A POSSIBLE SHIFT IN TALIBAN TACTICS? 

The seizure of 250 tons of ammonium nitrate and 2,000 bomb-making components during two separate raids in Kandahar, Afghanistan undoubtedly will have saved the lives of many soldiers fighting in an escalating counterinsurgency in Afghanistan. Ammonium nitrate is a key ingredient for Taliban fighters in making improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that target Afghan and NATO forces.

In addition to saving the lives of many coalition soldiers, these raids may force a change in the future tactics of the Taliban forces. The Taliban insurgents have adopted a classic guerilla tactic of avoiding a head-to-head confrontation with the superior NATO forces. Quick strikes, IEDs, and ambushes have been the tactics of choice to inflict casualties on NATO and Afghan soldiers. By disrupting the tactical options of the Taliban, this raid will likely force the insurgents to rely more heavily on other techniques to inflict damage. This may provide a lull NATO casualty figures, and it may also increase the effectiveness of Afghan and NATO operations as insurgents will be forced to face them more directly. As winter approaches the Taliban will be retreating to the warmth and sanctuary of their caves to wait out the snow and cold. The tactical advantage the NATO gained by taking away an effective tool of the Taliban will possibly speed up this ascent into the mountains for cover and provide an early chance to focus on shifting NATO forces to population protection and implementing the new strategy that is soon to be revealed. 

US TO GIVE IRAN "SOME SPACE"

Amid statements of America’s “limited patience” regarding Iran’s response to the UN nuclear enrichment proposal, the US has now decided to “give some space to Iran”.

Why did the United States suddenly “hit the brakes” in negotiations with Iran?

First of all it is likely that the United States does not want to have to deal with a major escalation with Iran in the midst of announcing a new Afghan strategy and responding to the calls for troop surge. This could indicate that an announcement on the US strategy for Afghanistan can be expected soon.

Iran has the capability to disrupt US efforts in Afghanistan and other places around the world where US forces are engaged or stationed. The amount of focus and commitment that is needed in Afghanistan to proceed with a successful strategy would be much more difficult if additional attention was required in places like Iraq, Lebanon, Colombia, or Gaza because of Iranian backlash to US military action or sanctions. Therefore the Obama Administration may be taking advantage of this opportunity to stall the tension in Iran to handle one major issue at a time.

Another theory arises from the indication that the US might be “backing off”. The US may be employing this strategy in order to lull the Iranians into a false sense of security as the US and Israel prepare for military action. Under the guise of the recent Juniper Cobra exercises it is unclear to what extent those training deployments are not still mobilized.  If the United States and Israel are preparing for military action, they would clearly want Iran to feel as though they have some breathing room to create a more favorable environment for a surprise attack.

The US could also be stalling in hopes of Russia changing its stance on sanctions against Iran. This would allow the United States to avoid military action in Iran and instead opt for effective sanctions targeting Iran. Russia has been sending mixed signals about its approach to Iranian sanctions. Russia seems to put just enough pressure on the Iranian government to appease the US on the surface. All the while Russia is standing firm on issues such as maintaining the possibility of S-300 deliveries, and cooperation on the Iranian nuclear plant at Bushehr. The United States seems to be on the offensive as well, pulling Russian strings in order to get concessions on the Iran issue. Perhaps the US sees some hope in Russia aligning with a sanctions regime against Iran, and the delay is to coax Russia fully onboard. A recent announcement that Russia will be delaying the contract to deliver S-300 missiles to Iran offers a hopeful prospect in Russia’s cooperation over Iran.

UPDATED 7 NOVEMBER 

THE LONE GUNMAN STRIKES AGAIN 

On Thursday, November 5, U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire on fellow soldiers at Ft. Hood, Texas, killing 13 and wounding 30 before being shot by a civilian police officer. A Virginia-born American citizen of Palestinian descent, Maj. Malik received a medical degree from the Uniformed Services University in 2003 and completed a psychaitric residency program at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in 2007. He later returned to that institution for a fellowship in disaster and military psychiatry.

As of this writing, Maj. Hasan is recuperating from his wounds at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas. Due to his condition, he has not yet been interrogated by military or civilian investigators. Perhaps as a result, intense speculation as to his motives continues to rage.

