South Korea, U.S. to Devise Detailed Deterrence Posture Against North.

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, right, and South Korean Defense Minister of Defense Kim Kwan-jin, shown on Wednesday. The top officials agreed to establish a joint plan in coming months for deterring any North Korean threats to use nuclear arms or other weapons of mass destruction (AP Photo/Cliff Owen).



The United States and South Korea intend in the next year to collaboratively develop a bilateral policy for responding to different kinds of unconventional threats from North Korea, the Yonhap News Agency reported on Wednesday.

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and his South Korean opposite, Kim Kwan-jin, reached agreement on developing the new deterrence posture by 2014 in bilateral talks in Washington. The strategies are to be devised by the two-way Extended Deterrence Policy Committee, according to a joint statement released following the talks.

The two defense chiefs "reaffirmed that any North Korean aggression or military provocation is not to be tolerated and that the U.S. and the Republic of Korea would work shoulder-to-shoulder to demonstrate our combined resolve," the communique stated. They also demanded that the North immediately halt its nuclear weapons development.

North Korea in recent years appears to have focused on expanding its access fissile material. In late 2010 it announced the establishment of a uranium enrichment facility and began construction on a light-water atomic reactor that could be used to generate warhead-ready plutonium. The isolated regime has also constructed a new underground chamber at its atomic testing site that Seoul and Washington fear might be used for a third underground nuclear test in the near future.

Kim told journalists at the Pentagon that Pyongyang had been readying for a fresh atomic test "for quite a long time," Agence France-Presse reported.

"And when the time comes for a political decision, it may in fact resort to this third nuclear test," the South Korean minister said.

He called for a resumption of the paralyzed six-nation talks aimed at permanent North Korean denuclearization. The aid-for-denuclearization negotiations involving China, Japan, the two Koreas, Russia, and the United States have not taken place since December 2008. Kim also assessed the young regime of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un to be "quite stable" less than a year after assuming power following the death of Kim Jong Il.

Panetta said much still remains unknown about the new ruler in the North. "I think the bottom line is we still don't know whether or not he will simply follow in the steps of his father or whether he represents a different kind of leadership for the future."

"The concern we have is that they continue to prepare for a missile test, they continue to prepare for a nuclear test and they continue to engage in enrichment of uranium against all international rules," the ex-CIA director was quoted by the Associated Press as saying. "They continue to behave in a provocative way that threatens the security of our country, obviously South Korea, and the region."
Pyongyang last week warned of "merciless" retaliation on the South should North Korean defectors in the country carry out a plan to send anti-regime pamphlets over the border using balloons. Though some activists earlier this week were able to release balloons into the North, no attack has been carried out.

Panetta said he was "relieved that the balloon incident, which raised concerns about potential provocation, that (it) did not occur," Reuters reported.

A separate group of North Korean dissidents who escaped to the South on Thursday floated tens of thousands of propaganda pamphlets over the border, according to a separate Yonhap report.
The North Korean Foreign Ministry on Thursday castigated an Obama administration envoy for his recent demand that Pyongyang adhere to previous pledges it made in 2005 to give up its nuclear weapons program, Yonhap also reported.

U.S. special envoy for North Korea policy Glyn Davies "ludicrous statements" did nothing to improve the nuclear impasse, an unnamed ministry spokesman told the official Korean Central News Agency.

"It is illogical for the U.S. to urge the D.P.R.K. to honor its obligation while it is not complying with what it committed to do in the [Sept. 19, 2005] joint statement," the official stated. "The statement specifies the U.S. political, military and economic commitments to fundamentally end its hostile policy toward the D.P.R.K. as a chief culprit of the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula."

He insisted that Washington had breached its commitments in the 2005 agreement by ignoring "the sovereignty of the D.P.R.K. and openly and systematically stepped up military threats and economic sanctions against it."

Meanwhile, Institute for Science and International Security President David Albright in a new analysis estimated that the aspiring nuclear power presently possesses enough warhead-grade plutonium to fuel between six and 18 bombs.

Pyongyang's uranium enrichment program "provides North Korea with flexibility in increasing the size and sophistication of its nuclear arsenal," Albright and co-author Christina Walrond wrote in the assessment, posted to the website 38 North.

At present, the North does not have the means to produce more plutonium as it disabled its 5 megawatt reactor under an earlier denuclearization agreement. That could change, though, once the light-water reactor comes online. "Its rate of production of weapon-grade plutonium could exceed four-fold the rate of plutonium production in the 5 MWe reactor at Yongbyon, while still producing a sizeable amount of electricity," according to Albright and Walrond.

"It could also use the LWR as part of a development program to build larger LWRs that could produce far greater quantities of electricity (and weapon-grade plutonium, if so desired)," the report states.

North Korea has never permitted international monitoring of its uranium plant at Yongbyon, so the outside world has little idea to what level it is enriching there. In order to power a warhead, uranium must be processed to levels around 90 percent.

"The use of both [weapon-grade uranium] and plutonium could allow for more total fissile material in a fission device and a higher explosive yield than possible with plutonium alone," the ISIS analysts wrote. "Weapon-grade uranium would allow for designs involving thermonuclear concepts that could not be achieved with designs only using plutonium."

