Displaying posts categorized under

FOREIGN POLICY

U.S. Probes Third Attack on Ship Off Yemen’s Coast Investigation comes days after USS Mason came under attack from territory controlled by Houthi rebels By Asa Fitch

DUBAI—The U.S. is investigating a possible new missile attack against a navy destroyer in the Red Sea off the coast of Yemen, the navy’s Middle East-focused branch said Sunday.

The crew on the ship, the USS Mason, had “indications of a possible inbound missile threat and deployed appropriate defensive measures,” the U.S. Naval Forces Central Command said in a statement. All U.S. ships and sailors were safe, and the navy was assessing the situation, the statement said.

If confirmed, the attack late on Saturday would be the third such attempt on the USS Mason in recent days as it patrols international waters near Yemen, where a bloody 18-month war is raging.

U.S. officials said two missiles were fired at the ship from territory controlled by Yemen’s Houthi rebels last Sunday. On Wednesday, the ship came under attack from two more missiles apparently fired by the Houthis. None of the missiles hit its target.

In response to the repeated barrages, U.S. destroyed three radar sites along Yemen’s western coast using Tomahawk missiles fired from the destroyer Nitze, significantly deepening American involvement in the conflict. The radar sites had been used to track U.S. ship movements, a Pentagon spokesman said.

The Houthis, a Shiite rebel group that controls Yemen’s capital, San’a, denied targeting the USS Mason, and condemned the U.S. strikes on the radar sites.

From Yemen to Turtle Bay How Iran is driving the U.S. out of the Middle East. Caroline Glick

Iran’s game is clear enough. It wishes to replace the US as the regional hegemon, at the US’s expense.

Since Obama entered office nearly eight years ago, Iran’s record in advancing its aims has been one of uninterrupted success.

Iran used the US withdrawal from Iraq as a means to exert its full control over the Iraqi government. It has used Obama’s strategic vertigo in Syria as a means to exert full control over the Assad regime and undertake the demographic transformation of Syria from a Sunni majority state to a Shi’ite plurality state.

In both cases, rather than oppose Iran’s power grabs, the Obama administration has welcomed them. As far as Obama is concerned, Iran is a partner, not an adversary.

Since like the US, Iran opposes al-Qaida and ISIS, Obama argues that the US has nothing to fear from the fact that Iranian-controlled Shiite militias are running the US-trained Iraqi military.

So, too, he has made clear that the US is content to stand by as the mullahs become the face of Syria.

In Yemen, the US position has been more ambivalent. In late 2014, Houthi rebel forces took over the capital city of Sanaa. In March 2015, the Saudis led a Sunni campaign to overthrow the Houthi government. In a bid to secure Saudi support for the nuclear agreement it was negotiating with the Iranians, the Obama administration agreed to support the Saudi campaign. To this end, the US military has provided intelligence, command and control guidance, and armaments to the Saudis.

Iran’s decision to openly assault US targets then amounts to a gamble on Tehran’s part that in the twilight of the Obama administration, the time is ripe to move in for the kill in Yemen. The Iranians are betting that at this point, with just three months to go in the White House, Obama will abandon the Saudis, and so transfer control over Arab oil to Iran.

For with the Strait of Hormuz on the one hand, and the Bab al-Mandab on the other, Iran will exercise effective control over all maritime oil flows from the Arab world.

It’s not a bad bet for the Iranians, given Obama’s consistent strategy in the Middle East.

Obama has never discussed that strategy.

Indeed, he has deliberately concealed it. But to understand the game he has been playing all along, the only thing you need to do listen to his foreign policy soul mate.

According to a New York Times profile published in May, Obama’s deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes is the president’s alter ego. The two men’s minds have “melded.”

Rhodes’s first foreign policy position came in the course of his work for former congressman Lee Hamilton.

In 2006, then-president George W. Bush appointed former secretary of state James Baker and Hamilton to lead the Iraq Study Group. Bush tasked the group with offering a new strategy for winning the war in Iraq. The group released its report in late 2006.

Obama’s Iran Missile War He doesn’t want to talk about America’s new proxy war in Yemen.

