Wednesday, November 30, 2011

NYTIMES:Iraq Would Accept U.S. Soldiers as Trainers

Iraq Would Accept U.S. Soldiers as Trainers

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/01/world/middleeast/iraq-would-accept-us-soldiers-as-trainers.html

BAGHDAD — Iraq’s prime minister indicated on Wednesday that he was open to the eventual return of American troops as trainers, underscoring that the United States is likely to be involved in this country’s security even after the last soldiers depart in the coming weeks.

“No doubt, the U.S. forces have a role in providing training of Iraqi forces,” said Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki after meeting Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who is here to mark the withdrawal and to inaugurate a new phase in ties between the United States and Iraq.

Mr. Maliki insisted that Iraq could provide for its internal security. And he made much of Iraq’s desire to build a relationship with the United States as a sovereign country, dealing with Washington on the basis of national interest and “mutual respect.”

But his comments suggested that for all the solemn pageantry of a long war ending, there is likely to be considerable continuity in the security relationship between the United States and Iraq, as it struggles to contain terrorist attacks by insurgent groups.

Mr. Biden reaffirmed that the two countries would maintain a “robust security relationship,” adding that it was up to the Iraqis to decide “what you think that relationship should be.” He and Mr. Maliki agreed to set up a committee to plan security cooperation.

“We will continue our discussions with your government over the substance of our security arrangements, including areas of training, intelligence and counterterrorism,” he said.

The inability of the United States and Iraq to agree on legal immunity for American troops led to President Obama’s announcement that the last soldiers would depart the country next month. The Pentagon had been negotiating to leave in place a residual force of between 3,000 and 5,000 soldiers to help train Iraqi forces.

But administration officials have suggested that once the withdrawal was complete — a politically significant milestone in the United States and Iraq — the two sides could negotiate the return of American troops for training purposes.

There are now only 13,000 American soldiers left in Iraq and their ranks are dwindling by 500 a day, though the United States will leave a vestigial force as liaison officers and to guard the embassy in Baghdad. The military is shipping out its equipment and turning over crucial installations.

Mr. Biden repeatedly portrayed the withdrawal as evidence that the United States keeps its promises. “In the neighborhood I’m from,” he said, “a promise made is a promise kept.”

Still, with both countries eager to turn the page, much of Wednesday’s meetings were devoted to other concerns like trade, energy and agriculture investment and visas for exchange students. Mr. Biden laid out a civilian partnership that he promised would draw American companies to Iraq and send Iraqis to American universities.

“We are embarking on a new path together, a new phase in this relationship,” he said, as he sat next to Mr. Maliki beneath glittering chandeliers at the governmental palace.

To underscore the emphasis on nonmilitary engagement, Mr. Biden singled out two officials in his 15-member delegation, Jeffrey D. Feltman, an assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, and Daniel B. Poneman, the deputy secretary of energy.

Mr. Maliki, who was flanked by members of his cabinet and other officials, said he hoped that American companies would pour into Iraq with the same vigor as American troops once did.

But in a telling moment that spoke to Iraq’s challenges, Mr. Maliki declared, “We are looking forward to the future of Iraq, which is going to be built on the outcome of this meeting.”

Mr. Biden, who was standing next to him, gently demurred, saying, “To suggest that the future of Iraq rests on our personal relationship, I think gives us too much credit.” The “success of Iraq will rest upon the vision of you and the civilian leadership,” he said.

US COVERT OPS IRAN 2001-PRESENT

WIKIPEDIA:US COVERT OPS IRAN 2001-PRESENT


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions

Iran 2001-present

President Bush secretly authorized the CIA to undertake black operations against Iran in an effort to topple the Iranian government. The Black Ops include a U.S. propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize the government, and disrupting the Iranian economy by manipulating the country's currency and its international financial transactions.[139] The United States began to target Iran and several other Muslim countries for regime change starting at least in 2001. The book War and Decision written by Undersecretary of Defence for Policy Douglas Feith quotes a high level government policy memorandum written after September 11, 2001, stating that the United States should "[c]apitalize on our strong suit, which is not finding a few hundred terrorists in caves in Afghanistan, but in the vastness of our military and humanitarian resources, which can strengthen the opposition forces in terrorist-supporting states."[140] The memorandum outlined a list of military actions to be undertaken against some of these states. Undersecretary Feith and Gen. Wesley Clark confirmed that Iran is on this list.

An article in the New York Times in 2005 said that the Bush administration was expanding efforts to influence Iran's internal politics with aid for opposition and pro-democracy groups abroad and longer broadcasts criticizing the Iranian government. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns said the administration was "taking a page from the playbook" on Ukraine and Georgia. Un-named administration officials were reported as saying the State Department was also studying dozens of proposals for spending $3 million in the coming year "for the benefit of Iranians living inside Iran" including broadcast activities, Internet programs and "working with people inside Iran" on advancing political activities there.[141]

In 2006, the United States congress passed the Iran Freedom and Support Act which directed $10 million towards groups opposed to the Iranian Government. In 2007, ABC news reported that U.S. president George W. Bush had authorized a $400 million CIA covert operation to destabilize Iran.[142]

Covert United States foreign regime change actions

WIKIPEDIA:Covert United States foreign regime change actions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions

The United States government has been involved in and assisted in the overthrow of foreign governments (more recently termed regime change) without the overt use of U.S. military force. Often, such operations are tasked to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Many of the governments targeted by the U.S. have been democratically elected, rather than authoritarian governments or military dictatorships. In many cases, the governments toppled were replaced by dictatorships, sometimes installed with assistance by the U.S.

Regime change has been attempted through direct involvement of U.S. operatives, the funding and training of insurgency groups within these countries, anti-regime propaganda campaigns, coup d'états, and other, often illegal, activities usually conducted as operations by the CIA. The U.S. has also accomplished regime change by direct military action, such as following the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989 and the U.S.-led military invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Some argue that non-transparent United States government agencies working in secret sometimes mislead or do not fully implement the decisions of elected civilian leaders and that this has been an important component of many such operations.[1] See Plausible deniability. Some contend that the US has supported more coups against democracies that it perceived as communist, or becoming communist.[1]

Notwithstanding a history of U.S. covert actions to topple democratic governments and of installing authoritarian regimes in their places (see, e.g. Iran 1953, below), U.S. officials routinely express support for democracy as best supporting U.S. interests and as protecting human life and health.[2][3][4]


ATIMES:Iran delivers major blow to the CIA [ASIA TIMES]

Iran delivers major blow to the CIA [ASIA TIMES]
By Mahan Abedin

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ML01Ak01.html

Iran's claim last week to have arrested 12 spies working for the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is potentially a major blow to American intelligence-gathering efforts in Iran and to American intelligence generally. The arrests come on the heels of the arrest of 30 alleged CIA spies in late May and are indicative of steadily improving counter-intelligence capabilities.

The recent success is reinforced by the unraveling of a CIA spy ring in Lebanon operating within the Hezbollah organization. These reports have been grudgingly confirmed by current and former US intelligence officials, which is suggestive of a major American intelligence defeat, if not a full-blown disaster.

Recent Hezbollah counter-intelligence successes against Israel and the US (in June, Hezbollah arrested two CIA spies operating inside the organization) are at least in part due to increased counter-intelligence assistance from Iran.

Asia Times Online sources in Tehran claim that Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) has been more willing in recent years to transfer sensitive counter-espionage know-how and techniques to both Hezbollah and the official Lebanese intelligence services.

Regarding the arrest of 12 alleged CIA spies by Iran, aside from the clear indication of escalating American intelligence operations, there are two outstanding observations. First, the CIA is operating a lower threshold of quality control in terms of agent recruitment and management. Second, there are signs that the MOIS is moving steadily in the direction of making Iran a forbidding space for hostile foreign intelligence services.