Elsewhere, the close alignment of Washington and Seoul in the last four years on how to handle the North might be in jeopardy when a new South Korean president is elected in December, the Korea Herald reported.

Under Conservative President Lee Myung-bak, the South Korean government has agreed with the Obama administration on cutting off nearly all foreign assistance to the North until it demonstrates sincerity on the denuclearization front. By contrast, every leading South Korean presidential aspirant favors a policy of more engagement with Pyongyang.

Both Obama and his Republican rival, Mitt Romney, have vowed to maintain the U.S. hard line against aid to the North until it reforms.

Font: NTI

Lockheed and DCMA complete C-5M Super Galaxy flight.



USAF and Lockheed personnel during C-5M Super Galaxy's first joint test flight.
Photo: courtesy of Todd McQueen, Lockheed Martin.

Lockheed Martin and the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) have completed the first joint acceptance test flight of the US Air Force's (USAF) C-5M Super Galaxy aircraft at Lockheed's Marietta facility in Georgia, US.

Conducted jointly by USAF and Lockheed technicians and flight engineers, the joint acceptance flights mark the final phase of the programme to handover the aircraft back to the air force, by lowering total delivery time by between two to four weeks.

Lockheed C-5 programme vice president Greg Ulmer said the test flight represents a significant milestone for the C-5 aircraft family, and involved several hours of coordination and planning.
''This is just one step of many we are implementing to increase the rate of C-5M deliveries to our warfighters,'' Ulmer added.

The C-5M Super Galaxy is an upgraded version of the C-5 Galaxy aircraft, and features an increased 58% climb rate to an initial cruise altitude to facilitate greater cargo transportation from airfields over long distances.

A total of 79 C-5 aircraft, including A, B and C models are being upgraded by Lockheed as part of a comprehensive two-phase modernisation programme, including the Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) and the Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining Program (RERP).

The $70m C-5 AMP phase, which was completed earlier this year with the delivery of the 79th and final aircraft to USAF, involved the installation of a mission computer, glass cockpit with digital avionics, as well as advanced communications, navigation and surveillance components for air traffic management.

Of the 79 AMP aircraft, 52 are scheduled to undergo RERP, which involves reequipping the aircraft with new General Electric CF6 engines, as well as more than 70 additional improvements to major components and subsystems.

The C-5M upgrade programme aims at providing increased reliability, maintainability and better fuel efficiency to the aircraft, while also extending aircraft service life beyond 2040.

PIRATES FIRE ON NATO SHIP

This morning while conducting routine surveillance off the Somali coast, HNMLS ROTTERDAM the flagship for the NATO ‘OCEAN SHIELD’ counter piracy mission, came under sustained fire from groups of suspected pirates.

A boarding team from Rotterdam was making an approach on a suspect dhow near the coast when they came under fire from ashore and from the dhow itself. Rotte...

rdam returned fire in accordance with Rules of Engagement, during which the dhow was seen to ignite and crew members were observed leaping into the water. One crew member of the dhow was killed in this action and 25 people were subsequently rescued from the water by Rotterdam. Commodore Ben Bekkering, the commander of the NATO Task Force, said that the Rotterdam and her boats remained under sustained fire from the shore throughout, even while attempting to rescue the crew of the stricken dhow and one of Rotterdam’s rigid inflatable boats was damaged.

Those rescued were subsequently transferred to the NATO flagship where those who required it were given prompt medical attention. None of the crew from the ROTTERDAM were injured during this action.
"We know that pirates are increasingly using larger dhows as mother ships. Therefore we routinely inspect them" says Commodore Ben Bekkering, commander of the NATO Task Force. "In this instance the pirates openly choose confrontation. This does not happen often and it indicates that we are indeed impeding their operations and in doing so, pushing them to take more extreme options.”
Commodore Bekkering praised the calm professionalism of the ROTTERDAM crew and stated that this incident together with ROTTERDAM’s successful interdiction of seven pirates on 11 October made two things very clear. “Firstly, it is obvious that the scourge of piracy has not gone away and we need to maintain our vigilance. Secondly, the risks to the pirates themselves are becoming much greater and while we regret any loss of life we will deal with any threat we encounter in a firm, robust but always proportionate manner.”

 

Font:NATO Counter-Piracy Mission: Operation Ocean Shield

Israeli Official: Sudan is a 'Terrorist State'

A top Israeli defense official said that Sudan was a terrorist state, and that its accusations against Israel could not be taken seriously

Israel hit back at Sudan Thursday, after Khartoum on Wednesday accused Israel of attacking a military installation in the country. A top Israeli defense official told Army Radio that Sudan was a terrorist state, and that its accusations that Israel engaged in terrorism against that country could not be taken seriously.

“Sudan is a dangerous terrorist state. To know exactly what happened (there), it will take some time to understand," said Amos Gilad, director of policy and political-military affairs at the Defense Ministry. "There are different versions of the Sudanese side, so there is no reason to go into details," Gilad responded to questions of Israeli involvement in the attack.