To date, commentators have attributed his murderous attack to various supposed causes - his disenchantment with military life, his reaction to alleged insults concerning his ethnicity and his Islamic faith, his opposition to America's actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, a previously unnoticed mental illness, and - implausible on the face of it - post traumatic stress disorder.

All of these proffered explanations presume that Hasan's rampage resulted from internal factors, and only one - offered by retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey - has implied it was a deliberate act of terrorism.

This is unfortunate, for the facts of the case strongly suggest that Hasan has at some point in his life been subjected to ARTICHOKE - that is, the technique commonly employed by foreign intelligence services and, more recently, Islamic terrorist organizations, to assert psychological control over individuals. Although most commentators and analysts still maintain that religious fanaticism motivates suicide attacks, that is only partially true - for while religious fanaticism is a desirable precondition, it cannot in itself explain the remarkably low failure rate of suicide attackers. According to a study undertaken by the Center for Intelligence Studies shortly after 9-11, only 1 in 87 suicide attackers fail to complete their missions - a statistic that is olny explicable in terms of scientific technique. 

Various techniques for asserting psychological control are known to have been developed and deployed by Stalinist Russia prior to the Second World War, and Nazi Germany during that conflict. There is also strong inferential evidence that the British Empire independently developed a similar technique during the same time frame as well. After the Korean War - and in response to the widespread "brainwashing" of American POWs - the United States launched a massive effort to discover and perfect techniques for "mind control," which involved both the Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency. Although the Uniited States still officially and implausibly denies that these agencies succeeded in their quest, those familiar with the program assert otherwise. 

Although the CIA program may have failed, the Department of Defense program did not. It was a stunning success.

Despite official denials, ARTICHOKE does exist, it does work, and it is now commonly employed by intelligence services and terrorist organizations. Worse yet, it is no longer necessary to have the subject/victim physically present in order to provoke them to extraordinary acts of violence. Building on research conducted by Professor Allan Frey at Cornell University in the early 1960's, which conclusively demonstrated that the human auditory system can pick up and decipher radio signals unaided by electrical or electronic devices, intelligence services and terrorist organizations have perfected techniques to remotely manipulate subject/victims for terrorist purposes.

Sadly and implausibly, the United States Government continues to ignore the use of ARTICHOKE in programming suicide attackers, and refuses all comment on the Remote Influence Technology (RIT) derived from Prof. Frey's work, which is now routinely employed to provoke acts of suicidal violence from afar.

Most likely, then, the official story on Maj. Hasan will be that he unfathomably snapped for one reason or another. 

Like Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, Arthur Bremer,  "Squeaky" Fromme, John Hinckley, and so many others before him, Maj. Hasan will be cast as yet another "Lone Gunman."

Sadly, the United State's Government's inability or unwillingness to address the problem of ARTICHOKE and RIT-provoked violence all but guarentees that more will follow.

UPDATED 26 OCTOBER 2009              

THE SHADOW OF VIETNAM

Although the Obama Administration has been severely criticized for its lengthy strategy review, there are compelling reasons for delaying a final decision on how to proceed in Afghanistan. The first of these is the continuing uncertainly surrounding the Afghan presidential election run-off; the second is rapid collapse of popular support for the effort. The two are tightly linked, due to the ideological blundering of the Bush Administration.

Having recast a defensive war against terrorism into a crusade for democracy, the success or failure of the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are now judged by that standard.

Although the effort to establish a democratic government in Iraq appears to have achieved reasonable if tentative success, the effort in Afghanistan seems to be an abysmal failure. Early suspicions that Afghan President Hamid Karzai  stole the August 20 presidential election have since hardened into certainty. Only after two months of sustained pressure did he agree to a run-off vote, to determine the final outcome.

President Karzai's attempt to steal the election and tighten his grip on power is eerily reminiscent of the machinations of former South Vietnamese general and later president Nguyen Van Thieu in the 1967 and 1971 South Vietnamese presidential elections. In 1967, he pushed aside then prime minister Nguyen Cao Ky - considered a courageous, capable, and relatively honest leader - to win the presidential palace. After consolidating power, he and his extended family proceeded to loot the U.S. aid program to S. Vietnam before winning re-election in 1971, in farcical poll characterized by political intimmidation andmassive vote fraud.