Information from a wide range of Iranian media - and corroborated by ATol sources in Tehran - is suggestive of a scatter-gun approach by the CIA inasmuch as the agency is targeting virtually any Iranian citizen it believes could potentially provide useful information on the CIA's target set.

While there were media reports that some government "managers" were amongst the suspected CIA spies arrested in May, this time around Iran's intelligence minister, Heydar Moslehi, told local journalists on Sunday that there were no government officials amongst the 12 suspected spies.

Speaking on the fringes of the government's weekly cabinet meeting, Moslehi gave strong indications that most, if not all, of the latest arrested suspected spies were either junior Iranian scientists or students who frequently travelled overseas as part of their studies or official scientific work.

Information gleaned from a wide range of Iranian media over the past six months - and confirmed by ATol sources in Tehran - appears to indicate that besides the high-value targets such as the nuclear program and the country's defense establishment, the CIA's target set includes Iran's banking and financial sector; logistics and transportation networks (particularly air transportation); town planning; the oil and gas sector; and the software industry, particularly private companies that design and operate specialist software for the Iranian government.

More specifically, the CIA appears to be focussed on how Iran is defeating international and unilateral US and European sanctions; how and to what extent Iran is using the international financial system to advance its critical projects as well as its ordinary day-to-day business; the vulnerabilities of Iran's transportation and logistics network; the level of preparedness by Iranian emergency and humanitarian relief organizations; and more generally the resilience of critical Iranian infrastructure in the face of a major disaster or a prolonged period of national stress, such as a military conflict.

To achieve its objectives, the CIA's National Clandestine Service (NCS) has set up a dedicated team of operatives and analysts who operate primarily from countries bordering Iran, but also further afield, particularly in countries with sizeable numbers of Iranian students, such as Malaysia.

This dedicated network is exceptionally well-trained, for example all the operatives and analysts possess a masterful command of the Persian language and display high levels of inter-cultural competence.

Early indications appear to suggest that the CIA started to develop this dedicated network in 2003 and that most of the elements were in place by the middle of 2008. This makes the MOIS' recent counter-intelligence success an even more remarkable achievement, in so far as Iranian counter-intelligence may have doomed the CIA's vast investment almost from the outset.

In the course of its investigations and specialized counter-espionage work, the MOIS claims to have identified 42 officers of the CIA's NCS operating in several countries and collected detailed information on the scope and nature of their activities.

The dedicated NCS team appears to be embedded within numerous official and unofficial American organizations, including US embassies, multinational corporations, medium-sized commercial organizations, recruitment consultancies, immigration and wider legal services, academic and quasi-academic institutions and reputable (ie longstanding) as well as newly set up thinktanks.

If accounts on online Iranian media are to be believed the focus on Iranian scientists and students may have been this dedicated team's downfall. It has been suggested that the 30-person network(s) unraveled earlier this year (and announced in late May) was initially brought to the attention of the MOIS by a patriotic Iranian student who had been approached by a quasi-academic institution (offering grants and scholarships as a means of entrapment) in Malaysia.

The MOIS subsequently investigated the Malaysia-based institution and was able to establish a clear CIA link, which in turn widened the scope of the investigation and eventually netted 30 suspected spies.

It has been reported that 75% of the suspected spies detained this year had higher education qualifications. At one level, this is suggestive of an innovative CIA approach to entrap and recruit gifted Iranian scientists and students with a view to collecting information on the target set in a short to medium time frame.

However, the relative dearth of government officials - or in fact anyone with access to classified or sensitive information - indicates a degree of CIA desperation and an acceptance by the agency that it has to make do with lower quality recruits and manage them to a shorter life span, in view of the agents' lack of ready access to classified materials and the expectation that the MOIS would catch up with them sooner rather than later.

It is also an indication that the most sensitive Iranian organizations (or at least the higher reaches of these organizations) including the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and the wider defense establishment, are now either free of American spies or at least more secure than before in the face of determined American espionage efforts.

Furthermore, it can be argued that as the CIA widens and intensifies its agent recruitment efforts it runs the long-term risk of making it more and more difficult to operate inside Iran, in view of the MOIS' proven prowess at penetrating American intelligence networks and learning the key secrets at the heart of these conspiracies at a relatively early stage.

In summary, there appears to be a disparity between escalating CIA espionage and the MOIS' growing counter-espionage resilience, with the latter steadily gaining the upper hand.

But despite clear improvements in counter-espionage capabilities and protective security measures, Iran is still some way away from making it prohibitively costly for Western agencies to operate inside the country. Indeed, all the major West European, North American and Israeli intelligence services are either active inside Iran or work closely with some elements of the Iranian diaspora.

Nevertheless, there are clear signs that in the pure intelligence war (as opposed to sabotage) Iran is beginning to turn the tide.

Mahan Abedin is an analyst of Middle East politics.

FARS:Iranian People, Students Vow to Continue Path of Assassinated N. Scientists

Iranian People, Students Vow to Continue Path of Assassinated N. Scientists


http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9007275469

TEHRAN (FNA)- Tehran university students in a statement issued after holding a ceremony to commemorate the first anniversary of the martyrdom of nuclear scientist Majid Shahriari vowed to continue his path and the way of other academics assassinated by the enemies of the nation.

The Islamic Republic of Iran held a ceremony on Tuesday to commemorate the anniversary of the martyrdom of nuclear scientist Majid Shahriari. People from all walks of life participated in the ceremony in Tehran to condemn the his assassination.

Also the Iranian university students issued a statement in which they vowed to continue on the path of the slain nuclear scientist.

Last year, the then university professor, Fereidoun Abbassi Davani - who is now the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization - and his colleague Majid Shahriari were assassinated in separate terrorist bomb attacks here in Tehran with the latter killed immediately after the blast.

Another Iranian university professor and nuclear scientist, Massoud Ali Mohammadi, was also assassinated in a terrorist bomb attack in Tehran in January 2010.

Iranian officials took the Zionist regime of Israel and US hirelings inside Iran responsible for the terrorist operation.

JPOST:'Blast in Iran struck uranium enrichment facility'

'Blast in Iran struck uranium enrichment facility'

http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=247560

Satellite imagery confirms Isfahan facility rocked by blast was a nuclear facility, 'The Times' reports, citing Israeli intel officials.

Satellite imagery "clearly showing billowing smoke and destruction" has proven that an explosion Monday damaged a nuclear facility in the Iranian city of Ifsahan, according to a Times of London report Wednesday.

The report quoted Israeli intelligence officials saying that there was "no doubt" that the blast damaged and uranium enrichment site, and asserted that it was "no accident."

Officials from Isfahan have been denying that the city had been hit by an explosion.

Mohammad-Mahdi Esma'ili, Isfahan's deputy governor in political and security affairs, called the reports "sheer lies" according to the IRNA news agency. An official from the city's fire department also denied that there had been an explosion.

The mysterious explosion Monday rocked the Iranian city of Isfahan, which hosts a nuclear facility involved in processing uranium fed to the Natanz fuel enrichment facility.

The source and target of the explosion were initially unclear. Some reports claimed it took place in a military base and others said it was a gas explosion.

Two weeks ago, on November 12, an explosion hit an Iranian military base near the town of Bid Kaneh, killing 17 members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and Maj.-Gen. Hassan Moghaddam, chief architect of the Islamic Republic’s ballistic missile program. Israel’s Mossad has been accused of orchestrating the blast.

Head of the Military Intelligence Research Directorate Brig.-Gen. Itay Brun told the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Monday that the November 12 blast at the missile base could delay Tehran’s development of long-range missiles.

“The explosion at the site to develop surface-to-surface missiles could stop or delay activities on that track and in that location, but we must emphasize that Iran has other development tracks in addition to that facility,” Brun said.