Amos Gilad

 

Sudan says it has evidence that Israeli warplanes carried out the attack, although it has so far failed to present that evidence. Sudan claimed that four Israeli aircraft fired missiles that hit a military factory and killed two people in Khartoum. The explosion at the military factory in Sudan's capital before dawn Wednesday sent detonating ammunition flying through the air, causing panic among residents, the official news agency and local media reports said. Sudan has demanded that the UN Security Council condemn Israel for the raid. A Sudanese official, Bilal Osman, said that a response by Sudan for the attack would be forthcoming, although “we reserve the right to react at a place and time we choose."

 

Israeli officials have long been following the situation in Sudan, which security officials said was a major source of weapons for Gaza Arab terrorists. Gangs of terrorists trained and set up areas of influence in the remote parts of the country, with large weapons warehouses. According to security officials, Sudan is a major hub on the route of smugglers moving weapons from Iran and Syria to terror groups in Gaza, Lebanon, and elsewhere. Several months ago, a car carrying several weapons smugglers and a large amount of weapons exploded at Port Sudan. Sudan accused Israel of involvement in that attack as well.

 

Meanwhile, a report in Arab media Thursday said that the U.S. had closed its embassy in Khartoum, Sudan's capital, on Tuesday – just before the attack took place, as if the U.S. had advanced knowledge of the attack. Hundreds of Sudanese gathered outside the U.S. Embassy in Khartoum calling for “death to Israel” and “death to America,” as they burned American and Israeli flags.

 

Font: By David Lev

U.S. redesigns terrorist target list.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 24 (UPI)

The Obama administration is planning a next-generation terrorist targeting list that transforms the CIA into a paramilitary force, The Washington Post reported.

The secret list, called the "disposition matrix," contains terrorism suspect names laid out against resources available to track them down, the Post said in a report published Tuesday.

The report, the first of three on changing U.S. counterterrorism policies, is based on interviews with current and former White House, Pentagon, intelligence and counterterrorism officials, the Post said.

The White House, National Counterterrorism Center, CIA and other agencies declined to comment on the matrix or other counterterrorism programs.

The National Counterterrorism Center is part of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which integrates intelligence information, and draws on CIA, FBI, Pentagon and other experts who seek to ensure all potential terrorist-attack clues are detected and acted on when necessary.

The matrix -- designed to go beyond existing kill lists -- is a continually evolving database cataloging terror suspects' biographies, locations, acquaintances and alliances, the Post said. Strategies for taking targets down are also spelled out, including extradition requests, capture operations and drone patrols, the newspaper said.

The database, which officials said was not in operation, is designed to map out contingencies, creating a ready menu for multiple agencies' roles in case a suspect surfaces in an unexpected spot, the Post said.

"If he's in Saudi Arabia, pick up with the Saudis," a former official said. "If traveling overseas to al-Shabaab [a fundamentalist militia in Somalia], we can pick him up by ship. If in Yemen, kill or have the Yemenis pick him up."

Officials declined to disclose the identities of suspects on the matrix.

The database also reflects a change in Washington's worldview about terrorism, officials said, reflecting its evolution from finite emergency measures after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States to institutionalized fixtures of the national security apparatus.

Senior Obama administration officials agree such counterterrorism operations are likely to extend at least another decade, with some saying they saw no end in sight as al-Qaida continues to metastasize, the Post said.

"We can't possibly kill everyone who wants to harm us," a senior administration official told the newspaper. "It's a necessary part of what we do. ... We're not going to wind up in 10 years in a world of everybody holding hands and saying, 'We love America.'"

Although the matrix is still in development, some officials -- including those from the White House, Congress and intelligence agencies -- described it as a blueprint that could help Washington adapt to al-Qaida's morphing structure and its increasing efforts to exploit turmoil across North Africa and the Middle East.

The report follows news Friday the CIA has urged the White House to increase the agency's armed drone fleet to fight new North Africa al-Qaida threats. The request by CIA Director David Petraeus for up to 10 remotely piloted aircraft would strengthen Washington's ability to stop the growth of an increasingly aggressive al-Qaida affiliate known as al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, White House officials cited by the Post Friday said.

The request to expand the CIA's arsenal and growing involvement in lethal paramilitary operations reflects the agency's transition into a paramilitary force, the Post said. It also makes clear the CIA does not intend to return to its pre-Sept. 11, 2001, focus on gathering intelligence.

The CIA started out as a civilian intelligence agency in September 1947.

Font: © 2012 United Press International, Inc

The Obama-Romney Foreign Policy Debate: Continuity in Policy.

Obama - Romney

 

 

President Barack Obama and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney met on stage on Monday night, October 22, 2012, for their foreign policy debate. The headline was clear: continuity and consensus on the fundamentals of US policy. Neither candidate charted a grand new course for US policy. Neither declared he would attack Iranian nuclear sites or push for peace on the Palestinian track. Rather, both appealed to the consensus in US public opinion that has led to a reluctance to use force and to a slow disengagement from the Middle East. And come January 2013, Israel will have a friend in the White House, one who is willing to “stand with” America’s “greatest ally in the region.”

Still, to the extent the debate reflects the candidates’ actual visions, this is a different United States from the Clinton or George W. Bush eras: this United States will continue to give Israel strong diplomatic and financial support, and will even enhance military and intelligence cooperation. On issues of war and peace, though, the vision may be for Israel to sort out its travails on its own, with the United States “standing with” it.

