, many welcome the fact we don’t take more interest in their affairs. For when we do, it often is a disaster. Note the continuing schmoozle over the Keystone XL Pipeline that even snuck into our national presidential debate.
It has become symbolic as well as a practical concern for us down here as well as for Canadian oil and gas. For Americans, it represents an aggressive energy policy and jobs versus supposed environmental concerns. For the Canadians, it is another example of how common North American interests are hostage to domestic political concerns, especially in the U.S., critical to Canada’s expanding exports markets especially at a time of falling oil prices.
There was some irony, too, in the fact that some of the basic points in their debate were not too far from our own. Prime Minister Stephen Harper was under attack as the Canadian economy sags, intertwined with the slow American recovery. The North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA] among the United States, Canada, and Mexico has spurred the largest trading relationship in the world, running well over $2 billion daily.
With one in every seven jobs in Canada depending on U.S. trade, no wonder the ups and downs of the U.S. economy have almost immediate impact north of the border. Critics say Harper, running for another four-year term subject to parliamentary support, has pushed up the national debt by $150 billion and that despite his tax cuts private sector investment founders.
Harper’s response is that they want to raise taxes and create bigger deficits which would only make things worse. Sound familiar? Harper hints he won’t seek another term after this one. Of course, in one of the world’s most complicated parliamentary systems, he could drop through an unforeseen parliamentary trap door at almost any time.
Furthermore, Canada has its own peculiar longer term national issues. And they were brought up in the complicated debate that tangles four different national parties – with strong regional interests. Harper’s three opponents, young [44] Liberal Party Leader Justin Trudeau, New Democratic Party Leader Thomas Mulcair and Green party Leader Elizabeth May, are all left of his own steadfast prairie conservatism.
Canadian politics, exemplified in its second largest province, French-speaking Québec, are as often as not even more conflicted by provincial and federal allegiances than our own contradictions between states and federal voting patterns. The socialist Canadian Democratic Party, for example, is now caviling to French-speaking separatists.
But despite the end of the Liberal Party’s virtually monopoly in Québec, it still hangs on to a sizeable if fissured federal delegation from the province. The Canadian West has a long tradition of maverick populist movements which, in some ways, Harper exemplifies. Perhaps the biggest question in this fall’s election [Oct. 19] is how much the young [44] Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau can trade on his father’s spectacular popularity as an earlier prime minister.
If his father, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, recalled for Americans a Canadian John F. Kennedy in his two prime ministries totaling 15 years, young Trudeau sometimes looks and acts like a Canadian Barack Obama. We have watched, admiringly, as Harper has taken Canada further out of the U.S shadow, particularly given Obama’s faltering foreign policy.
He has been forthright about pushing the Keystone pipeline project, while at the same time threatening to take Canada’s oil directly to Chinese and other growing Asian markets with an alternative pipeline to the Pacific. His careful balance of Communist China as a major trading partner is a model for Washington.
Caught up in the mob scene in our own presidential derby, we will be watching the Canadian choice out of the corner of our eye. It’s one of the most important, if unrecognized, American interests. But we are quietly cheering for Harper – if that won’t hurt his chances furthering resentment against the colossus to the south which in the past has played its own role in Canadian politics.
Comments Off on Canadians: Stick with Harper
The Saudis and the Iran Nuclear Agreement
July 27th, 2015
By Rachel Ehrenfeld.
Relations between the United States and Saudi Arabia remain tense, despite Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter’s visit there today. According to the Saudi English language daily Arab News, King Salman and his son, Defense Minister and Deputy Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman, “reviewed relations between the Kingdom and the United States of America, especially in the military fields, and discussed the latest developments in the region. The U.S. Secretary of Defense stressed America’s keenness on enhancing peace and stability in the region. Details were unavailable, but the tone of the Saudi media indicated that the Saudis were not amused. Yet, according to the Voice of America, Carter has said the “Saudi Leaders Support Iran Nuclear Deal.”
Dubai’s Gulf News, however, reported that Carter visited Jeddah to “reassure Saudi Arabia,” that the U.S. will counter “Iranian aggression” in the region. This after they have signed an agreement that all but guarantees growing Iranian aggression in the region and beyond.
A more pragmatic purpose to Carter’s visit appears to be the U.S. effort to increase arms sales to the Saudis, including the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) missile system. Qatar ordered the system two years ago, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has already signed on for a similar deal. One could not blame the Saudis if they perceived this as some sort of con game: the U.S. creates the threat by giving Iran the bomb and then seeks to profit from selling weapons to the Saudis and others in the region.