UPI:Iran spooked by U.S., Israeli covert ops

Iran spooked by U.S., Israeli covert ops

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2011/11/29/Iran-spooked-by-US-Israeli-covert-ops/UPI-76861322598560/

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates, Nov. 29 (UPI) -- Iranian news agencies reported an explosion Monday in the central Iranian city of Isfahan, which hosts a nuclear research facility, but on Tuesday the provincial deputy governor denied there had been any explosion.

It was never made clear where the reported blast occurred, although there was nothing to link it to the research facility attached to the city's university.

But the explosion-that-never-was, the Iranians say, underlines how the country is being spooked by covert operations against its nuclear program by U.S. and Israeli intelligence services.

The Isfahan episode occurred just more than two weeks after a massive explosion at a ballistic missile base near Tehran killed the architect of Iran's strategic missile program, Maj. Gen. Hassan Tehrani Moghaddam.

It also came hard on the heels of an Iranian announcement that security authorities had captured a dozen "CIA spies" targeting the nuclear program. That followed reports earlier in the week that other alleged CIA operatives had been rounded up in May.

None of the reports have been verified and the CIA declined comment, although agency officials had in recent days admitted -- unusually -- that bungled operations in Beirut against Hezbollah, Iran's key proxy in Lebanon, had led to the capture of a dozen Lebanese informants.

"The U.S. and Zionist regime's espionage apparatuses were trying to damage Iran both from outside and inside with a heavy blow, using regional intelligence services," declared Parviz Sorouri of the Iranian Parliament's national security committee.

Iranian officials say the Nov. 12 blast at the al-Ghadir base, a storage and testing area for Shehab-3 ballistic missiles, was an accident that occurred during the testing of a new missile.

Israel's foreign intelligence service, the Mossad, has been widely seen as responsible for the explosion as part of its clandestine campaign to sabotage Iran's nuclear program. However, Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani denied that Israel was involved.

Israel has made no direct comment on this. However, Intelligence Minister Dan Meridor observed elliptically after Monday's report of an explosion that in dealing with the Iranian threat "there are countries that impose economic sanctions and there are countries who act in other ways."

Meantime, Brig. Gen. Ithai Baron, head of the research directorate of Israel's Military Intelligence, told Parliament's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee Monday that al-Ghadir explosion could delay Tehran's drive to produce intermediate-range ballistic missiles capable of reaching the Jewish state.

But he stressed, "We must emphasize that Iran has other development tracks in addition to that facility."

The al-Ghadir blast followed the assassination and defection of several Iranian nuclear scientists and a formidable cyberwarfare assault, suspected to be run by Israeli intelligence, that damaged Iran's nuclear program.

Iranian officials have copiously accused Israel and the United States of covert operations but insist that the al-Ghadir blast was an accident.

In recent days, Iran's leading generals have been falling over themselves to warn the Americans and Israelis of the dire and terrible retaliation they face if the Islamic Republic is attacked, as Israel has threatened to do.

Veteran Middle East analyst Mahan Abedin sought to explain this paradox by observing: "Mischievous Israeli posturing notwithstanding, there is no evidence or credible information at this stage to suggest that the explosion at the al-Ghadir base was anything but an accident caused by an important experiment involving ballistic missiles and high explosives.

"But assuming the explosion was the result of sabotage, senior Iranian officials have two overriding reasons to insist on an accidental cause.

"In the very short term, an admission that sabotage is the cause runs the risk of inflaming public opinion with the resulting overwhelming demand for immediate retaliation," Abedin noted.

"For various reasons -- not least the desire to avoid escalation -- Iranian leaders are not overly keen to respond to Israeli and American provocations which they view as a trap.

"At a deeper level, this remarkable forbearance in the face of seemingly intolerable provocations is the result of Iranian leaders' strategic calculus.

"Iran's leaders long ago concluded that enormous pressures -- including sabotage operations -- would be directed against the country to coerce the leadership to discontinue the nuclear program," Abedin observed in an Asia Times analysis.

"By refusing to retaliate against the country's enemies, Iranian leaders are sending yet another signal that they are committed to staying on the same strategic trajectory regardless of the costs."


Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2011/11/29/Iran-spooked-by-US-Israeli-covert-ops/UPI-76861322598560/#ixzz1fAHgsZ2R

WASHPOST:Georgetown students shed light on China’s tunnel system for nuclear weapons

Georgetown students shed light on China’s tunnel system for nuclear weapons

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/georgetown-students-shed-light-on-chinas-tunnel-system-for-nuclear-weapons/2011/11/16/gIQA6AmKAO_story.html

The Chinese have called it their “Underground Great Wall” — a vast network of tunnels designed to hide their country’s increasingly sophisticated missile and nuclear arsenal.

For the past three years, a small band of obsessively dedicated students at Georgetown University has called it something else: homework.

Led by their hard-charging professor, a former top Pentagon official, they have translated hundreds of documents, combed through satellite imagery, obtained restricted Chinese military documents and waded through hundreds of gigabytes of online data.

The result of their effort? The largest body of public knowledge about thousands of miles of tunnels dug by the Second Artillery Corps, a secretive branch of the Chinese military in charge of protecting and deploying its ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads.

The study is yet to be released, but already it has sparked a congressional hearing and been circulated among top officials in the Pentagon, including the Air Force vice chief of staff.

Most of the attention has focused on the 363-page study’s provocative conclusion — that China’s nuclear arsenal could be many times larger than the well-established estimates of arms-control experts.

“It’s not quite a bombshell, but those thoughts and estimates are being checked against what people think they know based on classified information,” said a Defense Department strategist who would discuss the study only on the condition of anonymity.

The study’s critics, however, have questioned the unorthodox Internet-based research of the students, who drew from sources as disparate as Google Earth, blogs, military journals and, perhaps most startlingly, a fictionalized TV docudrama about Chinese artillery soldiers — the rough equivalent of watching Fox’s TV show “24” for insights into U.S. counterterrorism efforts.

But the strongest condemnation has come from nonproliferation experts who worry that the study could fuel arguments for maintaining nuclear weapons in an era when efforts are being made to reduce the world’s post-Cold War stockpiles.

Beyond its impact in the policy world, the project has made a profound mark on the students — including some who have since graduated and taken research jobs with the Defense Department and Congress.

“I don’t even want to know how many hours I spent on it,” said Nick Yarosh, 22, an international politics senior at Georgetown. “But you ask people what they did in college, most just say I took this class, I was in this club. I can say I spent it reading Chinese nuclear strategy and Second Artillery manuals. For a nerd like me, that really means something.”

For students, an obsession

The students’ professor, Phillip A. Karber, 65, had spent the Cold War as a top strategist reporting directly to the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But it was his early work in defense that cemented his reputation, when he led an elite research team created by Henry Kissinger, who was then the national security adviser, to probe the weaknesses of Soviet forces......

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

foxnews;FBI Director Criticizes Bill Requiring Suspected Terrorists to Be Held By Military

FBI Director Criticizes Bill Requiring Suspected Terrorists to Be Held By Military


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/29/fbi-director-criticizes-bill-requiring-suspected-terrorists-to-be-held-by/?test=latestnews#ixzz1f82LY0tO

FBI Director Robert Mueller on Monday raised significant concerns about requiring military custody for captured suspected terrorists, arguing that the divisive provision in a sweeping defense bill could harm ongoing terrorism investigations.

In a letter to lawmakers, Mueller detailed his concerns with the provision that mandates military custody of a suspect deemed to be a member of al Qaeda or its affiliates and involved in plotting or committing attacks on the United States. The White House has threatened a veto over the language in the bill and limits on the administration's ability to transfer suspected terrorists.