Thieu's corruption - and especially, his contempt for democratic principles - undermined popular support for the war in the United States, and outraged the Congress. The war in Vietnam became unwinable because Thieu had rendered the declared objectives - freedom and democracy for the people of South Vietnam - unobtainable. As a direct result of Thieu's unbridled ambition, 58.000 Americans died in vain.

Although few Americans are familiar with the political machinations that doomed the American effort in Vietnam, the lesson nonetheless seems to have taken deep root in the unconscious, collective psyche of the American people. Since the fiasco of the August 20 Afghan presidential election, popular support for American involvement in that conflict has plummeted. Indeed, support has fallen to such an extraordinary low that prominent Conservatives are now calling for a withdrawal of American forces.

Obama's hesitation, then, appears increasingly wise. Any decision regarding an increased troop commitment should be deferred until such time as the political situation is clarified.

If the run-off election is successful and a legitimate democratic government is established in Kabul, there may sufficient popular support to sustain the effort. If a legitimate government cannot be established, then the effort is necessarily doomed to failure - regardless of the battlefield outcome.    

STRAINED RELATIONS: RUSSIA & THE UNITED STATES 

Interesting developments in the U.S.-Russian competition for influence in Eastern Europe have taken place in the last week. Having badly damaged relations with American allies in Russia’s periphery - the Ukraine, the Czech Republic, and Poland particularly - by renegging on a ballistic missile defense agreement, the Obama Administration has launched a major campaign to mend its frayed relations with these strategicly important states. According to some observers, the U.S. effort - led by Vice President Biden - is intended to exert renewed pressure on Russia to support American efforts to halt Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons, and to offset renewed Russian pressure on its former sattelites. Apparently, the reset button for U.S.- Russian relations that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presented to Russia's Foreign Minister earlier this year must be broken….

Perhaps it was made in China.

THE INSURGENCY IN IRAN: JUNDALLAH'S SHIFTING TACTICS 

It is not the first time that the ethnically Baloch - and religiously Sunni - insurgents of Jundallah have targeted the Iranian government. It is not even the first time they have employed suicide bombers. But their recent attacks, which killed or wounded dozens of people, indicate an important tactical shift that may hold implications for the United States.

Jundallah is an anti-government Sunni movement that is based in Iran’s Baluchistan region near the border with Pakistan. Accordingto their leader, Abdulmalek Rigi, their objective is to publicize the plight of the Baluch people in Iran. Numerous human rights abuses and repressions have led to what Rigi has claimed to be an ongoing “genocide”.  So far, the attacks seem to be succeeding -  Jundallah won increased international attention with a series of major attacks leading up to the Iranian presidential election. These have notably included kidnappings and suicide bombings.

There may be other implications in Jundallah’s change of tactics that will prove to be more daunting for the Islamic Republic of Iran. Jundallah’s use of suicide bombings and car bombs are along the lines of al-Qaeda style operations. Perhaps after recognizing the success of these attacks in Iraq, Chechnya, and Afghanistan, Jundallah has decided to adopt these effective yet indiscriminant terror tactics.

Perhaps more worrying for Iran is the possibility this dominantly Sunni group may be receiving training or assistance from transnational Sunni groups like al-Qaeda. There is little evidence of a direct connection between the two groups, but the latest assessment of al-Qaeda’s dismal financial situation suggests a potential financial link. The flourishing drug-trade and trafficking revenue that sustains this impoverished region in Iran’s portion of Balochistan may prove an attractive income opportunity for al-Qaeda. In exchange, al-Qaeda’s could provide Jundallah with training and support.

It is not apparent yet if this has actually occurred. But careful investigation into the alignment of Jundallah, the style of their attacks, and the flow of their financial resources could provide sufficient evidence to determine whether or not this is - or likely will be - the case. 

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE WEST 

Iran has been quick to accuse the West (mainly U.S. and British) intelligence agencies of supporting this insurgency in their southern region. Pakistan has been targeted by Iranian accusations as well. While one cannot completely rule out this possibility, it is not likely that the United States and Britain would risk their opportunity at productive talks with Iran to take out a few Revolutionary Guard officers (unless these groups had already been given funds or weapons to use at their discretion, and chose to do so at an inopportune time).