The White House doesn’t want Americans to notice, but the tide of war is not receding in the Middle East. The Navy this week became part of the hot war in Yemen, with a U.S. warship launching missiles against radar targets after American vessels were fired on this week. Just when President Obama promised that American retreat would bring peace to the region, the region pulls him back in.

The destroyer USS Nitze fired Tomahawk cruise missiles to take out three radar sites on the Yemen coast believed to be manned by Houthi rebels. Though the Houthis deny it, the Pentagon believes they were responsible for the multiple-missile attack on Sunday against the USS Mason, another destroyer patrolling in international waters. This was no mere warning shot. The Mason had to use active defenses, including interceptor missiles, to prevent a strike that could have killed dozens of sailors.

Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook called the USS Nitze’s response Thursday “limited self-defense strikes [that] were conducted to protect our personnel, our ships, and our freedom of navigation in this important maritime passageway.” That’s another way of saying this was the minimum the U.S. could do to defend our sailors and get the Houthis to stop firing, and we hope it works.

But there’s more to this story because the Houthis are one of Iran’s regional proxy armies. They are fighting to control Yemen against a Saudi-led coalition that is trying to restore the former Sunni Arab government in Sana’a. The U.S. has been quietly backing the Saudis with intelligence and arms, though the Saudi coalition has been fighting to a draw with the Houthis, who are supplied by Iran. The cruise missiles used against the USS Mason are also used by Hezbollah, another Iran proxy army.

Don’t expect the White House to acknowledge this because the ironies here are something to behold. Mr. Obama is backing the Saudis in Yemen in part to reassure them of U.S. support after the U.S.-Iran nuclear deal that the Saudis opposed. Mr. Obama’s Iran deal was supposed to moderate Iran’s regional ambitions, so Mr. Obama could play a mediating role between Tehran and Riyadh. But the nuclear deal has emboldened Iran, and fortified it with more money, so now the U.S. is being drawn into what amounts to a proxy war against Iran. Genius. CONTINUE AT SITE

Daryl McCann: Obama’s War

To combat a threat it is essential to recognise it and this US President simply cannot acknowledge that Islamist terror is a genuine peril, with one source citing him as likening it to the possibility of being killed in a bathroom fall. Is it any wonder the West is losing?
The language of Barack Obama’s 2009 Inaugural Address contained passages that were distinctly Churchillian: “Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred.” President Obama, nevertheless, promised victory against the dark forces:

And to those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken—you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you. [Applause]

The promise of victory has long vanished from Barack Obama’s agenda. Still, earlier this year, President Obama made a case for the success of the Obama Doctrine in a series of lengthy interviews with Jeffrey Goldberg for the Atlantic magazine. Although the world had turned out to be a “complicated, messy, mean place”, the President reasoned, he had mostly got the balance right between “big-hearted” and “hard-headed”—mission, of a sort, accomplished.

According to Goldberg’s White House interview and background briefings, Barack Obama has always had reservations about Islamic revivalism and the deleterious effect of exported Saudi-style Salafism (Wahhabism):

In a meeting during APEC with Malcolm Turnbull, the [then] new prime minister of Australia, Obama described how he has watched Indonesia gradually move from a relaxed, syncretistic Islam to a more fundamentalist, unforgiving interpretation; large numbers of Indonesian women, he observed, have now adopted the hijab, the Muslim head covering.

U.S. Strikes Rebel-Held Sites in Yemen Used in Attacks on U.S. Navy Ships Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from warship, marking new level of U.S. military involvementBy Gordon Lubold

WASHINGTON—The U.S. struck and destroyed three coastal radar sites in Yemen early Thursday in a significant military response to a series of attempted attacks against American warships in recent days, deepening America’s role in the country’s protracted civil war.

U.S. personnel aboard the destroyer Nitze launched a series of Tomahawk cruise missiles against the three separate radar sites along the Red Sea Coast, north of what is known as the Basb-el-Mandeb strait, Pentagon officials said in a statement late Wednesday. Initial assessments by the military indicate all three sites were destroyed, officials said.