"Because the proposed legislation applies to certain persons detained in the United States, the legislation may adversely impact our ability to continue ongoing international terrorism investigations before or after arrest, derive intelligence from those investigations and may raise extraneous issues in any future prosecution of a person covered" by the provision, Mueller wrote.

The FBI director said the legislation would add a substantial amount of uncertainty as to what steps should be followed in a terrorism investigation in the United States. Mueller also said the provision could restrict the FBI from using a grand jury to gather records or subpoenaing witnesses.

"The legislation ... will inhibit our ability to convince covered arrestees to cooperate immediately, and provide critical intelligence," Mueller said.

Proponents of the provision have defended the legislation, pointing out that it includes a waiver that allows the administration to decide a suspect's fate as well as who should be covered by the requirement.

In an op-ed Monday in The Washington Post, Armed Services Chairman Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and the panel's top Republican, Arizona's John McCain, wrote that the bill's provisions on detainees "represent a careful, bipartisan effort to provide the executive branch the clear authority, tools and flexibility of action it needs to defend us against the threat posed by al Qaeda."

Mueller described the waiver as too cumbersome, requiring that it be obtained from the defense secretary in consultation with the secretary of state and the director of National Intelligence with a certification to Congress.

"These limited exceptions ... fail to recognize the reality of a counterterrorism investigation," Mueller wrote. "Building rapport with, and convincing a covered individual to cooperate once arrested, is a delicate and time-sensitive skill that transcends any one interrogation session."

The Senate resumed work on the massive defense bill Monday and approved an amendment to expand the Joint Chiefs of Staff to include the head of the National Guard. The voice vote approval reflected the overwhelming support for the amendment by Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who had some 70 co-sponsors for their effort.

The head of the National Guard represents 465,000 members of the Army and Air National Guard. In a post-Sept. 11 world, their role has changed dramatically with significant numbers of guardsmen and reservists seeing combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Today's National Guard is a superb 21st Century force trapped inside the 20th Century Pentagon bureaucracy," Leahy said.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the head of the services opposed the move. Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said it could create the impression of inequity because while each service has a reserve component, only the Army and Air Force have a National Guard. Dempsey also testified earlier this month that each chief is subject to civilian oversight with a service secretary. The National Guard does not have a similar arrangement.

The dispute over the detention policy loomed large. Not only has it drawn a veto threat, but the provision has divided senior Senate Democrats, pitting Levin against leaders of the Intelligence and Judiciary committees.

Congress and the administration have been at odds since Obama took office over how to handle captured terror suspects. The administration insists that lawmakers are trying to limit the military, law enforcement and intelligence agents after they've succeeded in killing Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki, delivering two body blows to al-Qaida.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, in a letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the head of the Intelligence committee, has said the limits in the bill "could deny our nation the ability to respond flexibly and appropriately to unfolding events, including the capture of terrorism suspects."

Republicans counter that their efforts are necessary to respond to an evolving, post-Sept. 11 threat, holding captured terror suspects at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and trying them by military commissions. In a not-in-my-backyard argument, lawmakers have resisted transferring suspects to the United States.

The sweeping defense bill would authorize $662 billion for military personnel, weapons systems, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and national security programs in the Energy Department. Reflecting a period of austerity and deficit-driven cuts in military spending, the bill is $27 billion less than what Obama requested for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 of this year.


ACLU:Senators Demand the Military Lock Up American Citizens in a “Battlefield” They Define as Being Right Outside Your Window

Senators Demand the Military Lock Up American Citizens in a “Battlefield” They Define as Being Right Outside Your Window

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-demand-military-lock-american-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being

While nearly all Americans head to family and friends to celebrate Thanksgiving, the Senate is gearing up for a vote on Monday or Tuesday that goes to the very heart of who we are as Americans. The Senate will be voting on a bill that will direct American military resources not at an enemy shooting at our military in a war zone, but at American citizens and other civilians far from any battlefield — even people in the United States itself.

Senators need to hear from you, on whether you think your front yard is part of a “battlefield” and if any president can send the military anywhere in the world to imprison civilians without charge or trial.

The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. Even Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) raised his concerns about the NDAA detention provisions during last night’s Republican debate. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.

The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision is in S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which will be on the Senate floor on Monday. The bill was drafted in secret by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing.

I know it sounds incredible. New powers to use the military worldwide, even within the United States? Hasn’t anyone told the Senate that Osama bin Laden is dead, that the president is pulling all of the combat troops out of Iraq and trying to figure out how to get combat troops out of Afghanistan too? And American citizens and people picked up on American or Canadian or British streets being sent to military prisons indefinitely without even being charged with a crime. Really? Does anyone think this is a good idea? And why now?

The answer on why now is nothing more than election season politics. The White House, the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General have all said that the indefinite detention provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act are harmful and counterproductive. The White House has even threatened a veto. But Senate politics has propelled this bad legislation to the Senate floor.

But there is a way to stop this dangerous legislation. Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) is offering the Udall Amendment that will delete the harmful provisions and replace them with a requirement for an orderly Congressional review of detention power. The Udall Amendment will make sure that the bill matches up with American values.

In support of this harmful bill, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) explained that the bill will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and people can be imprisoned without charge or trial “American citizen or not.” Another supporter, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) also declared that the bill is needed because “America is part of the battlefield.”

The solution is the Udall Amendment; a way for the Senate to say no to indefinite detention without charge or trial anywhere in the world where any president decides to use the military. Instead of simply going along with a bill that was drafted in secret and is being jammed through the Senate, the Udall Amendment deletes the provisions and sets up an orderly review of detention power. It tries to take the politics out and put American values back in.

In response to proponents of the indefinite detention legislation who contend that the bill “applies to American citizens and designates the world as the battlefield,” and that the “heart of the issue is whether or not the United States is part of the battlefield,” Sen. Udall disagrees, and says that we can win this fight without worldwide war and worldwide indefinite detention.

The senators pushing the indefinite detention proposal have made their goals very clear that they want an okay for a worldwide military battlefield, that even extends to your hometown. That is an extreme position that will forever change our country.

Now is the time to stop this bad idea. Please urge your senators to vote YES on the Udall Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act.

UPDATE: Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1013 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so.

But you don’t have to believe us. Instead, read what one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Lindsey Graham said about it on the Senate floor: “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”

There you have it — indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial. And the Senate is likely to vote on it Monday or Tuesday.

HAARETZ:Al-Qaida linked group claims responsibility for Katyusha fire against Israel [qaeda] UNIFIL deploys extra troops and patrols along border, aft

Al-Qaida linked group claims responsibility for Katyusha fire against Israel [qaeda]

UNIFIL deploys extra troops and patrols along border, after four rockets launched into Israel overnight; no causualties reported in rocket fire, Israel responds with artillery rounds.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/al-qaida-linked-group-claims-responsibility-for-katyusha-fire-against-israel-1.398495

The Sheikh Abdullah Azzam Brigades, a militant group affiliated with Al-Qaida on Tuesday claimed responsibility for the four Katyusha rockets fired from Lebanon at Israel overnight.

The small organization, whose members live mostly in hideouts in Palestinian refugee camps across southern Lebanon, has claimed responsibility for past rocket attack on Israel, as well.

The group does not have a large weapons cache and most of its members have been trained on outdated arms, some left over from the 1980s Lebanon civil war.

The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon vowed Tuesday morning to ensure that the border remain calm, hours after the four Katyusha rockets were fired into Israel. UNIFIL commanders held emergency meetings with representatives of the Israel Defense Forces and the Lebanese Army following the overnight attack.

UNIFIL released a statement declaring that it had deployed extra troops and patrols in the area to preserve the calm and would do everything possible to make sure restraint was exercised.

"This is a serious incident in violation of UN Security Council resolution 1701 and is clearly directed at undermining stability in the area," UNIFIL said in its statement.