The former coordinator of work on the Iranian nuclear challenge at Israel’s National Security Council in the Prime Minister’s Office, Yoel Guzansky*, offered this analysis:
“The nuclear agreement reached by the major powers with Iran is not good news for Saudi Arabia, because the agreement means that Iran, Riyadh’s main ideological and geo-strategic rival, has received international recognition as a nuclear threshold state. Saudi Arabia regards this highly significant development as evidence of the growing power of Iran – at the expense of the kingdom.
“The official Saudi Arabian news agency issued a positive, albeit cautious, statement in response to the announcement of the agreement. The wording was similar to the remarks by King Salman to President Obama in the telephone call initiated by the President after the agreement was signed: “Saudi Arabia supports any agreement that guarantees preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.” The Saudi Arabian-owned daily newspaper a-Sharq al-Awsat, however, was more critical of the agreement, for example, in the article “Iran Nuclear Deal Opens the Gates of Evil in the Middle East,” by the editor, Salman Aldosary. Furthermore, even if the royal house chose not to criticize the agreement publicly, its actions are likely to indicate its dissatisfaction concerning the implications of the agreement.
“In addition to the “technical” significance of the agreement, the kingdom fears that the deal is an opening to an Iranian-American rapprochement at the expense of its own relations with the United States. Riyadh is concerned that the deal will enable Iran to maintain its basic nuclear capabilities, and at the same time, unless resolute countermeasures are taken, increase its influence in the Middle East. Furthermore, there is a risk that criticism of the Iranian regime over its conduct in internal affairs and especially in the regional theater, where Iran has been involved in subversion for years, will constitute grounds for Iran violating the agreement..
“Saudi Arabia is concerned that Iran’s increased self confidence following the agreement will enable it to intervene more easily in various theaters and recruit additional players to the regional axis it leads. In this context, the Iranians have for some time been trying to drive a wedge between several Gulf states and Saudi Arabia. After the agreement, a greater Iranian effort in this direction is likely, mainly involving Qatar and Oman. It appears that this is also the background to Saudi Arabia’s increased activism aimed at strengthening the Sunni front against Iran and recruiting additional actors, such as Turkey and Hamas.
“Even though the agreement with Iran is not expected to prompt Saudi Arabia to launch a military nuclear program immediately, the agreement – joining the unprecedented conventional military buildup in the kingdom – has already led Riyadh to adopt a strategy that keeps all of its nuclear options open. The kingdom declared its civilian nuclear intentions as early as 2006, and since then has considered the use of nuclear technology for a range of purposes. It announced a massive nuclear program at an estimated cost of over $100 billion, and has signed a series of nuclear cooperation agreements with many countries, including Russia, Argentina, China, South Korea, and France. The development of a civilian nuclear program in Saudi Arabia is likely to serve several purposes. On the one hand, the plan is consistent with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and is likely to prove that Saudi Arabia can also “play the game.” At the same time, such a program, especially Saudi Arabian rhetoric about its refusal to forego uranium enrichment capability, constitutes a signal to the international community about the need to continue pressuring Iran to fulfill its part of the agreement.
“In view of the international seal of approval for uranium enrichment in Iran, the possibility that the kingdom will take a similar route, even against American opposition, cannot be ruled out. Indeed, a US Congressional report on this topic points out that the kingdom “will not hesitate to aggressively bypass or risk alienating the United States in order to protect Saudi interests.” The Saudi Arabian perception of the threat is closely linked to Iran’s aspirations to regional hegemony. This perception has not changed with the signing of the agreement, and may have become stronger.
“Given this development, Saudi Arabia will find it difficult to remain indifferent, including out of considerations of prestige and influence, and will seek a response, even if partial, to the Iranian threat. What is this response likely to consist of? American security guarantees are preferable. However, even if the United States provides security guarantees to Saudi Arabia – which it has thus far refrained from doing – it is doubtful whether the kingdom will regard that as sufficient. Promotion of a nuclear-free region is also a possibility under consideration by Riyadh. In this context, the agreement with Iran is liable to put Israel’s nuclear program on the agenda, according to the logic, “If Iran, why not Israel?” The kingdom’s concern that in certain scenarios it is liable to find itself on its own facing a stronger Iran may lead it to a situation in which it will have nuclear options available. More than any other player in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia has a strategic motive and the economic capability to do this.
“Underlying current Saudi policy is that its “right” to enrich uranium should be recognized, just as Tehran has gained this right. Development of a nuclear program centering on the ability to enrich uranium is a long term option for Saudi Arabia, due to the absence of a knowledge infrastructure and suitable facilities in the kingdom. From Riyadh’s point of view, however, the agreement with Iran gives it ten years of Iranian nuclear restraint, and in this time framework, the kingdom will be able to choose various possibilities in the nuclear realm allowed by the NPT.