The Clinton and Bush eras saw a different United States, one that for better or worse pressed forward in the peace process and was less reluctant to use US troops to shape the Middle East. This United States remained active in the early years of Obama’s term, famously clashing with Prime Minister Netanyahu on the peace process. However, the mounting US national debt, a war-weary American public, and the Arab Spring have brought changes in tack. The United States did use force in Libya, but during the debate neither candidate recommended it for Syria. The two agreed on the need to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, and they discussed the Iraq War and its ramifications only in passing. The Palestinian issue – once a mainstay in US foreign policy discussion – came up only in passing, mentioned once by Romney and not at all by Obama.

On Iran, both sounded a cautious note. Both supported sanctions, with Romney arguing that they should have come earlier and been stronger. This demonstrates that there is strong support in the United States for sanctions on Iran – perhaps an obvious point, but one with overlooked importance. Neither candidate renounced a military option, each calling it “the last resort.” Neither seemed enthusiastic for moderator Bob Schieffer’s proposal of a common defense pact with Israel (though Israel itself has not asked for such a pact). The most significant policy difference, as in the past, was over the point by which Iran must be stopped. Romney repeated that Iran must not “develop nuclear capability,” again opposing Iran reaching a point at which it could break out toward a bomb. Obama said that US policymakers would have timely enough information should Iran move to break out, hinting at the reasoning for his opposing an Iranian nuclear “weapon” (and not “capability”). This is, indeed, a significant distinction in policy, but without a clear sense of consequences for Iran, it risks being a distinction without a difference.

In that sense, Obama and Romney, on Iran as on other issues, appealed to undecided centrist voters in a tired, war-weary nation. That said, if the substantive differences were not great, the two tried to distinguish themselves on style. Romney has criticized Obama for projecting weakness, last night repeating his charge that Obama had embarked on an “apology tour” of the Middle East. Romney also reiterated his calls for increases in the defense budget, including buffing up the US navy. Obama rejected the “apology tour” charge, calling it “probably the biggest whopper” of the campaign. He also chided Romney for lacking knowledge of the military’s real needs, likening the building of more ships to supplying more horses and bayonets made useless by technological advance. Romney tried to draw distinctions between strength and weakness; Obama tried to distinguish between thoughtfulness and impulsiveness. The voters will decide.

The United States seems to have lost its energy and vigor for the Middle East and to have lost its sense of imagination abroad. The best the candidates could muster was Romney’s pledge – again with implicit agreement from Obama – to help Arab societies implement democracy and free markets through aid and programs to implement rule of law. The democracy promotion goal was a tenet of administrations from Kennedy to Bush, while the strategy is that of the European Union. For that matter, Europe was hardly mentioned at the debate, and other important regions, including Russia, India, Africa, and Latin America, garnered only passing references.

As for the Israeli angle, the United States will stand by Israel. The core US-Israel relationship has not been a casualty of the changing mood. Both candidates proudly touted their allegiance to the “greatest ally in the region,” proving the relationship’s durability. The relationship has survived the decade of wars, survived the delegitimization campaigns, survived the anxiety about the US national debt, and survived the Arab Spring. Neither candidate wants his reluctance on Iran to come across as an expression of distancing from Israel. Both felt it important to stress that they want to manage the US-Israel relationship and that they want the relationship to continue to succeed.

Nonetheless, the debate contains a warning for Israeli policymakers. The results of the presidential election in the United States and the upcoming elections in Israel are of course of great significance. A like-minded Israeli government and US administration may find it easier to cooperate on issues ranging from the peace process to the Iranian issue to the regional ramifications of the Arab Spring. That does not, however, exclude the possibility of cooperation and coordination between a center-right government in Israel and a second-term Obama administration. However, that would require a recalibration of foreign policy priorities and ways and means of attaining objectives. More than that, it would require rebuilding confidence and trust at the highest levels in the two countries’ leaderships.

Whichever candidate wins, the public mood in the United States reflects a formidable obstacle to intervention. Whether in Syria or Iran or elsewhere, either man likely will feel political pressure to hold back on using force. The presumption, it seems, is that the United States will not use force unless those proposing it meet a heightened burden of proof. An Israeli government arguing for military involvement could still win the argument, but it must address the American public’s concerns. Indeed, in the coming years, this may be a key to managing the broader US-Israel relationship.

Font: המכון למחקרי ביטחון לאומ

Jack Keane: Al Qaeda Is Making a Comeback.

Across the Middle East and South Asia, the group isn't dead or dying but on the rise.

US Marines of the 1st battalion 7th Marines

 Regiment walk towards a helicopter before

 leaving for camp Leatherneck.

With Afghanistan the forgotten war this election season, many Americans might be wondering why we have 68,000 U.S. troops there at all. Sure, the Obama administration says they'll be out "on schedule" in 2014, but can't the U.S. immediately pull back and protect its interests with drones and special-operations forces alone?

To better understand the battle in Afghanistan, look to Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Sinai, Syria or Iraq—all places where al Qaeda and associated groups are a growing presence. (Al Qaeda in Iraq has doubled in size in the year since U.S. troops left the country.) These terrorists have already killed Americans, and they have planned and executed several attacks on the U.S. homeland that have failed only thanks to technical problems or outstanding police work.