There are not many things more dangerous than arming Sunni militant groups who may have links to the Taliban or al-Qaeda (except for a nuclear Iran?). Intelligence, financial, or material support that is given to these groups can easily find its way to the individuals who are currently killing U.S. soldiers. Regardless of the true situation, Iran continues to accuse the West of assisting Jundallah. The head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards General Mohammad Ali Jafari stated that there will be retaliation for the support of the West. Here is where it becomes a problem for the United States. This not only threatens to undermine the current efforts at negotiation on the Iranian nuclear program, but it could threaten to destabilize any of the regions that the U.S. is currently engaged in. Iran has major influence over multiple militant proxies that could harm U.S. interests. It has yet to be seen what action Iran will take (if any) against the United States following these attacks. The majority of focus has remained on Pakistan to cooperate in investigations and hand over individuals with ties to Jundallah.

IRAN WAVERS ON THE ENRICHMENT DEAL 

Delay, delay, delay. It has been a common theme in all nuclear negotiations. Not only in Iran, but across the spectrum of nuclear negotiations, delay has been the favorite tactic of nations who wish to acquire “the bomb”. Every detail from location of negotiations to the players involved to the time of the meetings can and will be used to sidestep deadlines and subvert the demands of the international community.

In a predictable move, Iran has decided that it will need some time to “work and elaborate on all the details of this proposal." According to the Associated Press the current proposal requires Iran to send about 1200 kilograms of low-enriched uranium (around 70 percent of its stockpile) to Russia in one batch by the end of the year. The uranium will then be sent to France for conversion into metal fuel rods and medical isotopes before it is shipped back to Iran. This would be a considerable achievement for the United States and others involved.

The only problem is that there is still no guarantee that Iran will actually comply with the UN proposal. Furthermore, history would prove that it is unlikely Iran will capitulate to the demands of “western nations.” This would be a major concession for Iran, and one that would not sit well with many of the elites in the Iranian government. As pointed out by Alireza Nader of the RAND Corp "Accepting [the nuclear proposal] would indicate a compromise with world powers, and Tehran has repeatedly said it would not compromise."

Regardless of the amount that is sent out to Russia, intelligence estimates have been known to be wrong in the past. Upon the unveiling of a covert nuclear reactor at Qom, it is not out of the question that more of these facilities could remain with the potential to enrich undeclared amounts of Uranium. Therefore even if Iran does decide that it will go along with the UN proposal, could they be doing so because they are confident in a sufficient stockpile that is unknown to the UN at a covert facility?  They have said many times that they will not compromise on their right to enrichment.  And it is possible that they will still find a way despite the roadblocks being set by some of the major world powers.

The world can only hope that Iran intends to fully comply with the UN’s latest  proposal.  From Israel to Russia, a decrease in the tension and hostility on multiple fronts would be a welcome change for the United States. The UN nuclear experts are set to arrive in Qom on 24 October, this will be an interesting situation to monitor as it may provide some evidence into the possibility of covert enrichment activities that have the potential to subvert a major UN proposal.

 UPDATED 24 OCTOBER 2009 

PARALLEL WORLDS: 

A PRESCRIPTION FOR DISASTER?

An article published by the Guardian on 22 October gives pause. According to the author, Simon Tsidall, the growing rift between Israel and Turkey  - recently, close allies - is due less to the foreign policy of Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan than to the "The apparent inability of Israeli leaders to see their actions as others see them..."

According to Tsidall, Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders seem to have been genuinely surprised by the recent Goldstone Report, which savaged Israel and the Israeli armed forces for the attack upon Gaza last January. The Israelis regard the assault as fully justified in the face of relentless rocket attacks. In contrast, world opinion overwhelming viewed the Israeli response as wildly dirproportionate to the offense given, and deliberately directed against unarmed civilians.

These radically different perceptions extend to a host of other issues, including specifically Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. Given the fact that Israel is known to possess at least 200 clandestine nuclear weapons, Israeli efforts to prevent Iran from achieving a nuclear capability seems disingenuous at best.

