USA Builds Up the Shia Horn/Crescent (Daniel 8:22)

US leverages Iran-Iraq-Syria axis against Islamic State

Al Monitor

Last week, this column, picking up on US Secretary of State John Kerry’s remark to the UN Security Council on Sept. 19 that Iran has a role to play in the coalition against the Islamic State (IS), suggested, “While the Obama administration has ruled out an alliance with Syria, Iran could be a bridge to Damascus within an international coalition against IS and in a subsequent political transition in Syria.”

 

This week, Reuters, citing unnamed senior Iranian and US officials, reported that the United States had informed Iran in advance of airstrikes against IS forces in Syria and assured Tehran that it would not target Syrian government positions.

Another bridge to Syria and Iran has been Iraq, according to Foreign Policy’s The Cable and The Wall Street Journal. Iraqi national security adviser Faleh al-Fayyad traveled to Syria on Sept. 16 to brief Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on the “latest steps taken in this regard, as well as discussing upcoming steps and possible measures to ensure the success of these efforts and eliminate terrorist organizations in all their forms.”

Although the deputy chief of staff of Iran’s armed forces, Gen. Massoud Jazayeri, said that Iran’s nuclear negotiating team at the United Nations has no authority to discuss the campaign against IS, as reported by Arash Karami, it is an open secret that US and Iranian officials have been talking about just that on the sidelines of the nuclear talks.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, in his remarks at the UN, opened the door to even further collaboration against IS once a nuclear deal is reached, as reported by Barbara Slavin and Laura Rozen.

The United States and Iran cannot formally link arms in Syria, especially given the lack of progress in the nuclear talks. Iran has been an adversary and enemy, not an ally, and still supports and shelters terrorists, according to The Daily Beast.

Nonetheless, the trend to watch is the tentative emergence of what may be a truly regional counterterrorism coalition, with potential for a transformation in regional security, if managed carefully.

This column speculated back in January that the “new pulse” of the Geneva II process would be addressing the threat to counterterrorism in the region, with an essential role for Iran.

The Iran-Iraq-Syria axis provides a sectarian complement to the primarily Sunni Arab powers backing US airstrikes.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, after meeting with Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal on Sept. 21, spoke of “the first page of a new chapter” in Iran-Saudi relations, with consequences for many of the region’s most vexing conflicts.

Iran is in the fight against IS for its own interests, not to cull favor with the United States. Its efforts have won praise from Massoud Barzani, president of Iraq’s Kurdistan Regional Government, who said at a press conference with Zarif on Aug. 27, “Iran was the first country to provide us with weapons and ammunition” to confront the IS advance toward Erbil.

While Zarif denied that Iran had provided any ground forces in Iraq, Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, who runs the aerospace division of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), said this past week that IRGC forces were directly involved in the defense of Erbil, according to The Associated Press.

Iran was instrumental in the peaceful transfer of the premiership from Nouri al-Maliki to Haider al-Abadi in Iraq, and in managing the presidential transition from former President Hamid Karzai to Ashraf Ghani in Afghanistan. Cooperation in Afghanistan may be more urgent than ever, given the recent surge in Taliban violence in that country.

There are alternative perspectives on Iran’s role against IS. For some observers, the prospect of any type of accommodation with Iran is so alarming that they suggest giving a kind of pass to Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria, which has aligned with other so-called moderate Islamist rebel forces, because of the perceived greater good of toppling Assad, and to assure Iran does not get an advantage in Syria.

Just a quick fact: Al-Qaeda, not Assad or Iran, was responsible for the terrorist attacks against the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, and until last year, Jabhat al-Nusra worked hand in hand with IS. The break between the two groups, both of which are designated by the United States and the UN as terrorist organizations, is the result of a power struggle, not a change of heart in either its hatred of the United States or its ambitions to impose Sharia in those areas it controls.

If there are US-backed opposition groups that are aligned with Jabhat al-Nusra and advocating a go-easy approach on the terrorist group, then perhaps the United States should reconsider funding those “moderate” groups. This column warned in December 2013 that the emergence of the Islamic Front among the opposition would be a “disaster for Syria’s opposition and future,” and here we are today with some in the Syrian opposition seeking to mainstream an al-Qaeda affiliate.