Several rockets fired from Lebanon hit the Western Galilee overnight, the first since 2009, prompting Israel to return artillery fire, military officials said.

Two buildings in the Western Galilee were damaged and one of the 122-millimeter rockets struck a gas tank. The rockets ignited a blaze that firefighters fought for hours. No casualties were reported.

Residents said they heard two explosions and that houses shook.

Israel said that it held the Lebanese government responsible and would deliver a complaint. "The Lebanese government is responsible for everything that happens in Lebanon and everything that exits from its border," Home Front Defense Minister Matan Vilnai said.

In Lebanon, security sources said the four Katyusha rockets were fired into Israel from an area between the villages of Aita Shaab and Rmeish, about 2 kilometers from the border.

They said Israel fired four artillery shells in response, but they landed in fields and caused no damage.

The Lebanese Army said late Tuesday morning that it had found two rocket launchers it believed had been used to fire the Katyushas at Israel.

An IDF spokesman said the rockets were the first fired since 2009 across a border where a 34-day war was fought in 2006 between Israel and Iranian-backed Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas.

"Several rockets hit the western Galilee. The Israeli army considers the incident severe and is targeting origins of fire," said a statement from the military spokesman's office.

The chairman of the Galilee town that absorbed the attack said residents were going about their daily routine, despite the rocket fire. He said that while the attack came as a surprise, it was not completely unexpected considering ongoing tensions in the area.

"It's true that it is relatively quiet here, but there have been incidents of rocket attacks in the last five years," he said. "We're just lucky that it was chicken coops that were hit, and not houses."

Israel's defense establishment should carefully weigh its options following the rocket fire, said the town chairman, adding that "perhaps the time has come to consider deploying a rocket detection system in the north of the country similar to the [Iron Dome batteries] in the South."

BBC:Iran protesters storm UK embassy in Tehran

Iran protesters storm UK embassy in Tehran

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15936213

Protesters in the Iranian capital, Tehran, have broken into the UK embassy compound during an anti-British demonstration, reports say.

Militant students are said to have removed the British flag, burnt it and replaced it with Iran's flag. State TV showed youths smashing embassy windows.

The move comes after Iran resolved to reduce ties following the UK's decision to impose further sanctions on it.

The UK's Foreign Office said it was "outraged" by the actions.

It urged Iran to honour international commitments to protect diplomatic missions and their staff.

The students clashed with anti-riot police and chanted "the embassy of Britain should be taken over" and "death to England", AP reports.

Students were reported to be ransacking offices inside the building, and one protester was said to be waving a framed picture of Queen Elizabeth II.

Iran's semi-official Mehr news agency said documents from the embassy had been seized and set alight. Embassy staff fled by the back door, the agency added.

Outside the embassy's walls, several hundred other demonstrators were gathered.

TV footage showed Iranian riot police gradually clearing the protesters away from outside the embassy.

The UK Foreign Office issued an angry statement urging Iran to quickly restore order.

"We are outraged by this. It is utterly unacceptable and we condemn it," the statement said.

"Under international law, including the Vienna Convention, the Iranian Government have a clear duty to protect diplomats and embassies in their country and we expect them to act urgently to bring the situation under control and ensure the safety of our staff and security of our property".

On Sunday, Iran's parliament voted by a large majority to downgrade diplomatic relations with the UK after the UK Treasury imposed sanctions on Iranian banks the previous week, accusing them of facilitating the country's nuclear programme.

Iranian radio reported that some MPs had chanted "Death to Britain" during the vote, which was approved by 87% of MPs.

Iran says its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes only.

REUTERS:Analysis: For Iran, the sanctions price may be worth paying

Analysis: For Iran, the sanctions price may be worth paying

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/29/us-nuclear-iran-idUSTRE7AS0XC20111129

(Reuters) - Iran regards its nuclear programme as a source of power and prestige and tougher sanctions look unlikely to alter Tehran's cost-benefit analysis much despite the economic pain they cause.

Deep mistrust of Western intentions and security concerns in a volatile region where the United States maintains a strong military presence could help explain Iran's resolve not to back down and curb nuclear work its foes fear have weapons aims.

That determination may have been further reinforced by the fall in August of Libya's Muammar Gaddafi, who agreed in 2003 to abandon efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction only to be toppled after his people rose up and Western powers turned against him.

Iran is facing a new wave of punitive measures after a United Nations nuclear watchdog report this month lent independent weight to suspicions, rejected by Tehran, that it has been developing a capability to make atomic bombs.

"Iran's nuclear programme is motivated by regime survival," said international policy analyst Alireza Nader of RAND Corporation, a U.S.-based research group.

"It appears the Islamic Republic has made the calculation that a potential nuclear weapons capability is worth the price of sanctions, as long as sanctions do not imperil the regime."

If that is the case, the latest push by the United States and its European allies may do little to force a change of course by Iran in the long-running nuclear dispute, which has the potential to trigger a wider conflict in the Middle East.

"The mere fact that Iran is ready to bear the brunt of increasingly painful sanctions demonstrates that they are entrenching themselves in a siege mentality, ready for a showdown if need be," said Bruno Tertrais, a senior research fellow at France's Strategic Research Foundation think tank.

European Union foreign ministers meet on Thursday to discuss new sanctions on Tehran, after the United States, Canada and Britain last week announced measures against Iran's energy and financial sectors.

Iranian leaders are responding in a characteristically defiant manner to the latest such measures to target the major oil producer, which is already subject to four rounds of U.N. sanctions as well as separate U.S. and European steps.

RESISTING WESTERN "DOMINANCE"

In a sign of Iran's uncompromising stance, a bill to downgrade ties with London won final legislative approval on Monday, compelling the government to expel Britain's ambassador in retaliation for the new sanctions on Tehran.

"The escalating pressure only increases opposition in Iran to enter dialogue or to retreat from its positions as it would show weakness that they believe could be exploited by the West," a senior Western diplomat in the Iranian capital said.

Political power struggles make it "in practice impossible" for Iranian leaders to show more flexibility as they would risk being attacked by their domestic rivals, the envoy added.

The United States and its European partners seized on the November 8 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which said Iran appeared to have worked on designing a nuclear weapon, to try to further isolate the country.

It also sparked renewed speculation that Israel, which sees Iran's nuclear programme as an existential threat, might launch pre-emptive strikes against its atomic sites.

Iran dismissed the report by the Vienna-based U.N. nuclear watchdog, which also said that secret weapons-relevant research may continue, as based on forged evidence. It says its nuclear programme is a peaceful bid to generate electricity.

Iran can draw some comfort from Russian and Chinese opposition to further sanctions against a country with which they share substantial commercial ties, blunting the impact of harsher Western measures.

Iran's leaders "find political gain is being able to survive U.S.-led pressure," Mark Fitzpatrick, a director of the International Institute for Strategic Studies think tank, said.

Tehran's thinking appears in part shaped by deep-rooted suspicions that its enemies ultimately want the overthrow of the country's system of Islamic clerical rule, established after the 1979 revolution that toppled the U.S.-backed shah.

"Threats of a military option or regime change only reinforce their determination to resist," Fitzpatrick said.

Standing up against Western demands offers the conservative leadership a chance to rally nationalist support and distract attention from the economic woes many people are experiencing.

"The nuclear programme has morphed into the ultimate expression of Iran's resistance to Western dominance and an 'unjust' international system," said Ali Vaez of the Federation of American Scientists, a Washington-based think tank.

Tightening sanctions also risk, however, fuelling domestic discontent that erupted after a disputed 2009 election and that the authorities used force to suppress.

Whether they "result in a popular uprising against the government is a matter of speculation which has been prompted by the revolts in North Africa and the Middle East," said Mark Hibbs of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

VIRTUAL NUCLEAR POWER?