The perceptual gap produced a situation akin to parallel worlds, in which the Israeli leadership inhabits one version while most of the rest of the world's leaders inhabit another. The result is mutual incomprehension and, inevitably, distrust, as exemplified by the recent Turkish decision to exclude Israel from a schedulaed military exercise involving Turkey, the United States, and other NATO members.

Unable or perhaps unwilling to grasp the fact that the Turkish population is genuinely outraged by Israel's actions in Gaza, Israeli leaders have been casting about for a hidden motive. According to one, the Turks are attempting to effect a large-scale reconcilaition with their former enemies in the Mid East, and that has made the Israeli alliance a net liability. According to others, the renewed Turkish emphasis upon the Arab world has simply diminished Israel's strategic importance to Turkey.

The fact that the Israeli leadership seems unable to recognize what seems obvious to others casts a dark and ominous shadow over the future of that country.

UPDATED 17 OCTOBER 2009

DISPLACED PERSONS AND HUMAN INTELLIGENCE

In the aftermath of WWII, the United States found itself in need of intelligence assets to gather information on the expanding Soviet Union. The USSR had broken wartime agreements to permit free elections in Eastern Europe, and was then consolidating its grip on the region. One of the few sources of intelligence available at that time was the mass of Displaced Persons (DPs) that had fled from war-torn areas of Russia and Eastern Europe. Although intelligence gathered from DP’s was only one aspect of what would eventually become a large-scale intelligence-gathering effort, it nonetheless proved to be of value. 

Another example of using DP’s for intelligence purposes may be found in the U.S. effort to gather information on American diplomats held in Iran during 1979-1980 Hostage Crisis. The CIA attempted to contact, debrief, and use persons who had fled from Iran following the Islamic Revolution. Although the process of interviewing hundreds and perhaps thousands Iranian refugees proved tedious, it did provide valuable information about the situation in that country. It also assisted in the recruitment of assets within Iran, by connecting the CIA with in-country contacts.

There are many key areas today that offer the same opportunity to increase human intelligence collection (HUMINT). From the SWAT valley in Pakistan to the Island of Sri Lanka, from the mountains of drug infested Columbia to the vast islands of Indonesia, making connections with DPs provides U.S. intelligence with opportunities to access first-hand intelligence about various groups, operations, and theaters.

In the pursuit of valuable HUMINT sources, it is important to consider some of the vulnerabilities of this intelligence method. Although the U.S. effort to develop intelligence assets was a positive endeavor, it posed major problems as well. The Soviets routinely “salted” refugee flows with KGB, GRU, and satellite intelligence officers, to convey disinformation and to penetrate Western governments and intelligence services. These dispatched agents inflicted substantial damage on American and Allied intelligence-gathering efforts.

Deception is a major vulnerability in HUMINT. Therefore, it is critical that HUMINT be combined with other methods of intelligence gathering to verify information. The use of refugees as intelligence assets become increasingly complicated when they are used as an on-going source, or sent back to their country of origin to conduct on-site intelligence gathering. This problem is especially acute today, as national loyalties are increasingly submerged by ethnic, tribal, or ideological ties. 

INDIA AND AFGHAN STABILITY

One of the most important but least reported factors in the stability of South Asia is India. Since the 1947 partition of the subcontinent, events in Pakistan and India have reverberated far beyond their borders, and have often exerted a significant impact upon Afghanistan. For this reason, India is following Pakistani efforts to crush extremists groups based in South Waziristan with particular concern.

Pakistan’s decision to increase their operations against these groups is based on two main factors. First, America’s commitment to suppressing extremism in Afghanistan has encouraged the Pakistani government’s belief that the effort is worth undertaking. And second, the Pakistani’s have finally begun to realize that the extremists have become a serious threat to their sovereignty. Their past policy of supporting radical groups as military proxies has returned to haunt them, and it is now clear to the military and civilian leadership that they must take strong action to reassert control over their own territory. If they fail, it is altogether plausible that a coalition of extremist groups will seize control.