This should be a huge, neon warning sign about the perils of playing in opposition politics, where anti-Western jihadists, not pro-US democrats, carry the most sway.

The actions taken by Iran against IS to date contrast with what Turkey has done, or not done, until now against the terrorist group. The release last week of the 46 Turkish citizens held hostage by IS in Iraq may signal a new Turkish approach. Mustafa Akyol reviews polling data that reveals jihadism is a “marginal trend” in Turkish society.

Semih Idiz writes that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan will need to overcome some troubling caveats in Turkey’s policies to date against extremist groups and step up against IS:
“It’s also not clear how the ruling Justice and Development Party’s Islamist roots will respond to active participation by Turkey against IS and other such Islamic groups, regardless of how radical they may be. Developments have shown, however, that Turkey is not as influential on its own in the region as it may have once thought, and that it has little choice but to move back to the multilateral track. This means it has no choice but to act with regional and global allies to confront situations that pose a danger to its national security.”

The trend toward a regional counterterrorism strategy is nascent and fragile, but — if managed carefully — has the potential, over time, of a breakthrough in regional politics, especially with a change in Turkish policies.

Despite the political constraints on Rouhani by hard-liners in Iran, his government is already taking its own initiative to battle extremists in the region and clearly signaling it is ready to do more. As Fareed Zakaria wrote this week: “When Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger decided in the 1970s that Iran would be one of their ‘regional policemen,’ they did so out of recognition of Iran’s geostrategic importance, not simply because they supported the shah.”

If Iran, over time, shifts from enemy to ally, beginning with a nuclear agreement and coordination in the fight against terrorism, then many of the region’s most vexing problems, including the role of Hezbollah, can be put in play. This column reported in February: “A discussion with Iran about Syria is a prelude to a broader discussion about Hezbollah, which is at the crux of the US tagging Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism.” That is the conversation that needs to be had during this transition. Given how far the US-Iran dialogue has already come, it is not out of the question to consider the potential of such a trend.

The Arab pulse

The trend toward a possible regional coalition against IS, under US leadership, could be the beginning of the end for the extremist force that, according to the latest US government estimates, number between 20,000 and 31,500.

While the threat of Islamic extremism will never be completely eradicated, there is a pulse among the peoples of the Arab world for a new politics, transparency and accountability from their leaders. The trend toward conflict resolution and good governance in the Middle East is fragile and not assured, but it can take hold if given a chance.

Look at Lebanon. More than two decades after a brutal sectarian civil war, the country today is a vibrant mosaic of its peoples and cultures. The leaders and groups that fought each other for decades now coexist, sometimes uneasily, but coexist nonetheless around a consensus on keeping the peace. It is fragile, for sure, but it is there. Lebanon’s universities maintain their reputation as a magnet for the best and brightest in Lebanon and the region.

Despite these nascent yet hopeful trends, there remains an approach to the region that pins the problems of the Arab world on its alleged “civilizational ills,” implying Arabs have a cultural predisposition to tribalism, corruption and religious violence, as if these phenomena do not exist in other cultures and societies. These culturally driven essays make good copy, especially when written by someone from the region who employs an abundance of “history” and metaphor.

A more helpful, and truly analytical, historical approach to what is indeed a crisis in the Arab region would include an assessment of the effect of colonialism and the postcolonial experience on Arab societies; the impact of oil on the international relations of the region; the consequences of rentier economies in the Gulf; the role of outside, non-Arab powers including the United States, Russia, European countries, Israel, Iran and Turkey on the region’s politics; the impact of the creation of Israel and the Palestinian national movement; the influence of the Wahhabist tradition on current jihadist groups; the role of states, institutions and individuals, in and outside the region, which have backed the flow and emergence of these jihadist movements; and the economic and demographic trends that may shape the Arab region in the decades to come.

Arab civilization is not “sick”; its peoples are in the midst of a struggle for identity and democracy, where the forces of extremism command resources and influence. The people of the Levant love their culture, their cities and their land, and there is much to be proud of. There is no reason to believe the Arab peoples of the Levant will not reclaim their place in the world, as happened in Lebanon, with the assistance of an international community and region that is ready to put an end to those fringe groups that prey on the forces of division, not unity.