The radar sites, all within Houthi-controlled territory in southern Yemen, were used during two separate attempted attacks against U.S. Navy ships, as well as in a third against a UAE-flagged swiftboat, over the last few days, according to Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook. The sites were ground radar installations that U.S. officials believe were used by rebels to track American ship movements.
“These limited self-defense strikes were conducted to protect our personnel, our ships and our freedom of navigation in this important maritime passageway,” Mr. Cook said in a statement issued late Wednesday evening. He added that the U.S. would respond to “any further threat” to American ships and commercial traffic in the area.

The strikes represent a potentially significant step for the U.S. in Yemen, where a bloody civil war has pitted Iranian-backed Houthi rebels against a Saudi-led coalition supported by the U.S. Before now, American strikes in Yemen only have targeted al Qaeda leaders. The U.S. is supporting Saudi Arabia in air operations against Houthi rebels, but hasn’t taken an active military role.

Washington has tried to strike an uncomfortable balance in the war, backing the Saudi-led air campaign but criticizing Saudi officials for excessive violence against civilians, especially after dozens were killed when strikes hit a funeral recently. In the aftermath of that strike, the U.S. said it would reconsider the scope of its support for Saudi’s campaign, which includes aerial refueling and some intelligence-sharing and training, and urged a negotiated settlement. CONTINUE AT SITE

The Naked Truth about Russia and Putin. An “edge of your seat” interview. see note by Janet Levy

The interview below by Frank Gaffney of Russia expert, author, filmmaker and think tank scholar, David Satter, will have you on the edge of your seat. You’ll feel like you’re listening to a great spy thriller. You won’t believe your ears on Beslan, the Moscow theater episode, the war in Chechnya, the Russian apartment bombings of the late 90’s, etc.!
The video is comprised of 5 segments of 9 minutes each (skip the ads). (If you listen to it on Stitcher and increase the time signature to 1.25x, you can hear it all (minus the commercials) in 36 minutes in your car while you’re driving to an appointment).

http://securefreedomradio.podbean.com/e/with-david-satter/

Rhodes Scholar, David Satter, was a Moscow correspondent for the Financial Times of London, a special correspondent on Soviet affairs for the Wall Street Journal, a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and a visiting professor at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Today, the accomplished author of four non-fiction books on Russia is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a fellow of Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. In 2013, he was expelled from Russia by the government.

Satter’s latest book is The Less You Know, The Better You Sleep: Russia’s Road to Terror and Dictatorship Under Yeltsin and Putin. Janet Levy,

Hillary’s Leaked Memo Accuses Saudi Arabia and Qatar of Supporting Terror Groups Clinton’s explosive memo accuses the Saudi and Qatari governments of terror support and refers to past U.S. plans to arm Syrian fighters. By Andrew C. McCarthy

As has been widely reported this week, Hillary Clinton has accused the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar of “providing financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups.” She made this explosive claim in a memorandum outlining what is portrayed as her nine-point plan to defeat the Islamic State (the jihadist network also known as “ISIL” and “ISIS”) in Iraq and Syria.

The allegation against these two regimes is far from the only bombshell in the memo, which Mrs. Clinton sent to the White House in August 2014, a year and a half after she had stepped down as secretary of state. She sent it to John Podesta, who was then a top adviser to President Obama and is now the chairman of Clinton’s presidential campaign. The memo is included in the trove of e-mails hacked from Podesta’s accounts and published by WikiLeaks in recent days.

Another passage that has thus far received little attention is this one (the italics are mine):

We should return to plans to provide the FSA [i.e., the Free Syrian Army], or some group of moderate forces, with equipment that will allow them to deal with a weakened ISIL, and stepped up operations against the Syrian regime.

There has been no small amount of controversy regarding Obama-administration plans to arm so-called rebels fighting Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria — including questions about Mrs. Clinton’s knowledge of those plans. In particular, Congress has inquired about the administration’s participation in the shipment of weapons from Libyan Islamists to the Syrian rebels, including in 2012, while Clinton was still secretary of state.

As I noted in a recent column, one major weapons shipment from Benghazi to Turkey for eventual transit to Syria occurred just days before jihadists affiliated with al-Qaeda murdered four American officials in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. One of the officials killed was J. Christopher Stevens, the American ambassador to Benghazi who reported directly to Clinton — both in that capacity and in his earlier capacity as Obama-administration liaison to Islamist groups the Obama administration was supporting in Libya’s civil war. Siding with Islamists against the regime of Moammar Qaddafi, which was previously touted by the State Department as a key counterterrorism ally, was a policy spearheaded by Secretary Clinton.