The United States says the drive it leads to isolate Iran has slowed its nuclear programme and that there is still time to persuade it to abandon atomic weapons ambitions.

But despite sanctions and suspected sabotage, Iran is pressing ahead with work that it says is for a planned network of power plants but experts say could also be used for bombs.

Iran's current stockpile of low-enriched uranium would be sufficient for at least two nuclear bombs if refined much further and it is preparing to shift its most sensitive enrichment activity to an underground bunker.

Iran's nuclear activities are geared toward providing it with the option to build atomic weapons so that "it can get some perceived security benefits and prestige from being on the cusp of joining the nuclear club," said Peter Crail of the Arms Control Association, a U.S.-based research and advocacy group.

Diplomatic efforts to resolve the row have stalled after a fruitless meeting in Istanbul in January between Iranian officials and representatives of the six major powers - the United States, Russia, France, Germany, China and Britain.

Both sides say they are ready to resume talks, but Iran insists it will never suspend uranium enrichment as demanded by repeated United Nations Security Council resolutions.

Its leaders risk looking weak if they retreat but stand to gain "respect and coercive power that comes along with being a virtual nuclear power" if they persist, said Henry Sokolski of the U.S.-based Nonproliferation Policy Education Center.

In the search for a possible way forward, the West may have to accept that Iran continues some enrichment, in return for more intrusive IAEA inspections to make sure there are no military links to its programme, analysts say.

"If there is a negotiated solution to this crisis, the outcome would likely be an Iran which is enriching uranium and has gone some of the way toward having a nuclear weapons capability," Carnegie's Hibbs said.

WASHPOST:US official cautions Iran against issuing threats over NATO’s missile installation in Turkey

US official cautions Iran against issuing threats over NATO’s missile installation in Turkey

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/us-official-cautions-iran-against-issuing-threats-over-natos-missile-installation-in-turkey/2011/11/29/gIQA1fCI8N_story.html

ANKARA, Turkey — A senior U.S. official has dismissed Iran’s threats against NATO missile defense installations in Turkey, saying they benefit no one.

An Iranian general said Saturday that Tehran will target NATO’s early warning radar in Turkey if the U.S. or Israel attacks the Islamic Republic.

Antony Blinken, national security adviser to U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden, told a teleconference briefing from Washington on Monday that “making threatening statements doesn’t serve anyone’s purpose, least of all the Iranians.”

Biden is due to visit Turkey this week.

“Turkey shares our goal of preventing a nuclear-armed Iran,” Blinken added, according to a transcript posted on the U.S. embassy website.

The West says Iran is developing nuclear weapons — a charge Iran denies.

Ankara agreed to host the radar in September as part of NATO’s missile defense system aimed at countering ballistic missile threats from its neighbor, Iran. Tehran says the radar is meant to protect Israel from Iranian missile attacks if a war breaks out with the Jewish state.

“Should we be threatened, we will target NATO’s missile defense shield in Turkey and then hit the next targets,” Iran’s semiofficial Mehr news agency quoted Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, a senior commander of Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guard as saying on Saturday.

Hajizadeh, the head of the Guards’ aerospace division, said the warning was part of a new defense strategy to counter what he described as an increase in threats from the U.S. and Israel.

Tensions have been rising between Iran and the West since the release of a report earlier this month by the International Atomic Energy Agency that said for the first time that Tehran was suspected of conducting secret experiments whose sole purpose was the development of nuclear arms.

On Tuesday, hardline Iranian students broke into the British Embassy in Tehran after Iran reduced diplomatic relations with Britain following London’s support of recently upgraded U.S. sanctions on Tehran.

NYTIMES:Israeli Leader Visits Jordan to Discuss Palestinian Issue

Israeli Leader Visits Jordan to Discuss Palestinian Issue

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/29/world/middleeast/king-abdullah-of-jordan-plays-host-to-shimon-peres.html

JERUSALEM — King Abdullah II of Jordan played host on Monday to Shimon Peres, the president of Israel, in an effort to make progress on the stubborn Palestinian question at a time of regional diplomatic uncertainty and fragmentation.

Last week, the king made his first visit in a decade to the West Bank to see Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, and is to travel next week to Washington.

As postrevolutionary Egypt pulls back from its longstanding role as the bridge between Israel and the Arab world, Jordan sees an opportunity and is using these public visits to make that clear.

A palace statement said that the king and Mr. Peres “addressed ways of surmounting the obstacles that impede the revival of peace talks between the Palestinians and the Israelis on the basis of the two-state vision.”

An aide to Mr. Peres said the president thought that Jordan would not want to publicize the visit, so the Israelis kept it quiet in advance. They were surprised — and pleased — when the Jordanians made it public.

Jordanian analysts said the trip seemed to be part of the king’s efforts to increase his regional role as well as a message to the Palestinians that they could not avoid negotiations with Israel even as they sought unity between the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority and Hamas, which rules in Gaza.

It is also considered a warning to Khaled Meshal, the Hamas chief, that his coming trip to Jordan, his first official visit in years, should not be seen as a sign of a shift in Jordanian policy. Like the Persian Gulf monarchs, King Abdullah fears giving too much license to Islamist forces.

An Israeli official said that a recent statement by Israel’s foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, that dismissed efforts by fellow Israeli right-wingers to describe Jordan as the Palestinian homeland seemed to have motivated the king to invite Mr. Peres to Amman, Jordan’s capital, and publicize the visit. “At a time of rising Islamism across the region, the king is saying that his alliance with Israel still has significance,” the official said.

Meanwhile, Mr. Abbas said in Vienna on Monday that he remained hopeful that Palestinian elections aimed at a renewed unity between the West Bank and Gaza would occur by May 4, a year since the two sides signed a deal to try to end their dispute.

Statements by other Palestinian officials made clear, however, that the May 4 date was more theoretical than real because the two sides have to agree first on a government of technocrats to hold the elections, and those negotiations remain stuck.

“We have a long way to go,” Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, said by telephone.

Yasser Abed Rabbo, a top aide to Mr. Abbas, told Palestinian journalists that Hamas seemed to be shying away from forming a government before elections. That strategy was a mistake, he said, because it was what Israel wanted — to divide the sides.

He added that he expected little progress on Israeli-Palestinian peace in the coming year because of upheavals in the Arab world and elections in the United States. At the same time, he said, Israel would continue building settlements in the West Bank and altering its landscape. For its part, Israel argues that it is mostly building in areas that it expects to keep in any deal with the Palestinians. For the past four weeks, Israel has withheld tax and duty payments to the Palestinian Authority worth tens of millions of dollars to register its objection to Palestinian efforts to join the United Nations as a state and to share power with Hamas.

But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Monday that because the Palestinians seemed to be slowing down their United Nations membership efforts and because the unity talks with Hamas were more symbolic than substantive, he might release the money in the coming days.

In addition, several rockets were fired on Tuesday from Lebanon into northern Israel, Reuters reported. Two buildings in the western Galilee were damaged in the attack, the first since 2009, but there were no injuries reported, Israeli news media said.

NYTIMES:Militants Turn to Death Squads in Afghanistan

Militants Turn to Death Squads in Afghanistan

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/29/world/asia/haqqani-militants-use-death-squads-in-afghanistan.html

SABARI, Afghanistan — As targeted killings have risen sharply across Afghanistan, American and Afghan officials believe that many are the work of counterintelligence units of the Haqqani militant network and Al Qaeda, charged with killing suspected informants and terrorizing the populace on both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

Military intelligence officials say that the units essentially act as death squads and that one of them, a large group known as the Khurasan that operates primarily in Pakistan’s tribal areas, has been responsible for at least 250 assassinations and public executions.