“In order to develop a civilian nuclear program in the long term, the kingdom will likely seek to develop a network with a number of countries, including Pakistan, with which the kingdom has close defense relations. Differences have emerged recently between Riyadh and Islamabad regarding the war in Yemen, but if Pakistan becomes convinced that its ally – which not only financed a large part of its nuclear program but provides the country with significant economic aid – is in need of its long term assistance for an enrichment facility on the kingdom’s territory, it will be willing to furnish this assistance, even if unofficially.
“Because the process of building an independent nuclear capability is prolonged and demanding, the kingdom must find a medium term response to cope with the challenge posed by Iran’s nuclear status. Another possible scenario is that at Saudi Arabia’s request, Pakistan will station nuclear warheads under its control on Saudi Arabian territory as a form of extended deterrence, if Iran openly breaks out to a bomb. And even if Saudi Arabia’s path to nuclear capability is not guaranteed, its very presence in the arms race is liable to set in motion various processes with negative consequences for regional stability in general, and for Israel in particular.”
Comments Off on The Saudis and the Iran Nuclear Agreement
July 4, 1941 – July 4, 2015
July 4th, 2015
By Rachel Ehrenfeld.
Americans actually began celebrating July 4th as an official national holiday only after Franklin Delano Roosevelt made it so in 1941.
In his radio address to the nation on July 4 of that year, FDR acknowledged a worldwide threat to civilization and to democracy, the American democracy included. His remarks were clearly meant to prepare Americans for entry into WWII, an idea that was not popular at that time. FDR stood on American principles and not on political convenience.
Here are some excerpts from the radio address:
“In 1776, on the Fourth day of July, the representatives of the several States in Congress assembled, declaring our independence, asserted that a decent respect for the opinion of mankind required that they should declare the reasons for their action. In this new crisis, we have a like duty.
“In 1776 we waged war in behalf of the great principle that government should derive its just powers from the consent of the governed. In other words, representation chosen in free election. In the century and a half that followed, this cause of human freedom swept across the world.
“But now, in our generation in the past few years a new resistance, in the form of several new practices of tyranny, has been making such headway that the fundamentals of 1776 are being struck down abroad and definitely, they are threatened here.
“It is, indeed, a fallacy, based on no logic at all, for any American to suggest that the rule of force can defeat human freedom in all the other parts of the world and permit it to survive in the United States alone. But it has been that childlike fantasy itself, that misdirected faith which has led nation after nation to go about their peaceful tasks, relying on the thought, and even the promise, that they and their lives and their government would be allowed to live when the juggernaut of force came their way.”….
“Yet, all of us who lie awake at night all of us who study and study again know full well that in these days we cannot save freedom with pitchforks and muskets alone after a dictator combination has gained control of the rest of the world.”
“We know that we cannot save freedom in our own midst, in our own land, if all around us our neighbor nations have lost their freedom.”…..
“I tell the American people solemnly that the United States will never survive as a happy and fertile oasis of liberty surrounded by a cruel desert of dictatorship.
“And so it is that when we repeat the great pledge to our country and to our flag, it must be our deep conviction that we pledge as well our work, our will and, if it be necessary, our very lives.”
Today, as in 1941, human freedom and democracy are now under growing threats. Now from tyrannical Islamist regimes and jihadi terrorist groups. Unlike FDR, who cherished America’s past and achievements, our president keeps apologizing for America’s past actions. Barack Hussein Obama is willing to accommodate and accept hostile ideologies, governments and groups on “mutual interests” and “mutual respect” to create “a common humanity.” FDR first defeated America’s enemies and only then worked with them to strengthen human freedom and democracy.
Today, as we celebrate the anniversary of America’s independence for an astonishing 239th time, we should recall the ideological basis for U.S. involvement in WWII, which FDR framed in terms of individual rights and liberties, and the form of government that are the hallmark of American democracy.
FDR’s famous Fourth Freedom, “Freedom from Fear,” not only spoke to the need to meet external physical threats but also the need to meet threats to the moral and political values of American democracy. Our success then allows us to celebrate today
Happy Independence Day!!
Comments Off on July 4, 1941 – July 4, 2015
Iran’s support of terrorism
June 29th, 2015
By Rachel Ehrenfeld.
The Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 imposed sanctions on Iran, not only to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons, but also to drain Iran’s financial support for Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist groups that threaten the U.S. and its allies.
Visiting Israel in March 2013, Obama declared that “every country that values justice should call Hizbollah what it truly is–a terrorist organization…Because, the world cannot tolerate an organization that murders innocent civilians, stockpiles rockets to shoot at cities, and supports the massacre of men.”