 

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/09/syria-iran-alliance-islamic-state-extremism-rouhani-zarif.html#ixzz3Ef6R4HAr

“TheTrumpet” Was Correct: Pakistan Is The Third Horn (Daniel 8:22)

How Stable Is Nuclear-Armed Pakistan?

September 5, 2014  •  From theTrumpet.com

By Jeremiah Jacques

 

Pakistan’s Nuclear Terrorism

For the last two weeks, Pakistan’s two leading opposition movements have laid aside their differences and rallied together in a violent effort to overthrow the government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.
Tens of thousands of protesters led by Imran Khan and outspoken cleric Tahir ul-Qadri have flooded into the capital city, Islamabad, saying they will not leave unless Sharif steps down. They have accused him of corruption and rigging last year’s election. The prime minister has denied all charges and has asked Khan and Qadri to negotiate. Both opposition leaders so far have refused these calls.
Since mid-August, Islamabad has been largely incapacitated by the unrest. Many roads have been closed, businesses have been suffering steep losses, and troops and police have been occupied protecting government facilities.

On Saturday evening, demonstrators broke through police lines and attempted to march on Sharif’s house. At least three were killed and hundreds injured in the unsuccessful attempt. On Monday, protesters overtook and ravaged the state television headquarters until the army cleared them out and secured the building.

On Tuesday, Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar said, “This is not a protest, a sit-in or a political gathering. This is a rebellion. It is a rebellion against state institutions. It is a rebellion against the state of Pakistan .… They are not revolutionaries, they are intruders and terrorists.”

Although the tensions appeared to be easing on Wednesday, the unrest has unnerved the country where power is often transferred by military coups instead of elections. It has also concerned the international community, in large part because Pakistan is a member of one of the world’s most exclusive clubs: The Nuclear Nine.

Pakistan’s military, which is mostly pro-Western, controls its 100-plus nuclear weapons. But a collapse of the government could mean an uncertain future for the arms. It is possible that they could even fall under the control of some of Pakistan’s many Islamic extremists or terrorists groups. A United States government analysis, quoted by nbc News in 2011, called Pakistan “the least stable of the nine nuclear weapons states and the one where there has been significant support for Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, not only among the general population but also within the military and intelligence forces.”

It is telling that Bin Laden was able to live, undisturbed, just a few hundred yards away from a prestigious Pakistani military academy for nearly a decade.

The instability of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons was perhaps most evident in 2007 and 2008, when homegrown terrorists attacked its nuclear sites at least three times. In November 2007, terrorists struck the nuclear missile storage facility at Sargodha. That December, a suicide bomber attacked Pakistan’s nuclear airbase at Kamra. The following August, Pakistani Taliban suicide bombers raided an armament complex at the Wah Cantonment, one of Pakistan’s primary weapons facilities, and managed to blow up several of its entry points.

Even if the current wave of unrest in Pakistan blows over, the potential for turmoil in the nuclear nation remains high.

The Trumpet has often warned of the danger of Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal falling under the control of radical Islamism. In January 2008, editor in chief Gerald Flurry wrote that “Pakistan also has the nuclear bomb and could be taken over by radical Islam, with plenty of help from Iran.” This nation, the world’s seventh-most powerful military power, could soon become a “proxy of the Iranian mullahs,” he warned, and “this would be the worst possible disaster!”

During His time on Earth, Jesus Christ specifically warned of the age of nuclear proliferation we live in today. He showed that this time of peril points to the imminence of His return. To understand how the instability in Pakistan could tie in to that hope-filled event, read Mr. Flurry’s commentary “Pakistan and the Shah of Iran.”

The Third Nuclear Horn Destabilized (Daniel 8:22)

U.S. Power Vacuum Now Threatens To Destabilize Nuclear-Armed Pakistan

Investor’s Business Daily

 

Pakistani Protester Against Sharif in Islamabad

Radical Threat: Anti-government demonstrators could soon upend the one Islamic country that has nuclear weapons. Ironically, candidate Barack Obama feigned hawkishness in 2008 by threatening to intervene in Pakistan.