While not the catalyst of the Arab Spring, al Qaeda and its friends are seeking to take advantage of the opportunities posed by revolutionary change throughout the Middle East. Despite the obvious intelligence and security failures that contributed to the attack against the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, the reality is that in one night an al Qaeda-affiliated group destroyed a diplomatic post, killed a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans, and forced an end to clandestine U.S. activity in the area.

With al Qaeda not dead or on the run but on the rise across the Middle East and South Asia, there is only one place where the U.S. is on the ground and aggressively fighting back: in Afghanistan, al Qaeda's heartland.

But Americans receive limited news from the front. The latest headlines are dominated by so-called green-on-blue attacks in which Afghan soldiers or police have attacked their U.S. or allied trainers. These attacks are appalling, but it is important to understand that the attackers aren't our "Afghan partners." They are Taliban foot soldiers and sympathizers exploiting the very real partnership we have with the growing Afghan National Security Forces. The attackers represent perhaps 0.01% of the approximately 345,000 Afghan security forces. These terrorists are loud and bloody, but they are statistically rare.

Americans also hear little about the success of our troops in isolating al Qaeda and the Taliban, cutting them off from the local population, and helping Afghans stand against them. Or how U.S. troops are restoring security to areas such as Kandahar that have lived under the thumb of Islamists and warlords for years. Or how sustainable that security is: This year we dramatically reduced our military presence in Helmand and Kandahar, but residual allied forces, our Afghan partners and locals have prevented the Taliban from regaining its positions.

The fight is hard and the Afghans aren't easy partners, but we're not in this for the Afghans. We're in this for ourselves, and for our nation's security.

So why Afghanistan and not Libya, Yemen, Syria or Somalia? Simple. Because we are in Afghanistan, and in numbers substantial enough to secure and hold territory—denying Ayman al Zawahiri and his followers a foothold. Afghanistan remains an opportunity to deal al Qaeda a vital strategic blow, especially since we have abandoned all operations—including counterterrorism operations—in Iraq.

Afghanistan is where much of the al Qaeda journey began. It is the main site where Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar and their cohort rose to prominence fighting the Soviets in the 1980s. Afghan territory holds special significance to the group, which is committed to retaking it and re-establishing it as the base of a global movement.



Considering all this still leaves a few reasonable questions, such as why U.S. forces can't leave and have counterterrorism troops take the lead. The answer is that special-operations forces are among the best and bravest of our troops, but they aren't magicians. They can't ensure that extremists don't find haven among 35 million Afghans, and they can't stop al Qaeda or the Taliban from preying on Afghan cities and towns.

Without the Afghans helping us in our mission, pretty soon we won't know of anyone to target with drones, and our special operators will roam through hostile territory unequal to the inflow of terrorists. We need the Afghans' help in this fight. They are giving a lot—and taking the casualties to prove it. But if we abandon them, they'll stop.

Anyone wondering what Afghanistan will look like if we abandon the war or draw down troops too rapidly should look to Iraq, where a residual force would almost certainly have halted the current re-emergence of al Qaeda. Or to Syria, where more moderate forces are being increasingly overrun by hard-line Islamists. Or to Yemen, where al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has carved out territory and an operational headquarters to plan attacks against America. Or to Libya, where the facts about Benghazi are still trickling out, but where we know that an al Qaeda-affiliated group was behind the deadly attack.

The only talking point on Afghanistan that the American people have heard this election season is "2014"—as in withdrawal. But al Qaeda and its friends world-wide have heard that too. And it gives them hope that in two short years their heartland will be ripe for retaking. They know full well—based on U.S. actions from Afghanistan to Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria—that U.S. policy is to disengage, and that momentum is on their side.

Gen. Keane, a former vice chief of staff of the U.S. Army, is chairman of the Institute for the Study of War.

Font: JACK KEANE

FBI Team to Help Investigate Beirut Blast.

The United States will send an FBI team to help Lebanon probe the Beirut car bombing that killed the country's internal security chief.



The coffins of Wissam al-Hassan and his bodyguard

AFP/File

The United States will send a Federal Bureau of Investigation team to help Lebanon probe the Beirut car bombing that killed the country's internal security chief, officials said Monday, according to AFP.
“There is going to be an FBI team headed to Lebanon to help them with their investigation. But we'll certainly wait for the results of that investigation" before deciding any further response, State Department spokesman Mark Toner told reporters.

Toner added that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stressed Washington's support for Lebanon's sovereignty, in a phone call with Prime Minister Najib Mikati.
Describing Clinton's conversation with Mikati, he said "she was very, very clear in stressing our support for Lebanon's sovereignty" and also "stressed the importance of all political leaders working together."

Toner did not say whether the FBI team had already arrived in Lebanon, where there have been violent protests since Friday, when police intelligence chief General Wissam al-Hassan died in the Beirut bombing.

"It's a very sensitive time," he added, saying, "There's an investigation under way, and we're going to look to the results of that investigation. And we also would urge calm."
On Friday, the United States condemned the blast as a terrorist strike. On Sunday, Clinton underscored "the United States' firm commitment to Lebanon's stability, independence, sovereignty and security."

Hassan's funeral on Sunday had been billed as a protest against Syrian meddling in Lebanon, but quickly turned into anger at Mikati, whose government is dominated by pro-Syria parties.
Despite calls for him to quit, Mikati said he would stay on at President Michel Sleiman's request to avoid a "political vacuum" in volatile Lebanon.