While various international media outlets have been reporting on growing Iranian involvement in terrorism in the Middle East and beyond, the Government Accountability Office revealed on June 17 that the State Department reports to Congress on Iran’s terrorist activities are “three yearsout of date.“
This was not surprising considering that Iran and Hezbollah were missing from the Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Communities that was presented to the U.S. Senate on February 26 by James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence. The report acknowledged Iran’s role in fighting ISIS and noted “Iran’s actions to protect and empower Shia communities are fueling growing fears and sectarian responses.”
Indeed, Iranian support to the Iraqi army and Shiite militias fighting ISIS raised concern among members of Congress and the U.S. armed forces. Only three months ago, Army Gen. Lloyd Austin, chief of U.S. Central Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 26: “Three tours in Iraq commanding troops who were brutalized by some of these Shia militias … I will not — and I hope we never — coordinate or cooperate with the Shia militias.”
Yet, the Obama administration seems to encourage Iran’s meddling in the Middle East. The U.S. Air Force is now providing airstrikes in support of Iran-backed Shiite militias and Iranian military forces in Iraq, and American soldiers are even sharing a base with the Shiite militias. Not surprisingly, Iranian officials harshly dismissed the State Department’s Annual Report on Terrorism that was released on June 19th.
The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, has highlighted the Iranian responses and Iran’s growing involvement in the region*:
“Iran rejected the report and criticized it harshly. Ms. Marzieh Afkham, an Iranian Foreign Ministry’s spokeswoman, promptly rejected the report’s findings, claiming the accusations were politically motivated and an expression of America’s double standards regarding the war on terrorism. Afkham claimed the United States did not take serious, assertive action against terrorism, while during the past thirty years Iran had been terrorism’s greatest victim (Fars News, June 20, 2015).
“Hamid Reza Moqaddam-Far, advisor to IRGC for media and cultural affairs, responded to the report by saying that the people of Iraq, Bahrain, Syria, Lebanon and the other states in the region had a positive opinion of the IRGC. He claimed the United States had been hostile to the IRGC since its establishment after the Islamic Revolution. Following the regional “Islamic awakening” and the American defeat in Iraq, the United States had been representing the IRGC and its Qods Force as a terrorist network. The IRGC and the Qods Force, he claimed, were the symbols of the Islamic Revolution and its mechanism for exporting the revolution and Islamic awakening, but Western propaganda represented them as terrorist groups, while the people of the region regarded them as helpful.
“Moqaddam-Far rejected the claim[2] that Iran supported Shi’ites, giving as examples its support for the Sunni Palestinians and non-Shi’ite groups in Iraq. He claimed that the United States’ designation of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization was unacceptable to world public opinion and to most Lebanese, who regarded Hezbollah as defending Lebanon and Syria. Iran, he claimed, supported the Syrian government, which had been legally elected by Syrian citizens, against Sunni terrorist groups supported by the West and several countries in the region (Mehr News, June 22, 2015).
“Senior Iranian Officials’ Statements on Iran’s Regional Involvement
“Interviewed by Hezbollah’s Al-Manar TV, Ali Shamkhani, the secretary of the Supreme Council for National Security, spoke about Iran’s activity in Syria and Iraq. He reiterated Iran’s official position that Iranian presence in both countries had been requested by their governments and that they had only advisors on the ground, whose activity was based on Iran’s experience in fighting terrorism. Shamkhani said the Syrian regime and its people had been opposing terrorism for the past five years, and the resistance was capable of fighting terrorism and defending the country. Iran, he said, stood beside and would continue to stand beside Syria, and would collaborate with other countries to find a political resolution for the crisis. He stressed that Iran objected to dividing Syria and Iraq along ethnic or religious lines and that the fight against terrorism demanded the collaboration of all ethnic and religious groups (KhabarOnline, June 15, 2015).
“Alaeddin Boroujerdi, chairman of the Majlis [Iranian parliament] Committee for Foreign Policy and National Security, said that Iran’s invitation to participate in the Geneva conference to discuss the situation in Syria proved that its enemies had reached the conclusion that regional problems could not be solved without Iran. He said the regional situation would change without Iran’s presence, which showed its power (Mehr News, June 12, 2015).
“Mohammad-Ali Asoudi, senior advisor to the Supreme Leader’s representative in the IRGC, referring to the support Iran gave Syria and Iraq, said it was intended “to prevent the Zionists from striking the resistance axis.” Asoudi claimed Israel supported the extremist Sunni organizations, including ISIS, in order to exploit them in its struggle against the resistance front (www.ycr.ir, June 21, 2015).
“Iranian Intervention in Syria
“In a speech delivered at a meeting of Basij-members university lecturers in Hamedan Province, Hossein Hamedani, senior official in the IRGC and commander of its Imam Hossein headquarters, described Syria as Iran’s “strategic depth.” He said Syria had become an arena where its enemies, among them the United States, the European countries and Arab states, fought its friends, Russia and China. The official objective of the enemy camp, he said, was to lessen Iran’s influence in the region, weaken Hezbollah and change it from a military organization to a political organization, all for the sake of ensuring Israel’s security. Hamedani claimed Iran was the nation most esteemed in Syria and Iraq today (Tasnim News, June 22, 2015).