Violent protests in Islamabad involving tens of thousands are threatening Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s hold on power. With a comfortable parliamentary majority, Sharif responded by convening both chambers to buttress his support and strengthen opposition to what his government considers an anti-democratic, terrorist rebellion.

Last week, all of Pakistan’s political factions actually joined together and formally urged Sharif to resist the demonstrators’ demands to resign.

But representative government just doesn’t impress populations in the Islamic Mideast the way it impresses us in the West. That is why President Obama’s 2009 appearance in Cairo — in which he said “I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world” — ended up unleashing not democratic forces but their opposite.

The collapse of a nuclear-armed Islamic country’s government would be a chillingly unpredictable event, even though Pakistan’s military, which controls the nuclear weapons, is in many respects is pro-Western. Right now such a collapse looks unlikely, but the rise of a new jihadist state in parts of Iraq and Syria looked unlikely two years ago.

And before Obama, so did the toppling of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, where he was in power for three decades.

It is vital to U.S. interests for a nuclear-armed Pakistan not to be run by forces hostile to us. At the same time, Pakistani leaders seen to be too cozy with the U.S. become targets of repeated assassination attempts, as was the case with former President Pervez Musharraf, now under house arrest.

Imagine the disaster of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons landing in the wrong hands. A nonclassified U.S. government analysis, conceding the obvious, was quoted by NBC News in 2011. It described Pakistan as “the least stable of the nine nuclear weapons states and the one where there has been significant support for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida, not only among the general population but also within the military and intelligence forces.”

Bin laden, after all, managed to live there undisturbed, near a key Pakistani military institution, for about nine years.

The Pakistan Security Research Center at Britain’s University of Bradford cited indigenous terrorist attacks on a nuclear missile storage facility at Sarghoda, Pakistan, in November 2007; on the nuclear air base at Kamra, Pakistan, by a suicide bomber the following month; and Pakistani Taliban suicide bombers blowing up several entrances at one of the country’s primary nuclear-weapon assembly centers the following year.

Read More At Investor’s Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/090214-715648-a-destabilized-pakistan-could-mean-nuclear-armed-terrorists.htm#ixzz3CDsGSpZu

Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

Terrorism From The Third Horn (Daniel 8:22)

Pakistan – Planet Earth’s Terrorism Factory

LeT Terrorists in Pakistan

On August 14th 1947, Planet Earth established its first terrorist factory. Soon after British Colonial rule in the Indian subcontinent came to an end the nation of Pakistan was founded. A country was established based solely on religious beliefs, its borders drawn by foreign hands with the blood of the ethnic and religious minorities of the region. The ensuing bloodbath became of the most brutal in all history. Nearly a million people are estimated to have been slaughtered in the newly created Pakistan.
To this day Pakistan proudly celebrates the massacres and atrocities committed on August 14th.
Since its creation, Pakistan has been a hotbed of oppression and violence. Ethnic and religious minorities in Pakistan have faced continuous discrimination, oppression, and genocide throughout Pakistan’s history. Balochi, Bengali, Pashtun, Sindhi, Christians, Sihks, Shia Muslims, Hindus, and many other ethnic minorities have faced severe persecution in Pakistan. In 1971 Pakistan killed an estimated 3 million people in an attempted genocide against the Bengali ethnicity in what was once Eastern Pakistan & is today Bangladesh.

The entire Balochistan region was forcefully annexed by Pakistan in 1948. On 5 different occasions the Pakistan army occupied the Balochistan region and engaged in a brutal campaign of human rights abuses and barbaric atrocities under the pretense of fighting Baloch insurgencies. Since the armed occupation of Balochistan in 2004, the region has become an epicenter of human rights abuses. The Pakistan administration openly conducts a violent campaign of ethnic cleansing in Balochistan.  Pakistan’s armed forces have adopted a “Pick Kill & Dump” policy to facilitate the ultimate extermination of Baloch nationalism and Balochi culture. Baloch activists, journalists, educators, students, and other professionals are targeted for extra-judicial abduction torture and execution. Bullet riddled bodies of abductees bearing marks of severe acts of torture are found dumped in rural areas on a daily basis. Rural Baloch villages are relentlessly bombarded by artillery and gunship helicopters killing, injuring, and displacing thousands of residents. Earlier this year in Khudzar, Balochistan, Mass graves containing hundreds of extra judicially executed Baloch were discovered.