The forces that would take over Pakistan are those that India fears the most. The Economic Times of India reported on 15 October that the Tehrik-i-Taliban leadership plans to use Pakistan as a staging area for terrorists once they have established an Islamic State in Pakistan. Obviously, this has provided India with a powerful incentive for fostering a more stable a stable situation in Afghanistan, one that will permit Pakistan to continue to move in the right direction against extremists throughout the region. The collapse of nuclear-armed Pakistan is India’s worst nightmare.

Striking a balance between their policy of supporting Afghanistan with humanitarian and reconstruction assistance, and the growing need to defend Indian civilian personnel stationed there, poses a difficult dilemma for the Indian government. Although India has deployed approximately 1000 paramilitary police to Afghanistan to protect its burgeoning humanitarian/reconstruction efforts, the deployment of Indian military forces there would almost certainly provoke an armed confrontation with Pakistan. 

Pakistan has long considered Afghanistan to be a “strategic fallback position” in the event of attack by India, and for that reason it is deeply concerned that India may attempt to co-opt that country and employ it as a geopolitical “anvil” for the Indian Army’s hammer. Acutely conscious of Pakistan’s concerns, the Indian government has thus far ruled out any substantial military presence there. However, the Indian government is actively considering the possibility of dispatching a training mission to assist the Afghan army.  

CHAVEZ’ MILITIAS

Having deliberated provoked a confrontation with the United States, Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez is now apparently concerned that an American-backed coup d’etat will overthrow his regime. As a hedge against that possibility, he is creating new militia formations that answer only to him.

Although Chavez has employed militias to offset the power of the Venezuelan military in the past, the creation of new militias under his direct command suggests that his hold on power is more tenuous than had been previously believed.  Having failed to deliver on promises of increased prosperity, public support for his government has faltered.

Recent events suggest that the United States should keep closer tabs on Chavez.  In addition to his close ties to Communist Cuba and Iran, Chavez has increased tensions with neighboring Columbia and, apparently, begun meddling in the unfolding Honduran crisis. The possibility that he may provoke a larger regional crisis to divert attention from his failed domestic policies cannot be discounted.

UPDATED 15 OCTOBER 2009              

IDEOLOGICAL FANTASIES

During his campaign for the White House, Presidential Candidate Barack Obama repeatedly emphasized his committment to victory in Afghanistan. Now less than a year later, President Obama is hesitating to approve an increase in troop strength deemed vital by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander.

Obama's hesitancy is based upon well-founded reports that the recent Afghan election was rigged. If that is indeed the case - as most observers agree - the election fraud has placed the U.S. in a position of supporting an unlawful and illegitimate regime. 

The real surprise is that Obama and his predecessor, George Bush, appear to have believed that democracy could be imposed upon Islamic tribal societies - a belief that seems rooted in a profound misunderstanding of the post-War democratization of Germany and Japan. Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, Germany and Japan already had deep democratic roots  - a democratic tradition of sorts had existed in Germany since Roman times; and Japan had been democratic from the Meiji Restoration of 1868 until the early 1930's, when the elected government was displaced by a military junta.

Perhaps more to the point, American military forces remained in both countries for two generations to enforce the democratic restoration imposed after the war.

Of equal importance is the fact that Islamic beliefs are simply incompatible with democratic principles and practices. Those few Islamic countries that have adopted a semblance of democracy have all had centuries of exposure to Western Europe or the British Empire - specifically, Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Algeria, Turkey, and Malaysia. 

If the Mid East campaigns come to grief, as many now expect, it will be due to the deeply flawed understanding of history that persuaded first the Bush Administration, and then its successor, to justify the American effort in terms of ideology rather than national interest.

POSTED 14 OCTOBER 2009

A GEOPOLITICAL GAMBIT

It is a familiar sight. The United States and Russia are competing for influence in an attempt to shift the balance of power among key states and allies. Currently, most of these efforts are related to Iran. Russia is continuing to support that country through weapons sales and technological support for the Iranian nuclear program. They are also threatening to bust any sanctions that the U.S. attempts to impose. All these factors are seriously limiting the efforts of the U.S. and other members of the P5+1 (particularly the France, and Britain) to move forward in productive talks with the Iranian government regarding its nuclear program.