“Last week Mohammad Ibrahim al-Shaa’r, Syrian minister of the interior, paid a visit to Tehran, during which the two countries signed a memorandum of understanding about expanding cooperation in the fields of security, the fight against terrorism and smuggling.
At a joint press conference held by al-Shaa’r and Abdolreza Rahmani-Fazli, the Iranian minister of the interior, Rahmani-Fazli said that the two had discussed ways to fight terrorism, especially ISIS, which was supported, he said, by the West and Israel, and endangered the stability of the countries of Islam. During the visit it was decided that Iranian, Syrian and Iraqi representatives would meet in Baghdad where they would discuss mutual collaboration in the fight against terrorism (ISNA, June 22, 2015).
“Hossein Ashtari, commander of Iran’s internal security forces, met with al-Shaa’r and expressed readiness to increase the security collaboration between the two countries. He said that in view of the Iranian police force’s capabilities, especially those related to fighting organized crime and terrorism, and to investigating cyber crimes, the Iranian security forces were prepared for every type of cooperation with Syria (IBNA, June 23, 2015).
“Imad Mohammad Deeb Khamis, Syrian minister of energy, paid a visit to Tehran in order to discuss increased cooperation with Iranian electricity and energy companies. He met with representatives of Iranian companies operating in Syria, and invited more Iranian companies to invest in water and electricity projects in Syria (Tasnim News, June 17, 2015). Khamis said the two countries intended to sign an agreement for cooperation in the field of electricity that would increase the investments of Iranian companies in Syria. Khamis met with Hamid Chitchian, the Iranian minister of energy, who said Iran was planning to increase the activity of private Iranian companies in Syria. He said the Syrian government was planning to invest €15 billion in electricity and energy industries by 2020, and that it was an opportunity for Iranian franchisees and investors to expand their activity in Syrian industry (Alef, June 17, 2015).
“Alaeddin Boroujerdi chairman of the Majlis Committee for Foreign Policy and National Security, met with political activists in Syria visiting in Tehran. He told them that Iran would stand beside the Syrian government and its people and would not spare any effort to support them in the fight against terrorism (Mehr News, June 16, 2015).
“The bodies of Ali Amraei, Hassan Ghafari and Mohammad Hamidi, Iranian fighters killed in Syria, were returned to Iran last week. The three were killed when a mine exploded on the Damascus-Daraa road (Tasnim News, June 24, 2015). They were buried in Iran on June 25th. Five members of Fatemiyoun Brigade (Afghan volunteers fighting in Syria alongside IRGC) who were killed recently in Syria and another IRGC member who was killed from wounds he incurred last month were buried the same day.
“Iranian Intervention in Iraq
“Morteza Savari, an Iranian from the city of Susangerd in Khuzestan Province, was killed in Ramadi in Iraq (Defa Press, June 14, 2015).
“On June 17, 2015, Haider al-Abadi, Iraqi prime minister, paid a visit to Tehran during which he met with senior Iranian officials to discuss the situation in Iraq. He was accompanied by Abu-Mahdi al-Muhandis, commander of the Hezbollah Battalions militia operating under Iranian aegis. Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei told al-Abadi that the presence of terrorists in Iraq was temporary. Khamenei stressed the need to preserve Iraq’s political and national unity, and praised the courage of the young Iraqis fighting terrorism. He said that Iran supported the unity of all Iraq’s “revolutionary fighting groups” and would continue supporting the Iraqi government and its people (Entekhab, June 17, 2015).
“Meeting with Prime Minister al-Abadi, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said Iran stood by Iraq in its war against ISIS. He called the ties between Iran and Iraq “strategic” and said that expanding them in every area served not only the interests of both countries but also those of all the countries in the region (Tasnim News, June 17, 2015).
“On June 20, 2015, Masoud Jazayeri, deputy chief of staff of the Iranian armed forces, claimed the necessary measures were being taken to liberate Iraq’s Nineveh and Al-Anbar Provinces; he did not specify which measures. He said the liberation of Iraq from terrorists could take some time because of the support they received from the Arab states, Israel, the United States and Britain, but that there was not doubt the Iraqi fighters would be victorious (www.ycr.ir, June 20, 2015).