Although rich in natural resources, such as natural gas, copper, gold, coal and many other minerals & fuels, Balochistan is one of the poorest and most underdeveloped regions in Pakistan. Despite Pakistan’s theatrical promises of infrastructure and development, the indigenous population of the region remains impoverished. Any discontent amongst the public is met with swift and severe military action. Professional death squads are employed by Pakistan’s military establishment to assassinate Balochi nationalists and their family members. Since 2006 over 19,000 Baloch civilians have been abducted, and more than 2,000 tortured bodies found in Balochistan. Not one single victim of these extra judicial executions has been brought before a court or even charged with a crime.

Many Baloch separatist parties have worked tirelessly towards a free and independent Balochistan. Although these parties have pursued peaceful means towards independence, they have been outlawed in Pakistan. The leaders of these parties have been abducted, exiled or assassinated. The exiled leaders continue to protest the occupation of Balochistan on the international stage and work to create awareness among the world governments of the gross human rights abuses in Balochistan. The Baloch separatist groups remain unified in their goal of a moderate secular independent Balochistan and have consistently condemned religious extremism. Prior to the annexation of the region by Pakistan in 1948, Balochistan was home to a myriad of ethnicities from many different religious denominations. Historically Balochistan and the indigenous Baloch people are a very tolerant and progressive community.

A few brave Balochi ‘Sarmachar’ or Freedom Fighters have established several small guerilla units in Balochistan to defend against the FC bombardments and ISI Death Squads, but are drastically outnumbered and outgunned against the Pakistan army. Albeit small in numbers, but very capable, the Balochi Fighters are able to fend off the Pakistani Soldiers using a very limited arsenal of primitive weapons. Although capable and effective, the Baloch Freedom Fighters lack the capacity and logistics to establish a defense force. Instead they are forced to use guerilla tactics such as ambushing convoys, attacking army encampments and disrupting supply lines. Baloch Freedom Fighters do not target civilians, use human bombs, religious rhetoric or any other terrorist type tactics to achieve or justify their goals. The Baloch Sarmachar proudly fight for an independent Balochistan and their entitlement to basic human rights.

Meanwhile, violent gangs of extremist thugs such as Lashkar-e-Janghavi, Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, Tanzeem-ul-Furqan-ul-Islam, and many others continue their violent campaign of terrorism with total impunity. TuF has forced the closure of schools in several regions throughout central Balochistan after distributing pamphlets condemning girls’ education and teaching of modern or secular materials. Soon after the threats a school bus carrying girls to school was attacked with rockets and machine guns near a FC checkpoint. Regional security not only failed to respond to the attack, but was entirely complacent. Pakistan’s FC has itself attacked and occupied schools numerous times in Balochistan. English language centers and other secular educational institutions are being systematically replaced by Madrasas. By sabotaging the educational system in Balochistan Pakistan not only prevents Baloch from achieving adequate education but they also encourage religious radicalization amongst the youth.

The complacency of the state security forces is consistently demonstrated by the disturbingly frequent attacks against the Shia population of Pakistan. Terrorist organizations such as LeJ regularly slaughter Shia civilians with total impunity. Numerous times this year alone busloads of Shia pilgrims were attacked by LeJ suicide bombers killing hundreds. With little to no justice for the victims of terrorism in Pakistan, the Pakistani State is in essence endorsing these terrorist groups. When Balochi graves, Hindu temples, Christian churches, & Shia shrines are desecrated and destroyed, Pakistan’s State Security refuses to investigate or prosecute the perpetrators. Quite the opposite in fact, earlier this year when a Hindu temple in Larkana was burned to the ground, a nearby Hindu resident was arrested and accused of blasphemy. Pakistan’s barbaric blasphemy laws are regularly used to justify blatant persecution of minorities. As a result of the Pakistani State’s barbaric policies and full endorsement of religious extremism, Pakistan has not only become a haven for terrorists, but a breeding ground for terrorist recruits. Entire generations of youth are indoctrinated through state sponsored Madrasas and empowered by the freedom to act against minorities with impunity.