The opposition has widely blamed Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for Friday's attack, as it did in 2005 when former premier Rafiq Hariri was killed in a huge Beirut blast.

Hizbullah terrorists were believed to be responsible for the operational portion of the attack. The Shi'ite Muslim terror organization, which has representatives in the Lebanese government, is generously backed by both Iran and by the Assad regime.


Font: By Elad Benari

Israel, U.S. Initiate Antimissile Practice Maneuvers.

Israel and the United States on Sunday initiated their largest-ever bilateral effort aimed at preparing to guard against ballistic missile threats, Agence France-Presse reported.

Approximately 1,000 U.S. European Command staffers would take part in the Austere Challenge 12 maneuvers from Israel, while roughly 2,500 more U.S. participants would join from the Mediterranean Sea and Europe, Air Force Lt. Gen. Craig Franklin said to journalists several days ago. One thousand Israeli military members are slated to support the planned three-week activity, according to AFP.

"Austere Challenge 12 is the largest aerial defense exercise to take place between the two militaries," according to an Israeli armed forces release. "These exercises are part of a planned training schedule that seeks to increase cooperation interoperability between the militaries. Planning for the exercise began over two years ago and is not a response to specific events in the region."

The maneuvers were set to incorporate Arrow missile interceptor equipment as well as state-of-the-art Patriot antimissile gear; a U.S. Aegis warship was slated to provide command support.

The effort would probably be interpreted as a gesture to Iran over its disputed atomic ambitions, AFP said. Franklin, though, echoed the Israeli comments in saying there was no connection.

"While the scenario is driven by the overall situation in the Middle East, AC12 is not re
lated to any specific current event ... nor to any perceived tensions in the Middle East," said the three-star general, who commands 3rd Air Force at Ramstein Air Base in Germany.

Physical weapon activities were expected to take a backseat role to virtual management simulations in Austere Challenge 12, RIA Novosti reported on Sunday. The activity has absorbed $30 million in U.S. funds and $8 million in Israeli spending.

Font: NTI

Does Iran Have an "Inalienable Right" to Enrich Uranium?

 

 

Most articles in the Iranian media on the nuclear issue reiterate Iran's "inalienable right" to enrich uranium according to the NPT. Iran contends that as a member of the NPT, it is treated unfairly by the international community when demands are made that it suspend enrichment. Iran has repeated this mantra so often that many experts and policymakers – even if critical of Iran's nuclear program – concede that as a member of the NPT, Iran indeed has the right to enrich uranium. Ahead of a fresh round of negotiations with Iran that could begin soon after the US presidential elections, it is important to examine the veracity of this claim.

Since 2006, Iran's claim is actually negated by the six resolutions passed by the UN Security Council instructing Iran to suspend enrichment-related activities, which Iran has blatantly violated. These Security Council resolutions "trump" any privilege provided by the NPT, as was clarified in analyses published by the Carnegie Endowment.[1] The demand that Iran suspend uranium enrichment is currently a legally binding demand.

But there is a more fundamental issue at stake. The right of Iran – or any other non-nuclear state – to pursue nuclear energy, including uranium enrichment activities, is not absolute. According to the NPT, this right is explicitly conditional. Iran's ongoing claim to an inalienable right is based on a partial reading of the relevant clause in Article IV of the NPT. What the continuation of the critical sentence clarifies is that the right to nuclear energy – including enrichment activities – is contingent upon upholding Articles I and II of the treaty, including the stipulation that states not manufacture nuclear weapons.[2] In other words, if a state engages in weapons-related activities, the right no longer holds.

The crux of the question of Iran's right to enrich, therefore, is whether it has been engaged in military work. Because Iran has not yet produced a nuclear device, and because it is making every effort to conceal its military program, the question – pressing for the past decade – is not easy to answer. What would serve as acceptable evidence? There is a need to define relevant criteria short of an actual nuclear weapon, at which time the question loses its relevance. What follows are some ideas based on the Iranian case, but setting clearer criteria for determining that a state is "working on a military program" is essential for stopping additional nuclear proliferators down the road.

One important criterion for making this call is evidence of concealment efforts on the part of the proliferator. In a recent article in the New York Times, Ray Takeyh recalls that both of Iran's known uranium enrichment plants, at Natanz and Fordow, began as "surreptitious plants that were later discovered by the International Atomic Energy Agency."[3] Indeed, the violation of its safeguard agreements with the IAEA is the reason why the Iranian case was reported to the UN Security Council in the first place.

The evidence does not stop there, and another important category relates to details regarded by the IAEA as highly suspicious. In February 2008, then-deputy director general of the IAEA, Olli Heinonen, convened a special meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors in order to present the evidence he possessed regarding Iran's nuclear program, and was quoted as saying that some of the evidence was "not consistent with any application other than the development of a nuclear weapon."[4] This later evolved into a long debate over the fate of the full Iranian nuclear file that then-director general Mohamed ElBaradei refused to include in his open reports. The issue was resolved only after ElBaradei was replaced by Yukiya Amano in late 2009, and the full annex was included in Amano's report on Iran in early November 2011.