“Hassan Qashqavi, deputy Iranian foreign minister for consular and parliamentary affairs, paid a visit to Iraqi Kurdistan and met with senior local officials, among them Jalal Talabani, former Iraqi president; Yousef Mohammad, chairman of the Kurdistan regional parliament; and Asu Fereydoun, governor of Suleymaniyeh Province. They discussed Iran’s economic ties with Iraqi Kurdistan and ways to expand anti-ISIS collaboration. Yousef Mohammad thanked Iran for its support in the Kurds’ fight against ISIS and called for stronger security collaboration between Tehran and Baghdad (Fars and IRNA, June 15, 2015).
“A video posted to YouTube on June 13, 2015 by the pro-Iranian TV station Al-Etejah documented the use of an Iranian unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), apparently an Ababil 3, by the Hezbollah Battalions, one of the Shi’ite militias operating in Iraq under IRGC aegis.
A video posted to YouTube on June 18, 2015 also documented the use of advanced technology to gather intelligence, including SIGINT capabilities, and of UAVs by Hezbollah Battalions in the Baiji region.
“Iranian UAVs have been used against ISIS in Iraq since the fall of Mosul to ISIS in June 2014. In June 2014 The New York Times reported that according to American sources, Iran had begun secretly operating UAVs in Iraq from the Baghdad airport, and that an intelligence unit had been deployed to intercept communications. Last year ISIS claimed it had downed a number of Iranian UAVs in the skies over Iraq.
“During the past two weeks the social networks have continually posted pictures of Qasem Soleimani, IRGC Qods Force commander, indicating his continued presence in Iraq.
“A delegation of the Sunni tribal chiefs from Al-Anbar Province recently paid a visit to Iran to request Iranian aid to combat ISIS. According to Sheikh Ashour al-Mahlawi, chief of the al-Boumahal al-Tarabasha tribe, the delegation was composed of 14 tribal chiefs. During the visit, which had been coordinated with the central government in Baghdad, the tribal chiefs asked Iran for financial aid and weapons. Iran granted their request but on condition it be sent through the Iraqi government (Fars News, June 23, 2015). A video recently posted on Facebook documented Qasem Soleimani, meeting with Sunni tribal chiefs in Al-Anbar Province in an attempt to convince them to fight against ISIS alongside the Shi’ite militias. The recent reports indicate Iran’s efforts to prove that its activities in Iraq are not limited to supporting only Shi’ites.
“Iranian Intervention in Yemen
“On June 16 an emergency meeting of the foreign ministers of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) was held in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, to discuss developments in Yemen. Hossein Amir Abdollahian, deputy Iranian foreign minister, who represented Iran at the meeting, stressed the need to preserve Yemen’s unity and sovereignty, and called for the immediate end of the Saudi attack and for Saudi Arabia to lift its aerial and naval siege of Yemen. He claimed that if the military attack continued it would increase extremism and terrorism, and endanger the entire region. He called on OIC members to fulfill their “Islamic and humanitarian commitment” and help the Yemeni people. Abdollahian was absent during the speech given by Yemen’s president in exile, Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi (IRNA, June 16, 2015).
“An exhibition opened in Tehran called “Yemen’s Endurance.” It was organized by the Noandish Association of the Children of the Martyrs and the Faithful. According to the organizers, its objective was to present the “crimes” Saudi Arabia committed against the Yemenis. The exhibition’s opening ceremony was attended by members of the Majlis, clerics, representatives from Yemen and families of Iranian victims of the war (Mashreq News, June 16, 2015).
“On June 16, the first international cartoon competition devoted to Yemen ended in Tehran. More than 200 cartoonists from 33 countries entered the competition, which was organized by the Andisheh Cultural Center, and whose objective was to “present the crimes committed by Saudi Arabia against the Yemeni people.” Among the themes dealt with were “Western media and the international organizations’ silence,” “Crimes and the murder of children in Yemen” and “The treason of Arab leaders.” There were cartoons of several world leaders, among them the rulers of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Israel, France and the United States (IRNA, June 15, 2015).
“Iranian Intervention in the Palestinian Arena
“Ramazan Sharif, in charge of public relations for the IRGC and chief of staff of the Council of Islamic Propaganda and Al-Quds Intifada, announced that the annual World Jerusalem Day rallies would be held on July 10 this year. World Jerusalem Day is an Iranian initiative held annually since 1979 on the last Friday of the Muslim religious month of Ramadan as a way of showing Iranian and the Muslim world’s support for the Palestinian cause and the “liberation of Jerusalem.” This year the Iranians decided to move Jerusalem Day up a week because the last Friday of Ramadan falls on Eid al-Fitr, whose date is determined separately by each Muslim country in accordance with the appearance of the new moon (Sepah News, June 22, 2015).