Another group, whose name is not known, works mainly in Afghanistan and may be responsible for at least 20 killings in Khost Province over the summer alone, including a mass beheading that came to light only after a video was found in the possession of a captured insurgent. The video shows 10 headless bodies evenly spaced along a paved road, while their heads sit nearby in a semicircle, their faces clearly visible.

It is another indication that the Haqqanis, a mostly Pakistan-based faction, remain the most dangerous part of an insurgency that makes full use of a porous and often ill-defined border, as the NATO strike that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers over the weekend showed.

Though the circumstances of that strike remain murky, it has now further upset relations between Pakistan and the United States, even as it once again demonstrated how havens inside Pakistan remained a critical part of the insurgent strategy.

The Americans have geared their offensive around bloodying the insurgents as they enter Afghanistan. But the new wave of assassinations shows that, even as NATO portrays the insurgents as a weakening force, the Haqqanis can still assert their influence, not only with headline-grabbing bombings but also through intimidation and by controlling perceptions.

One chilling case attributed to the second death squad came after American forces captured the senior Afghanistan-based leader for the Haqqanis, Hajji Mali Khan, and killed his top deputy this summer. Just days later, the bodies of two men accused of helping the Americans turned up near the village where Mr. Khan was captured. Scalding iron rods had been shoved through their legs. One victim had been disemboweled, and both had been shot through the head and crushed by boulders. Fear shot through the entire village.

“You could hardly recognize them,” said a witness who viewed the bodies.

Across Afghanistan, assassinations have jumped 61 percent, to 131 reported killings, through the first nine months of this year, compared with the same period in 2010, according to NATO statistics. United Nations officials say they began noticing a sharp increase in 2010, with 462 assassinations according to their records, double the number from the previous year. The figures may not include many killings in remote areas, like the mass beheading, because fearful villagers never reported them.

American intelligence officials say the Afghanistan-based group and the Khurasan seem to operate in much the same manner. The Khurasan is believed to have formed in early 2009 in the North Waziristan area of Pakistan, the Haqqanis’ headquarters, in response to intensified drone attacks by the United States. The group is said to wear black clothing with green armbands bearing its full name, Itihad al-Mujahedeen Khurasan, and works closely with Al Qaeda in the region. Estimates of its size range from 100 to 2,000 members.

During his interrogation, Mr. Khan suggested that other weapons were involved in the battle for influence, as well. According to four officials familiar with the questioning, the Haqqani leader told his interrogators that the Taliban had been approaching Afghan government and military officials throughout the summer, persuading them to sign a five-page document secretly pledging their loyalty to the Taliban leadership. Mr. Khan boasted that he had signed up 20 officials himself.

“They tell the officials that the Taliban is going to be back in power within 20 days of NATO leaving, so if they want to live, they’ll sign,” said one of the American officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the classified interrogations. Officials say they have found no confirmation of such oaths, however.

In places like Sabari, a rural district in Khost that sits about a dozen miles from the Pakistan border, the targeted killings are producing their intended effect. After a daylight execution of three men in a bazaar in the village of Maktab about four months ago, shop owners were so traumatized that they never reported the killings to the authorities.

Often, the victims may have had little more than passing encounters with coalition forces, or no involvement at all, according to officials, witnesses, and friends and relatives of victims.

American and Afghan officials learned about the killings only later when a video of the episode was found on a captured insurgent’s cellphone. Even then, American officials who showed the video to a New York Times reporter could cite the place where the killings had taken place but believed that they had occurred in October, about three months after witnesses say the actual episode happened.

The video showed a number of gunmen shooting to death two men as shop owners scrambled for cover. The militants then shot a third man as he sat in a white plastic chair in front of his shop. As the man fell backward, one of the gunmen shot him 10 more times in the face and chest.

“Whoever tries to help the Americans and spies for them will face this,” one of the men shouted after the killings, according to a witness, Ahmadullah, 25, a shop owner who like many Afghans goes by one name.

Ahmadullah said no one dared report it, even the men’s families, who carried the bodies away. “We just had to watch and stand quiet and watch what was happening to these poor people,” he said.

“I knew those men,” he added. “One was just a shop owner, the other two were laborers. They were innocent.”

An American military official who saw the video said he was not surprised that local villagers failed to report the episode.

“People in Sabari are living in abject terror, 24 hours a day,” he said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to publicly discuss the death squad. “When we conduct a raid on a Haqqani leader,” he said, a group of about 15 death-squad members “go in and massacre people.”

Last month, insurgents killed another man in the bazaar, about two days after a night raid in the village by Afghan and American troops. This time the victim was a visiting merchant from Khost City named Nasib, who was pulled out of his car as his 5-year-old son watched from the passenger seat. His abductors dragged him to the bazaar and killed him in broad daylight.

Yet when asked about the killings, the district governor and the local police chief in Sabari said they knew nothing about them. “I totally deny such reports,” said Dawlat Khan Qayoumi, the district governor. “I can tell you in the last five months we have not seen any such incidents.”

Questions also surround the videotaped beheadings. Muhammad Zarin, the commander of a special undercover police unit that has been investigating the death squads, would say only that the men were from Khost and were killed about three months ago in the Mangal area in the province’s mountainous Musa Khel district, where Mr. Khan was active. Neither NATO nor the United Nations, both of which track assassinations, had any record of the mass beheadings, of the Maktab Bazaar killings or of the two men killed after Mr. Khan’s capture, reflecting the intense secrecy with which villagers have guarded the deaths.

After an earlier raid that failed to capture Mr. Khan in the Musa Khel area, coalition forces got a report that three village elders had been kidnapped and three teenagers had been beheaded. “When we went up to investigate, we could never get any bodies or any proof,” said Col. Christopher R. Toner, commander of the First Infantry Division’s Third Brigade Combat Team, based in Khost and Paktia Provinces. “But there was enough going around that I suspect it was true.”

Public health officials likewise say they hear of dozens of such killings but are seldom able to confirm them. “People don’t bring the bodies in to the hospital for fear of the Taliban,” said Dr. Fazal Mohammad Mangal of the Khost provincial hospital.

Zabit Amen Jan, a former Musa Khel resident, has lost four brothers to insurgents, including two students in their 20s whose bullet-ridden bodies were found in June. A hand-scrawled letter found on one of the bodies said the men had ignored repeated warnings to stop working with the coalition forces. “There was no other way except doing this,” the letter said.

Mr. Jan said his younger brothers had no connection to the coalition and were killed only because he and another brother had been involved in politics.

“People used to come to our district for picnics because our area is full of mountains and covered with pine and walnut trees,” he said. “Now people are fleeing to Khost City or Kabul or Pakistan, because there are so many killings and they know the government can’t protect them.”

atimes:Saboteurs flying under Iran radar

Saboteurs flying under Iran radar[asia times]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MK30Ak01.html

As Western nations impose yet more sanctions on Iran in the wake of the latest International Atomic Energy Agency report, the psychological warfare between the two sides continues to escalate.

This psychological warfare has two dimensions; one visible and rhetorical and conducted through official and unofficial media and the other secret and centered on sabotage. In so far as the former is concerned Iran has risen to the challenge by superseding tough American and Israeli rhetoric with even tougher rhetoric.

However, it is on the sabotage front - where Iran appears to be under attack from several directions - that the Islamic Republic is raising eyebrows even amongst its hardcore supporters by displaying remarkable tolerance in the face of intolerable provocations.

More broadly, the Iranians are not paying sufficient attention to the long-term consequences of military confrontation with the United States and her allies.

While Iranian leaders and commentators readily recognize the ultimate aim of the United States as the destruction of the revolutionary Islamic regime in Tehran, they haven't given sufficient thought to the probability of this outcome being attained in a longer time frame (by American standards) with a limited military assault on Iran designed to direct all relevant political, economic and strategic variables toward that trajectory.