Multiple attempts at diplomacy with Iran have failed miserably. As Israel looks on at what is shaping up to be another unsuccessful round of sanctions, the Israeli government has decided to step off the sideline. Multiple reports have unveiled a “secret” meeting between Moscow and Benjamin Netanyahu (accompanied by Military Affairs Secretary Gen. Meir Kalifi and National Security Adviser Uzi Arad) on 7 September. The main topic of discussion was Russian sales of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Iran. However, it is clear that in the run-up to the P5+1 meeting there was more to discuss than just missile sales.

The most significant events in Israel’s newly independent foreign policy initiatives occurred recently, when Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak traveled to Poland and the Czech Republic to discuss security, with emphasis upon Iran. This trip was signaled a departure from past practices, as it is unusual for an Israeli defense minister to travel so far from the Middle East. It suggests Israel is prepared to embark upon a more independent and more geopolitically oriented foreign policy.

Following the trip, the Czech news agency CTK announced the Czech Republic intends to purchase U.S. RQ-11 Raven remote-controlled unmanned aerial vehicles, and contract with Israel to provide technical support and logistics. The deal between the Czech Republic and Israel is an implicit warning to Russia: “We too can influence your power and security through support of states in your periphery – so be warned, if you aren’t prepared to be reasonable then Ukraine, Poland, or perhaps Georgia may be next.”

NORTH KOREA: A CHANGE OF HEART,

OR JUST ANOTHER HUSTLE?

Not long after North Korea vowed never again to return to talks with the 6-Party nations, it appears that the recent round of sanctions have put an effective stranglehold on the DPRK. This time around, however, at least Japan and South Korea are not willing to put up with the old tactics of the DPRK. South Korea plans to stand firmly behind its proposal for a “Grand Bargain”. This proposal is a one-time strategy that requires complete North Korean disarmament before any aid will be given to the financially suffering nation. In a predictable move, North Korea test fired multiple missiles on separate occasions into the Sea of Japan. Assuming this would increase their bargaining position – as acts like this have in the past –  Pyongyang intends to combine “sincere rhetoric” with infantile negotiating tactics.

IMPLICATIONS

OF THE PUNJABI FACTION'S ROLE

It is now known that a Punjabi faction of the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) carried out the attack on the Rawalpindi Army Headquarters. This is important because it is a possible indicator of how the group managed to obtain Army uniforms, military license plates, and precise intelligence. While the ethnic makeup in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and the North and South Waziristan regions is dominantly Pashtun, the military and governmental elites are mostly Punjabi.

Although the TTP leadership is presently dominated by ethnic Pathans, the fact that a Punjabi faction of executed the attack provides a disturbing indication that the organization has successfully crossed ethnic lines to become a national or at least semi-national movement. Having apparently succeeded in establishing a relationship with disloyal elements within the Pakistani government and military, more attacks on important Pakistani installations are now virtually.

A DECISIVE AND TIMELY STRATEGY FOR THE

AFGHAN-PAKISTAN REGION

According to Administration officials, President Obama is not prepared to commit additional troops to Afghanistan without a clear and coherent strategy. This is a prudent approach to the problem, as additional resources cannot make up for a flawed strategy. In the meantime, however, it is essential that the Administration demonstrate its commitment and resolve to both the Afghan people and the government of neighboring Pakistan. American pressure played an important role in persuading Pakistani officials to undertake a major offensive operation in South Waziristan; and to finally face the fact that Islamic terrorists are an existential threat to their country. 

If the U.S. fails to remain strongly committed in the eyes of Pakistan, much of the progress that has been made could quickly disappear.  Pakistan’s willingness to cut ties with militant groups and to go after this threat is partially attributed to their feeling that the U.S. will not let the Taliban rule over Afghanistan once again (Along with the previously discussed realization of the true threat that these out-of-control groups pose to Pakistan). An absence of U.S. resolve would increase Pakistan’s need to resume their previous relationship with the Taliban and other extremist groups.

It is therefore critical that the United States do everything possible to move the war in Afghanistan in a positive direction. Visible progress and firm commitment are essential to creating an environment conducive for success in the Af-Pak region.