“Iranian Intervention in the Gulf States
“Iran condemned Bahrain’s decision to sentence Shi’ite opposition leader Sheikh Ali Salman to four years in prison. Salman, the Shi’ite cleric who heads the al-Wefaq association, was convicted of collaborating with foreign governments and incitement. Ms. Marzieh Afkham, spokeswoman for the Iranian foreign ministry, called on the Bahraini authorities to release Salman immediately, stating that security measures would not help solve Bahrain’s problems and that only negotiation and responsiveness to the demands of the country’s moderate groups would ensure Bahrain’s stability (ISNA, June 16, 2015).
“Iran rejected the Bahraini authorities’ recent accusations regarding the confiscation of Iranian-made explosives intended, the Bahrainis claimed, for attacks in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. An official in the Iranian foreign ministry strongly denied the accusations, claiming that Bahrain’s repeated accusations in recent years did not solve the country’s problems and only made them worse. He called on Bahrain’s authorities to prefer serious dialogue to “tribal and security approaches” (IRNA, June 19, 2015).
“The Shi’ite rebellion against the al-Khalifa dynasty that broke out in Bahrain in February 2011 worsened the already tense relations between Iran and Bahrain. The authorities in Bahrain accused Iran of fomenting public unrest. On a number of occasions in the past Iran has raised demands for sovereignty over Bahrain, claiming it should be an integral part of Iran in view of the fact that it was once part of ancient Persian empires.
“In February 2013 the Bahraini authorities announced they had exposed a terrorist cell operated by the IRGC and trained in Iraq and Lebanon. Bahrain is located in the heart of the Persian Gulf and is strategically important to Iran. The fact that it is a country with a Shi’ite majority and home to an American military presence, makes it a target for Iranian terrorism and subversion.
Comments Off on Iran’s support of terrorism
Drones in the U.S. National airspace system
March 2nd, 2015
By Rachel Ehrenfeld.
Earlier this week, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposed rules on drones (unmanned aircraft systems (UAS).
For example, the proposed rule would require that an operator maintain visual line of sight of a small UAS. Or, whether the rules should allow operations beyond line of sight, and if so, what the appropriate limits should be. Though, the FAA does not say, at this stage, what measures will be taken to enforce the new rules.
An individual actually flying a small UAS would be labeled an “operator.” An operator would have to be at least 17 years old, pass an aeronautical knowledge test, and then obtain an FAA UAS operator certificate. But, a small UAS operator would not require any further private pilot certifications.
The new rules also suggests operating limitations designed to reduce risks to other aircraft and people and property on the ground:
While the list of the proposed rules sounds reasonable, how would the Agency manage to enforce them of hundreds of thousands different size drones?
For example, “a small UAS operator must always see and avoid manned aircraft. If there is a risk of collision, the UAS operator must be the first to maneuver away.”Or, the operator must discontinue the flight when continuing would pose a hazard to other aircraft, people or property.” – That’s calling for a lot of good will and personal responsibility, doesn’t it?
More: A small UAS operator must assess weather conditions, airspace restrictions, and the location of people to lessen risks if he or she loses control of the UAS.. He/she may not fly over people, except those directly involved with the flight.; – Flights should be limited to 500 feet altitude and no faster than 100 mph. – Operators must stay out of airport flight paths and restricted airspace areas, and obey any FAA Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs), A regulation Senator Schumer has been advocating for. .
Finally, the proposed rule keeps the existing prohibition against operating in a careless or reckless manner. It also would bar an operator from permitting any object to be dropped from the UAS.
However, there are no limitation on what the drones can and cannot carry. How about carrying payloads such jamming devise that can parallelize the areas in which they fly? What about carrying messages across the borders? Drugs?vaporized bacteria? There are unlimited opportunities for harm, which this proposal overlooks. It would be interesting to whether these issues will be addressed tin the proposals next round.
More about Drones in the U.S. National Airspace System: A Safety and Security Assessment, by Major Stephen Maddox & Captain David Stuckenberg.* Here are excerpts from the forthcoming HARVARD LAW NATIONAL SECURITY JOURNAL:
Introduction
Since 9/11, our government has made extensive investments to safeguard citizens, cherished monuments, critical infrastructure and key government installations. Unfortunately, many safeguards are easily bypassed by overflight. On January 26th of this year, a small drone bypassed the fences and radar protecting the White House and crashed unceremoniously onto the south lawn.[i] Back in 2012, Congressman MichaelMcCaul stated: “Now is the time to ensure these vulnerabilities are mitigated to protect our aviation system as the use of UAS (unmanned aircraft systems or “drones”) continues to grow.”[ii] Despite his warning, three primary problems exist for UAS as they enter our national airspace: (1) inadequate safety systems, (2) inadequate statutes, and (3) incomplete threat analyses.