 

This development underscored a third and related concern: lack of cooperation with the IAEA. The 2011 report set the stage for renewed IAEA requests to visit the military facility at Parchin, where the IAEA suspects that high explosive testing has been carried out. In the early months of 2012, Iran twice led inspectors to believe they would be allowed to visit Parchin, and then denied them access. In parallel, satellite imagery over recent months shows evidence of a clean-up operation at the facility. This is not the first time Iran has cleaned up suspicious evidence: in 2004, following IAEA suspicions of undeclared and problematic nuclear activities at Lavizan, Iran razed the site in order to interfere with soil samples.

A final criterion can be called analytic inference. One piece of evidence that fits this category is that the facility at Fordow has room for only about 3000 centrifuges, which is not nearly enough to logically serve as part of a civilian nuclear program, but would make perfect sense as a clandestine facility where stocks of LEU could be secretly enriched to the high levels needed for a nuclear device. Another relevant issue is Iran's enrichment to 20 percent. Iran's civilian explanation here is weak because Iran was offered fuel for its Tehran reactor in the context of a deal proposed by the P5+1 in October 2009, and rejected by Iran. The military-related explanation – namely, that 20 percent enrichment advances Iran significantly toward the level needed for breakout capability – is much more plausible. One can add the US National Intelligence Estimate released in late 2007, whereby at least up until 2003 – which means for close to 20 years – Iran had been working on a military nuclear program, under government direction. There is no reasonable basis for believing that it scrapped this program.

The suspicions that have arisen with regard to Iran's nuclear program are strong in all of the aforementioned categories, and because waiting until there is evidence of a bomb means waiting until it is too late, this is the kind of evidence that must be taken as indication that Iran has worked on a military program and continues on that route today. Stopping uranium enrichment should thus not be considered a confidence-building measure on Iran's part. Rather, it is a requirement, until Iran abandons its military program. Iran is not being discriminated against – it has no inalienable right to enrich.

A final word: initiating an international effort to begin codifying criteria for "work on a nuclear weapon" along the lines drawn above is highly advisable, including assigning relative weights to the different categories. This would help the international community better evaluate future cases of nuclear proliferation and confront proliferators more effectively, and hopefully at a much earlier stage, than was the case with Iran.

Font: המכון למחקרי ביטחון לאומ

 

[1] See Amy Reed, "UN Resolution 1696 Moots Iranian Legal Claims," Proliferation Analysis, Carnegie Endowment, August 21, 2006; and a continuation of this debate in "Continued Analysis of 1696," Carnegie Endowment, August 24, 2006. See also David Albright and Andrea Stricker, "NAM Countries Hypocritical on Iran," The Iran Primer, USIP, September 7, 2012.

[2] From the NPT: "Article IV 1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty" (emphasis added). In Article II the non-nuclear weapons states undertake, inter alia, "not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices."

[3] Ray Takeyh, "Talk to Iran's Leaders, but Look beyond Them," New York Times, September 19, 2012.

[4] William J. Broad and David E. Sanger, "Meeting on Arms Data Reignites Iran Debate," New York Times, March 3, 2008.

 

 

Jordan disrupts major al-Qaeda terrorist plot.

Authorities in Jordan have disrupted a major terrorist plot by al-Qaeda-linked operatives to launch near-simultaneous attacks on multiple civilian and government targets, reportedly including the U.S. Embassy in the capital, Amman, Western and Middle Eastern officials said Sunday.

The Jordanian government issued a statement describing the plot and saying that 11 people with connections to al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Iraq have been arrested.

The foiled attack, described as the most serious plot uncovered in Jordan since at least 2005, was viewed with particular alarm by intelligence agencies because of its sophisticated design and the planned use of munitions intended for the Syrian conflict — a new sign that Syria’s troubles could be spilling over into neighboring countries, the officials said.

The alleged plotters are Jordanian nationals. The officials said the group had amassed a stockpile of explosives and weapons from Syrian battlefields and devised a plan to use military-style tactics in a wave of attacks across Amman.

The scheme called for multiple strikes on shopping centers and cafes as a diversionary tactic to draw the attention of police and security officials, allowing other operatives to launch attacks against the main targets, which included government buildings and embassies.

A Western official briefed on details of the plot confirmed that the heavily fortified U.S. Embassy in Amman was among the targets. Like others interviewed for this report, the official spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is still unfolding.

The Jordanian government’s statement said its intelligence service had broken up a cell that had been planning the attacks since June, arresting 11 people described as “supporters” of al-Qaeda in Iraq. The group had intended to use explosives and mortar rounds acquired from Syria, as well as machine guns, car bombs and militia-style guerrilla tactics, to ensure “the highest death toll,” according to the statement.

The suspects had traveled to Syria multiple times and brought weapons with them, government officials said. They were arrested less than a week after Jordanian officials captured three Jordanians as they attempted to cross illegally into Syria, allegedly to join radical Islamist militias fighting Syrian loyalists there.

In a news conference late Sunday in Amman, Jordanian government spokesman Samih Maaytah said that the plot was “not related to the Syrian crisis” and that “Jordan will not change its approach” to the conflict in response to the discovery.