UPDATED 13 OCTOBER 2009 

TURKEY WITHDRAWS FROM JOINT MILITARY EXERCISES WITH ISRAEL, NATO

Since Ankara and Jereusalem signed a bi-lateral defense agreement in 1996, the air forces of Israel and Turkey have conducted joint training exercises along with NATO allies. Due to deterioriating relations, however, Turkey has withdrawn from the annual “Anatolian Eagle” exercise normally conducted from its Konya air base. Since the inauguration of Tayyip Erdogan and his religious leaning Justice and Development Party (AKP) in 2002, the Turkish government has steadily downgraded its relationship with Israel in an effort to assert greater influence within the Arab and Islamic worlds.

Turkey’s withdrawl from the exercise has dampened speculation that Turkey might assist an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities either by permitting Israel to stage their attack from Turkish bases, or by permitting Israeli attack aircraft to overfly their territory. 

Turkey's strategic repositioning became publicly apparent earlier this year at the Davos Summit, when Prime Minister Erdogan’s condemned Israel’s actions in Gaza.  This repositioning may also impose a heavy cost, as it may damage Turkey's long-standing effort to join the EU, and chill relations with the United States.

A NUCLER NIGHTMARE?

IMPLICATIONS OF THE RAWALPINDI ARMY HEADQUARTERS ATTACK

The focus of most of the reports on the recent attack and hostage crisis at the Army Headquarters in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, has been on the obvious signals that are being sent by the Tahrik-i-Taliban Pakistan( TTP). As the anticipation builds ahead of a planned Pakistani offensive against South Waziristan militant strongholds, the TTP is attempting to pressure the Pakistani government to hold off on the campaign. Following the death of the TTP leader Baitullah Mehsud, the group is also trying to project a united and capable front in the face of the threatening Pakistani offensive.

What has received less attention are the implications of the attack for other hardened targets Pakistan, its nuclear facilities in particular. Granted there are numerous factors that affect nuclear security in Pakistan. However, the attack in Rawalpindi has many of the elements that would be needed to fulfill at least one of the necessary factors leading to a compromise of Pakistan’s nuclear assets. It was reported that attackers were wearing Pakistani military uniforms and had access to military license plates for their vehicle. It is unlikely that this would have been possible without inside help and intricate intelligence coordination. Personnel and physical security measures at hardened targets are critical to maintaining security against extremist attack. Both of these elements were weak enough to cause some serious concern about the security at other hardened facilities in Pakistan.

Does this attack mean that terrorists can access nuclear weapons?

Not yet - Pakistan's nuclear arsenl is protected by multiple levels of security. But the attack on the Rawalpindi Army Headquarters demonstrates the ability of extremist groups within Pakistan to penetrate the Pakistani military, as well as an impressive operational capability of the TTP.

NEW SANCTIONS ON IRAN TO STRENGTHEN REVOLUTIONARY GUARD? 

A recent report by Tarek El-Tablawy of the Associated Press stated that new Iranian sanctions could end up actually strengthening the Revolutionary Guard. As he points out, the IRGC is deeply interconnected within the economy and black market of Iran.  All aspects of the economy have seen an increase in IRGC influence as the sanctions on the country have tightened in the past years.  There is a worry that if foreign investment is taken away from Iran, it will be replaced by the black market operations and contracts of the IRGC.

Given the opaque nature of the Iranian regime, it is difficut to tell whether the Iranian government's decisions are taken in response to domestic political considerations at home and reasoned calculations of national interest abroad, or whether they result from intera-governmental conflicts between various groups and factions including, especially, the Revolutionary Guard.  If the Iranian regime continues on its current path of Uranium enrichment, it will likely face ever more severe sanctions and, possibly,  military attack.

A critically important question, then, is who would benefit?

Given the fact that sanctions will most likely expand the power and influence of the Revolutionary Guard, the Guard and their proxies are the most likely beneficiaries. An increased cash flow resulting from an expanded role in the economy will permit the Revolutionary Guard to increase their support for the Hezbollah, Hamas, Iraqi Shiite militias, and possibly even elements of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

There is a real danger that the Revolutionary Guard may believe they can defeat international sanctions in short order by unleashing their proxies against the world. If so, Iran's pursuit of nuclear capability may be seen as a win-win situation for both the regime and the Revolutionary Guard.