Tehrani-Moghadam: latest victim of sabotage?
The explosion at the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps' (IRGC) Al-Ghadir base in Bigdaneh (near Tehran) on November 12 which killed the architect of Iran's ballistic missile programme has added fuel to widespread suspicions that Iran is under concerted sabotage attacks by Western and Israeli special forces and intelligence services.

Even though the Iranian government was quick to rule out sabotage and insisted the explosions were an accident, the steady leaking of Brigadier General Hassan Tehrani-Moghaddam's hugely sensitive role in developing Iran's ballistic missile programme, lends credence to the theory that the country's enemies had a hand in the "accident" that killed at least 16 other IRGC personnel.

Reports on Iranian media - directly attributed to members of Tehrani-Moghaddam's family or senior IRGC commanders - have speculated widely on the context and cause of the "accident", with some reports suggesting that the pioneering IRGC commander was supervising the testing of an inter-continental ballistic missile, while others suggest he was testing a new ballistic surface to sea missile, presumably designed to attack American warships in the event of a war.

The explosion at the Al-Ghadir base - believed to be a depot for medium-range Shahab-3 ballistic missiles with a range of up to 2,000 kilometers - comes on the heel of the assassination of key Iranian scientists and a ferocious cyber warfare programme directed at Iran's uranium enrichment facilities and the wider nuclear establishment.

The Israeli government was quick to hint at possible involvement in the explosion with defense minister Ehud Barak cheerfully proclaiming "I don't know the extent of the explosion. But it would be desirable if they multiply".

Iran's enemies have a clear interest in staking a claim to these incidents with a view to sabotaging Iranian morale. For their part Iranian officials were quick to rule out an Israeli or American hand in the explosion in a concerted effort to calm widespread fears that the enemy could have attained such extensive access to the country's most sensitive military programs.

Mischievous Israeli posturing notwithstanding, there is no evidence or credible information at this stage to suggest that the explosion at the Al-Ghadir base was anything but an accident caused by an important experiment involving ballistic missiles and high explosives.

But assuming the explosion was the result of sabotage, senior Iranian officials have two overriding reasons to insist on an accidental cause. In the very short term an admission that sabotage is the cause runs the risk of inflaming Iranian public opinion with the resulting overwhelming demand for immediate retaliation. For various reasons - not least the desire to avoid escalation - Iranian leaders are not overly keen to respond to Israeli and American provocations which they view as a trap.

At a deeper level, this remarkable forbearance in the face of seemingly intolerable provocations is the result of Iranian leaders' strategic calculus. Iran's leaders long ago concluded that enormous pressures - including sabotage operations - would be directed against the country to coerce the leadership to discontinue the nuclear programme. By refusing to retaliate against the country's enemies, Iranian leaders are sending yet another signal that they are committed to staying on the same strategic trajectory regardless of the costs.

Psychological warfare vs real warfare
On the psychological warfare front Iranian leaders and senior IRGC commanders have risen to the challenge and thrown down the gauntlet at the United States.

The leader of the Islamic Revolution dramatically raised the stakes earlier in the month when he warned potential aggressors that any military attack on Iran would be met with "iron fists".

This was followed by harsh warnings by the commander of the Basij paramilitary force, Mohammad-Reza Naghdi, who proclaimed on the eve of "Basij week" that the United States wouldn't be able to "withstand an Iranian attack".

Widely viewed as the most hardline personality at the higher reaches of the Islamic regime, Naghdi is making speeches at cultural and commemorative events on practically a daily basis, a clear indication of the Iranian leaders' growing concern about the threat of military conflict with the United States.

In recent days senior IRGC commanders have ratcheted up the rhetoric even further. Commenting on Israeli threats to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities, General Amir Ali Haji-Zadeh, commander of the IRGC's aerospace division, claimed that this is "a great wish on our part for them [Israelis] to undertake this action as that would release our unspent energies toward the direction of destroying the enemies of Islam and the Muslims once and for all".

Addressing the death of Tehrani-Moghaddam and the growing threat of American-led military action, the Iranian defense minister (and former IRGC commander) Ahmad Vahidi claimed that new anti-ship missiles would be delivered to Iranian forces in the coming days.

The regular Iranian military also weighed in on the defensive capacity-building rhetoric, with the commander of the Khattam-ol-Anbia air defense center, Brigadier-General Farzad Esmaili, vowing to turn Iranian airspace into an "inferno" for invading enemy warplanes.

In keeping with the Islamic Republic's conceptualization of the Arab revolutions as an "Islamic Awakening", the deputy chief of staff of the Iranian armed forces (and former IRGC commander) Major-General Mostafa Izadi, claimed that the regionwide political changes were the product of "Basiji" thinking.

Addressing a commemorative event during "Basij week", Izadi emphasized the growing role of cyber warfare and claimed that the Islamic Republic's "combatants" are fighting the enemy on Israel's borders.

Most recently Hamid Reza Moghadam-Far, the head of the IRGC's socio-cultural programs and the former managing director of the semi-official Fars news agency, told the same media outlet (which is close to the IRGC), that the "enemies" cannot even effectively threaten Iran anymore "because they know that any threat will be met by an even greater threat ... and that any military assault will result in their [the enemies] destruction".

In combination, this type of deadly serious rhetoric is probably effective in complicating American planning, if not deterring an imminent attack altogether. Furthermore, while the scenarios set out by senior IRGC commanders are plausible, little regard is given to potential US responses to ferocious Iranian resistance.

In fact, in their public rhetoric at least, IRGC commanders appear to be unperturbed by the long-term political and strategic consequences of a military clash with the world's sole superpower.

The only serious effort at tacking these difficult issues in the public domain is an extended essay by Amir Mohebian, former political editor at the conservative Resalat newspaper, and arguably the country's most clear-sighted and shrewd political analyst. Unusually the essay is published on the official website of Ayatollah Khamenei, thus giving added weight to its contents. [1]

Mohebian divides the US military threat into three potential scenarios; 1) a full-scale air and ground campaign designed to capture Tehran and overthrow the Islamic Republic; 2) a limited war designed to achieve specific political objectives, namely to force Iran to the negotiating table; 3) a smart war designed to cripple Iran's offensive capability, specifically Iran's ability to strike at Israel.

Mohebian rules out the first two scenarios largely on account of the nature of the Islamic Republic and the scale and quality of its supporters. Indeed, by all credible accounts a full-scale land campaign designed to occupy Iran runs the risk of either humiliating failure or an unprecedented human catastrophe.

In order to occupy Tehran and overthrow the Islamic Republic, the US armed forces would not only have to fight the regular Iranian armed forces and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (and its Basij paramilitary force), but they would also have to contend with millions of unaffiliated Islamic Republic loyalists, who are expected to mobilize and fight to the death.

In this scenario, the US armed forces are faced with the very real risk of defeat unless they contemplate the use of tactical nuclear weapons, which could potentially result in the deaths of millions of Iranians.

While Mohebian identifies the third scenario (smart warfare) as the most likely in a conflict situation, he downplays the likelihood of military conflict altogether and concludes that US sabre-rattling is ultimately reducible to psychological warfare designed foremost to weaken or remove Iran's trump cards in any future negotiations process.

Despite his trenchant analysis, Mohebian appears to underestimate US time lines, specifically the use of conflict by the US as the starting point of a very long-term strategy of weakening and ultimately altering Iran's strategic profile.

In conclusion, the confidence of Iranian leaders and analysts on the Islamic Republic's ability to withstand and benefit from what they see as an unlikely military conflict with the US is predicated upon their prioritizing of short-term political dividends (in terms of mass mobilization behind the Islamic Republic both nationally and regionally) over long-term strategic costs.

Note:
1. See here

Mahan Abedin is an analyst of Middle East politics.