The September 2012 weapons shipment was coordinated by Abdelhakim Belhadj, an al-Qaeda–affiliated jihadist with whom Stevens had consulted during the uprising against Qaddafi. Belhadj, one of the Islamists empowered by the Obama-Clinton Libya policy, took control of the Libyan Military Council after Qaddafi was overthrown. The 400 tons of weapons he dispatched from Benghazi arrived in Turkey the week before Stevens was killed. The ambassador’s last meeting in Benghazi, just before the September 11 siege, was with Turkey’s consul general.

While under oath in early-2013 Senate testimony, Clinton denied any personal knowledge of weapons shipments from Benghazi to other countries.

Iranian Cause and Effect Tehran’s Houthi allies fire at U.S. ships after U.S. sanctions relief.

The Obama Administration keeps stretching the limits of the nuclear deal with Iran to provide the type of sanctions relief the mullahs believe they are owed, no matter what the deal says. So what better way to repay White House’s generosity than by firing on U.S. ships?

That’s one way to understand Sunday’s incident off the coast of Yemen, when the USS Mason, a guided-missile destroyer, and the USS Ponce, an amphibious ship, were attacked by two Chinese-built C-802 cruise missiles fired from territory controlled by Iranian-backed Houthi militia. Iran is a major operator of the C-802; its proxy Hezbollah used it in 2006 to punch a hole in an Israeli corvette off the coast of Lebanon.

On Sunday neither missile hit its target, though the USS Mason launched SM-2 air-defense missiles to defend against the threat. The episode could have ended differently: Last week the Houthis scored a direct hit on the HSV Swift, an unarmed transport shift used by the United Arab Emirates to resupply the Saudi-led military coalition that has been fighting the Houthis for 18 months.

The U.S. contributes limited intelligence support to that coalition, part of a grudging effort by the Administration to reassure Riyadh that the U.S.-Saudi alliance could survive the nuclear deal. Tehran would dearly like to dissolve that 71-year alliance, which also has been frayed by Saudi targeting mistakes that have resulted in major civilian casualties. It’s probably no coincidence that Sunday’s attacks on the U.S. ships came a day after a Saudi air strike mistakenly killed more than 140 mourners at a funeral in the Yemeni capital of Sana’a.

That attack is a tragedy, but the Administration should remember that the U.S. military has committed similar errors before it cuts Riyadh loose. If the U.S. is uncomfortable with Saudi Arabia as a friend, it will find even less to like should the kingdom ever become an enemy.

More significantly, the attack on the Navy ships—with hundreds of American sailors aboard—is another reminder that the nuclear deal has done more to embolden than moderate Tehran’s ambitions, despite a cascade of U.S. concessions.

Hillary’s No-Fly Gaffe and Trump’s Missed Opportunity; David Goldman

he most extreme misstatement of the Oct. 9 US presidential debate was Hillary Clinton’s proposal for a no-fly zone in Syria. The Democratic candidate declared, “I, when I was secretary of state, advocated and I advocate today no-fly zones and safe zones. We need some leverage with the Russians, because they are not going to come to the negotiating table for a diplomatic resolution, unless there is some leverage over them.” Neither Donald Trump nor the debate moderators mentioned the obvious: Russian air defense makes a no-fly zone in Syria impractical.

The broader issue–and one that a Republican challenger might well exploit–is that American superiority in air defense systems has eroded under the Obama administration to the point that Russia well might have the ability to down American stealth aircraft. The Pentagon doesn’t know the answer to this question, and, understandably, doesn’t want to find out. The issue is not whether America and Russia might go to war over a downed American aircraft. That is most unlikely. America’s strategic credibility would suffer a catastrophic humiliation if stealth no longer defeated Russian anti-aircraft missiles.