Even in developed regions, Pakistan is unable to provide basic necessities of life. Scheduled power outages, and lack of running water plagues many developed regions. Despite the inadequate infrastructure, and deteriorating security situation, the Pakistan government continues to make military spending a priority over public infrastructure. While fundamentalist gangs of terrorists operate freely, Pakistan’s state security forces spend their time and resources persecuting nationalists and civilians.

The Chagai Nuclear Test In Pakistan

In May of 1998 Pakistan became a nuclear armed country. Deep in the Chagai mountains of Balochistan, Pakistan conducted their first nuclear bomb tests. Much like August 14th, May 29th is forever remembered as a black day by the Baloch nation. The Chagai nuclear tests were conducted with total disregard for the indigenous civilian population of the area, who to this day still suffer the horrific effects, both physical and environmental. And much like August 14th, Pakistan also celebrates this brutal atrocity annually.

Pakistan maintains a consistent track record of harboring and fostering terrorism, violent oppression of minorities, indiscriminate bombardment of civilian areas, extra-judicial abductions, torture, unlawful executions, and abandoning their own populous to inhuman conditions and abject poverty. In its current state of affairs, a nuclear armed Pakistan is a serious threat to global security. Pakistan’s capacity to adequately secure their nuclear arsenal is questionable at best. So long as the Pakistani administration continues to enforce their policies with violence and tyranny, Pakistan will continue to produce terrorists. One is left to wonder how much longer the international community can enjoy its sense of security while a terrorist infested country, who cannot afford to provide proper infrastructure for its own citizens, possesses weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles.

Obama Aids the Fourth Horn of Libya (Daniel 8:22)

Obama lifts ban on Libyans attending flight school, studying nuclear science here
By Andrew Malcolm
Posted 08/15/2014 09:20 AM ET

911 Hijackers

9/11 hijackers make their way through airport security–Abdulaziz al-Omari and Mohammed Atta.

.
Remember the aftermath of 9/11 when investigators made the chilling discovery that American flight instructors had unwittingly taught the Arab hijackers how to fly jumbo jets like the ones they plowed into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, killing some 3,000 innocents?

And how one of the dumber hijackers had raised suspicions, letting slip that he had no intention of seeking a pilot’s license? But, you might not be surprised to learn, Washington wasn’t really into taking seriously any alarms from unimportant places like Minnesota?

Turns out, President Reagan worried about terrorist hijackers using airplanes as weapons way back in 1983. He banned Libyans from taking flight lessons or nuclear studies in the United States.

Now, believe it or not, President Obama is lifting that ban because, aides say, post-Gaddafi Libya and its relations with the United States are “normalized.”

Seriously? We just abandoned our embassy there last month.

Seriously!

A Homeland Security spokesman said rescinding the ban “would permit the educational exchange of information with Libyan nationals so they can reconstitute, operate and sustain their fleet to address threats posed by extremist groups seeking to derail the democratic transition.”

S.Y. Lee assures everyone that any Libyan students would be subjected to “robust and thorough security threat assessments and vetting procedures.” Uh-huh. Maybe more thorough than the 19 Arab hijackers got? Or the Boston Marathon bombing duo, whose names were handed to the FBI by Russian authorities long before their deadly deed?

This is the same Libya that brought us Lockerbie. The same Libya Hillary Clinton urged Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama to attack. Citing possible civilian slaughter in the anti-Gaddafi rebellion of 2009, Obama obeyed. He launched an air war that toppled the Libyan and left him to be torn apart by a mob despite having the best hat collection in dictator-dom.

Unfortunately, as the la-dee-dah Obama admitted in a recent newspaper interview, he hadn’t given much thought to what comes after the chaos of war in a tribal land where “democracy” is a foreign concept. (Does any of this sound depressingly repetitious regarding Syria, Iraq and next, Afghanistan?)

What comes after a U.S. withdrawal and war chaos is — Duh! — more chaos, as warring militias and terrorist gangs cast their bullet ballots for leader of the oil-rich North African land. Or parts of it. Chaos of the sort that lead to the 2012 murders of four unprotected Americans in Benghazi. And of the ongoing chaos that’s caused many countries to evacuate their diplomatic missions.