The timing of the plot was viewed as curious. Jordan has increasingly allied itself with forces seeking the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian autocrat opposed by rebels as well as a growing cadre of foreign Islamist militants inside Syria. Jordan hosts hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees within its borders and has helped deliver humanitarian aid to rebel-held cities.

But intelligence gleaned from surveillance of the cell suggests that the plotters intended to destabilize Jordan’s pro-Western government with massive blows against government institutions and tourism-dependent economy, the officials said.

“This was a serious plan, with a great potential for loss of life,” said a former Western intelligence official briefed on the details. For Jordan, beset by economic problems and deepening political unrest, he said, “this may not have been a tipping point, but it could have been a very hard blow.”

The former intelligence official said the plotters had access to large amounts of explosives from Syria and intended to use them to construct massive bombs.

“Weapons are everywhere right now, flowing from Iraq into Syria, and back and forth into Lebanon,” the former official said. “The longer the conflict goes on, the worse it gets.”

Also Sunday, a Jordanian soldier was killed in a clash between government security forces and a band of 16 armed militants seeking to cross illegally into Syria, government officials said. Four of the gunmen also were killed in the 20-minute firefight, the first to claim the life of a Jordanian officer since the Syrian uprising began.

The State Department had no immediate comment on the plot and declined to confirm or deny that the U.S. Embassy in Amman had been on the target list.

The last major terrorist strike in Jordan occurred in 2005, when al-Qaeda militants launched simultaneous attacks against three Amman hotels, killing 60 people and wounding 115.

Font: By Joby Warrick and Taylor Luck

Obama-Khamenei summit would cap long back-channel dialogue

US President Barack Obama has agreed to hold direct talks on Iran’s nuclear program with its leaders, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Is this a surprise? On April 16, 2012, debkafile disclosed that Washington and Tehran were conducting back-channel talks in Paris and Vienna, Sources close to Obama have now leaked word to the New York Times that the dialogue is to be elevated to direct talks at summit level. This disclosure, despite its subsequent denial by the White House, has three clear objects:

1. To slow down the Republican contender Mitt Romney’s momentum in opinion polls ahead of the Nov. 6 election. Obama’s campaign advisers believe the president’s willingness to engage Iranian leaders directly on their nuclear program, in contrast to Romney’s tougher stance, will appeal to the American voter’s reluctance for US military action.
2. To preempt Romney’s presumed plan to drop the disclosure of the back-channel dialogue as a bombshell in their last debate on foreign policy scheduled for Monday, Oct. 22 in Florida.

3. To reassure Tehran that the Austere Challenge 12 joint US-Israeli war game starting Sunday Oct. 21 – albeit in reduced form - will not be the opening shot for an “October surprise” on Iran.
This kite was flown by David Rothkopf, who is close to the Democratic leadership, in Foreign Policy on October 9, although it was not picked up by anyone else in Washington or Jerusalem. Under the heading an “October surprise,” he cited a White House faction as recommending to Obama that the US join Israel in launching a surgical operation against Iran’s nuclear facilities before the US election.
Obama is now signaling Tehran that he has rejected this advice in favor of upgrading his dialogue with Iranian leaders.
However, beyond the calculus of campaign strategy, it is important to note that the clandestine dialogue in progress for the best part of a year has produced no breakthrough in the controversy on Iran’s nuclear aspirations. This is mainly because Obama’s emissaries have never stipulated plainly that Tehran must stop uranium enrichment as a quid pro quo for the dialogue to continue. Just the reverse: they let it be known that Washington does not object to Iran’s enrichment program per se so long as it is not used for building a nuclear weapon.
The differences between the two sides centered on the American demand for the International Atomic Energy Agency to be allowed 24/7 monitoring access to the enrichment projects to determine that parts of the stock did not suddenly disappear for use in manufacturing a bomb. Tehran has only agreed to inspectors paying visits once a fortnight.

Vice President Joe Biden was outspoken about this during his debate with Paul Ryan on Oct. 11. He actually said that the quantities of enriched uranium accumulated don’t matter - only what Iran does with it. This admission aroused little notice although it implied that the Obama administration is willing to let Iran approach a very risky threshold.
It also indicated a very wide gulf still existing between the Obama administration’s indulgent attitude toward a nuclear Iran and Israel’s insistence on red lines for limiting the quantities and grades of enriched uranium Iran is permitted to accumulate.

At the same time, Israel keeps on backtracking on those red lines: When Iran moved its enrichment plant into an immune zone earlier this month, one red line disappeared. And Israel is no longer openly challenging Washington’s assurance that a decision by Khamenei to go forward and start building a weapon would reach US intelligence at the precise moment it is made.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak have therefore been forced back step by step and have silently fallen in behind Obama.
For his part, the US president believes a summit with Iran’s rulers will enhance his chances of reelection. But he is leaving Netanyahu to face the Israeli voter in three months with nothing remaining of his pledge to prevent a nuclear Iran, and clutching at the outward concurrence between Israeli and US intelligence appraisals of Iran’s nuclear progress.
There is no real concurrence; the gap is as wide as ever. But by failing to deny Israeli affinity with the United States on this issue, Netanyahu and Barak are not only helping Barack Obama but also encouraging Tehran to keep going.

Font: DEBKAfile Exclusive Report October 21, 2012, 3:48 AM (GMT+02:00)