Russia has already installed an S-400 air defense system in Syria, designed to kill combat aircraft, and announced that it will supplement the S-400 with the S-300V system, expanding the range of Russian air defenses in the region to 250 miles. Military Times Oct. 8 quoted Steve Zolaga, a defense analyst with the Teal Group, warning that “The Russians may have felt that they needed a certain package to deal with a full-blown American air campaign. The Russians sometimes come up with these really paranoid scenarios where they see war being imminent everywhere. If you have a paranoid assessment of what the West’s intentions are, then the S-300V makes a certain amount of sense.” Given Clinton’s proposal, Russia’s deployment seems less paranoid then preemptive.

The Obama administration has already distanced itself from Clinton’s no-fly proposal, on the grounds that it would not stop the killing on the ground. But the former Secretary of State’s insistence on the no-fly zone betrays a basic ignorance of the state of American defenses as well as arrogance about the prospective use of American military power.

More pertinent is the simple issue of capability. American defense experts acknowledge that Russia is working on advanced radar that can identity and target low-observation aircraft. National Interest defense editor Dave Majumdar reviewed the issue in an August 2016 survey. Mike Kofman of CNA Corporation opined to NI, “Russia has invested in low-band early warning radars, with some great variants out there, but can it use these to put a good picture together, and process it to develop a track against low-observation aircraft?”

American experts argue that the top-of-the-line Russian systems probably can take down American fourth-generation aircraft (the variants of the F-15, F-16, and F-18) but may not be able to defeat the F-22 Raptor — yet. Pro-Russian outlets like Russia Insider claim that the next generation of Russian air defense, the S-500 system scheduled for 2017 deployment, will “push the F-35 into retirement.”

The issue is not whether Russian radar can track stealth aircraft, but whether it can do so quickly and accurately enough to target missiles. That remains an unanswered question. A senior Defense Department official said on deep background that the Pentagon does not know the answer, and does not wish to find out the hard way.

Bill Whittle’s Firewall: Debating Hillary, Part 5: Fighting ISIS Everything Hillary has touched overseas has turned into a disaster.

Hillary Clinton says she has a “plan” to “really squeeze ISIS in Syria.” It seems like Syria might be squeezed enough already. In Part 5 of this 6-part series, Bill Whittle lays out the historical facts that show that Clinton and Obama CREATED ISIS.

Transcript below:

CLINTON: I have put forth a plan to defeat ISIS. Our military is assisting in Iraq. And we’re hoping that within the year we’ll be able to push ISIS out of Iraq and then, you know, really squeeze them in Syria.

Hillary, while you continue to “hope” to “squeeze them” in Syria, ISIS is busy murdering people in Paris and Brussels and at home here in Orlando and San Bernardino and almost every week now innocent people are dying BECAUSE OF YOU.

YOU created ISIS, you and Barack Obama. When Obama took office, Iraq had been stabilized and there had not been a single American killed in Iraq in FIVE MONTHS.

You, as Secretary of State, were unable or more likely unwilling to conclude a simple Status of Forces Agreement in Iraq. I say unwilling because we have damn near a hundred of them with countries all around the world.

However, you and the President announced we would be leaving the Iraqis all alone, and within a very short period the defeated, scattered remnants of AQI – al-Qaeda in Iraq – formed ISIS. You could have stopped them at any time but you didn’t because you couldn’t face the political humiliation of putting boots back on the ground in Iraq after you took credit for pulling them out. And they grew, and grew and grew and grew – because you CREATED them by not leaving troops in Iraq. We’ve had US troops stationed in Europe for SIXTY years and in Korea for a little over FIFTY YEARS and you refused to do it for five.

You launched an unauthorized war in Libya. You’ve armed – and have had America fly air cover for – AL QAEDA. You may remember them from their appearance fifteen years ago in lower New York. Your husband, by the way, had at least one chance to kill Osama bin Laden years before that attack, but declined on the advice of White House lawyers.

Under your direction, the State Department has become so incompetent that when you first met the Russian ambassador, you gave him a toy box with a big red button marked ‘”RESET.” Only it didn’t say RESET because you and your State Department were so arrogant and uninformed that you could not correctly translate ONE RUSSIAN WORD in front of the entire world in order make a bad joke.

Everything you have touched overseas has turned into a disaster and given what you have said so far tonight it seems pretty clear that you were given the chance, the same catastrophes would occur here at home.