Surely, Obama’s crowd isn’t arguing that al-Qaeda’s newest lawless playground is the new normal.

Homeland Security had promised Congress an update on the controversial revision last spring. Again, you might not be surprised to learn, this Obama administration promise is as dead as Gaddafi.

“It is extremely concerning,” said Rep. Trey Gowdy, “that DHS is moving forward with these plans, but has not provided information on the policy change despite repeated requests from Members.” And with all the other bad news hanging over Obama’s transparent White House, it looks now like they’ll skate on this as well.

Talk about a new normal.

The Four Loose Horns (Daniel 8:22)

Danger from loose nukes in volatile countries

The New Nuclear Terrorism

BY BENNETT RAMBERG

Nobody would dispute the danger inherent in possessing nuclear assets. But that danger becomes far more acute in a combat zone, where nuclear materials and weapons are at risk of theft, and reactors can become bombing targets.

These risks — most apparent in today’s Middle East — raise troubling questions about the security of nuclear assets in volatile countries everywhere.

Two recent events demonstrate what is at stake. On July 9, the militant group now known as the Islamic State captured 40 kg of uranium compounds at Mosul University in Iraq. The captured uranium was not weapons-grade; international inspectors removed all sensitive material from Iraq following the 1991 Gulf War (which is why it was absent when the United States invaded in 2003). But what international response, if any, would have been initiated if the cache had been highly enriched?

On the same day, Hamas launched three powerful Iranian-designed rockets from Gaza at Israel’s Dimona reactor. Luckily, two missed the target, and Israel managed to intercept the third. But the episode represented a serious escalation of hostilities and served as an important reminder of the vulnerability of nuclear reactors in war zones.

In fact, Hamas made similar attempts to attack the Dimona complex in 2012, as did Iraq in 1991, with the aim of releasing the site’s contents to inflict radiological damage on Israel’s population. (The perpetrators appeared clueless to the fact that certain weather conditions would have concentrated the radioactive debris in the Palestinian-majority West Bank.)

It is possible that these events are an aberration. After all, the only conflict so far in which authorities have lost control of sensitive nuclear materials was the Georgia-Abkhazia War in the 1990s, when unknown forces seized a small amount of highly enriched uranium from a research institute.

Likewise, though there have been numerous attacks on nuclear reactors under construction, the sole threat to an operating plant in a combat zone outside of Israel occurred at the start of the fighting in ex-Yugoslavia, when Serbian nationalists considered attacking Slovenia’s Krško nuclear power plant and sent warplanes over the site. The plant’s operators temporarily halted electricity generation to curb the risk of a radiation release, but nothing came of the threat.

Indeed, whenever nuclear assets have been least secure — during the Soviet Union’s collapse, China’s Cultural Revolution, and the Algiers putsch (when a group of mutinous retired generals set their sights on a nuclear device that France was testing in the Algerian desert) — they have not been compromised. Even in Ukraine today, despite the escalating civil conflict, the country’s 15 nuclear power plants have remained untouched (though even with new defensive measures taken by Ukrainian officials, this could easily change).

It is impossible to know whether this benign pattern will hold. But recent developments in the Middle East suggest that there are grounds for concern in other volatile countries, namely Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran.

Pakistan has a large nuclear weapons program and faces an expansive jihadi insurgency, which previously attacked military bases suspected of housing nuclear assets. Though Pakistan has not experienced a nuclear breach, and the government insists that safeguards remain robust, the country’s increasingly frequent and severe bouts of instability raise serious questions about the future.
While North Korea’s nuclear arsenal is much smaller, persistent doubts about the regime’s sustainability make it a matter of grave concern. In the event of the regime’s collapse — a distinct possibility — it would be difficult to prevent the diversion of its assets, or even the use of its weapons.

For its part, Iran seems relatively stable, at least compared to its neighbors. But it faces an uncertain political future. If a power struggle emerges, the large Bushehr reactor could be used as a bargaining chip.

To mitigate such risks, the international community could maintain its traditional policy of sitting tight and hoping that governments retain control of their nuclear infrastructure. But the United States, for one, is no longer satisfied with this approach.