Background
The National Airspace System (NAS) is a highly integrated and complex network designed to provide safe and reliable air transportation throughout the United States with an average of 50,000 [manned] flights a day.[iii] In a single month of 2014, domestic airlines transported more than 66.4 million passengers, or one fifth of the U.S. population.[iv] The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) estimates that air traffic will increase one percent per year for the next 21 years.[v]
In spite of this modest growth projection, Congress passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (henceforth the Reform Act) to “improve aviation safety and capacity.”[vi] While such reforms are laudable, nested within the Reform Act’s 300 pages is a small statutory order that raises major concerns. The Act stipulates that the Secretary of Transportation “shall develop a comprehensive plan to safely accelerate the integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) into the national airspace system”[vii] by September 30, 2015.[viii]
Drone integration is problematic because of regulatory impediments on their operations and the resultant political climate. All drone operations in the NAS are restricted to below 400 feet above ground level or Special Use Airspaces (SUAs) for government testing and training. Access to airspace and flight corridors outside SUAs is only granted through a special FAA permit known as a Certificate of Authorization or Waiver (COA).[ix] These operational restrictions exist because of the hazards drones pose to manned aircraft and the public.
In 2010, the Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), a leading robotics industry lobby, published a report[x], [xi] geared toward AUVSI’s legislative goal of increasing “airspace access . . . to ensure that obstacles to advancing and fielding unmanned systems and robotics are removed.”[xii] The report argued that the U.S. economy would benefit enormously if drones had access to the NAS.
AUVSI also warned that a failure to integrate UAS would impede military readiness by limiting the Department of Defense’s ability to stay at the forefront of new technology, and negatively impact jobs and the aviation industry.[xiii] Unfortunately, by creating a requirement for drone integration, Congress failed to examine many of the latent safety and security issues surrounding domestic use of UAS.
* Department of Defense disclaimer: “The opinions and views expressed in this paper are those of the authors alone and do not represent the views of the DoD, USAF, or U.S. Government.“
Comments Off on Drones in the U.S. National airspace system
Destructive Cyber Attacks on the Rise
February 7th, 2015
By Rachel Ehrenfeld.
Rising geopolitical tensions have led to a constant barrage of cyber hacking into the U.S. government, industries and businesses. Therecent attack against California-based Sony Pictures Entertainment marked a turning point. It was the first officially acknowledged destructive coordinated cyber-attack against a U.S.-based corporation.
This led to Monday’s FBI confidential “flash” report warning to businesses, explaining that the malicious software overrides all data on hard drives of the computers, and the master boot record. “The overwriting of the data files prevents the computers from booting up and makes it impossible to recover the data using standard forensic methods,” the report said. And while the FBI did not identify U.S. companies that suffered such destructive cyber-attack, or the perpetrators, Iran deployed a similar attack against Saudi Aramco, and North Korea used similar destructive malware against South Korea in the past, and now against Sony.
Also on Monday, the cybersecurity company FireEye reported that more than 100 U.S. companies, mostly in the pharmaceutical industry and their investment advisers have been hacked, apparently successfully. The hackers obtained information on new drug trials and may have manipulated the companies’ stocks. The hackers’ familiarity with Wall Street and their use of “native English” in the malware led FireEye’s spokesperson to the strange conclusion that the hackers were Americans or Europeans. Not necessarily.
As long as board of directors are reluctant to acknowledge such attacks and refrain from sharing the information about their attackers, it will be impossible to develop the appropriate strategies and technologies to protect their businesses and often our money. Until that happens, the economic warfare waged on American businesses through the Internet will continue to gain momentum and inflict short- and long-term untold damage.
In the meantime, the U.S. political leadership remained short-sided, passive and slow. President Obama’s effort to secure the nation’s civilian infrastructure and business was his Executive Order on “Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity” in 2013, and the follow up with the Cybersecurity Framework in 2014. The Administration and Congress were unable to reach an agreement on a cybersecurity law, and it is unlikely that they will pass the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA), a bill that will enable private sector companies to share cyber threat information with the government and vice versa.
Yet, complete reliance on wireless technologies is becoming a reality. The more advanced the technology, the more the reliance on it and the greater the risk of interference by hacking into or jamming the systems. Each cyber attack brings new efforts to stop similar attacks, but little, if anything, is in place to detect or counter future attacks.
The perpetrators could be ideologically/financially motivated individuals, criminal or terrorist groups, or hostile states. And, as we have seen, cyber attacks not only steal information, money, or both, or paralyze communication. Cyber interference could also commandeer different components of systems to scramble information, change records and damage operations, and jamming could cause systems and communications failures that could cost huge financial losses and human lives.
When the 114th Congress convenes in January, it should pass a cybersecurity law that would not only facilitate better protection of our civilian infrastructure, but also acknowledge that we are facing a cyberwar, in which the best defense is offense.
Comments Off on Destructive Cyber Attacks on the Rise