According to media reports, it has devised a strategy for deploying Special Forces to neutralize Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal in the event that its authorities lose control. And some government-connected think tanks have explored the possibility of deploying U.S. combat forces to address nuclear risks in North Korea if the regime crumbles.

Such plans, however, are by no means foolproof — not least owing to the difficulties of finding concealed nuclear assets and safeguarding reactors. Moreover, the American public’s willingness to become enmeshed in yet another risky military venture, when boosting homeland security could suffice, is dubious, at best.

Instead of waiting for a major development to force hurried action, the world’s major powers should engage in a full-throated debate to determine the best approach to address nuclear risks in volatile countries, seeking ways to cooperate whenever necessary. After all, even rival powers like China and the U.S. or India and Pakistan share an interest in preventing the world’s most dangerous weapons from falling under the control of its most fanatical minds.

Bennett Ramberg, a policy analyst in the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs under President George H.W. Bush, is the author of “Destruction of Nuclear Energy Facilities in War and Nuclear Power Plants as Weapons for the Enemy.” © 2014 Project Syndicate www.project-syndicate.org

The Fourth Horn Opens Up (Daniel 8:22)

Facing Escalating Violence, U.S. Evacuates Staff From Its Embassy in Libya

By KAREEM FAHIM

JULY 26, 2014

Libyan Attack In Tripoli

Smoke rose after heavy fighting near the airport in Tripoli on Friday. Credit Hani Amara/Reuters

CAIRO — The United States closed its embassy in Libya on Saturday and evacuated the embassy’s staff under military guard, in what the State Department said was a response to escalating violence in the Libyan capital, Tripoli.

Officials called the evacuation “temporary” and said they were looking for ways to reopen the embassy, even as the State Department issued a new travel warning on Saturday, advising United States citizens to leave Libya “immediately.”

Weeks of heavy fighting between rival Libyan militias for control of Tripoli’s international airport had in recent days edged closer to the heavily fortified embassy, which is on the main road to the airport. The clashes have all but destroyed the airport, severely limiting air travel to Libya.

The embassy staff was evacuated over land, traveling in convoys to neighboring Tunisia under the watch of United States military aircraft, according to a Pentagon statement.

Speaking in Paris during a series of diplomatic meetings about Gaza, Secretary of State John Kerry said the embassy was evacuated because of “freewheeling militia violence” and said the embassy was only “suspending” activities.

The evacuation, which follows the withdrawal of other foreign diplomats, deepened Libya’s isolation at a moment when violence in the country appears to be spiraling out of control. Libya’s weak central government has been powerless to halt weeks of broadening battles in Tripoli and in the eastern city of Benghazi, the country’s two largest cities, which have succumbed to a growing lawlessness and bloodshed.

As the militiamen have fought with heavy weapons in residential neighborhoods, with no central army to stop them, armed groups have stepped up a campaign of assassinations and kidnappings targeting political activists, journalists and human rights workers.

The chaos has unnerved Libya’s neighbors, including Egypt, which has expressed alarm over militant groups operating on Libyan soil. Two weeks ago, the United Nations withdrew its staff from Tripoli in response to the fighting there, and last week, Turkey announced on Friday that it had suspended operations at its embassy in Tripoli.

The United States last closed its embassy in February 2011, during the Libyan revolt against the country’s longtime dictator, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. The Obama administration later opened a diplomatic post in eastern Libya, in Benghazi, an area that was under the control of anti-Qaddafi forces.

In 2012, militants attacked the Benghazi mission, which included an annex used by the Central Intelligence Agency, killing the ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens, and three other people. The embassy in Tripoli had served as a base for investigators from the Department of Justice investigating the Benghazi attack.

The current United States ambassador, Deborah K. Jones, wrote about the approaching violence on Twitter over the last few days. “A Libyan citizen reports from Gasr bin Ghashir indiscriminate shelling from early evening,” she wrote on July 19, referring to a neighborhood abutting the airport.

The next day, she wrote about “heavy shelling and other exchanges” in the embassy’s neighborhood. On Wednesday, she tried to tamp down a rumor that United States drones were operating over Libyan airspace. “We are not engaged in this fighting, just trying to stay safe under fire,” she wrote.

During the evacuation early Saturday, residents in Tripoli reported hearing the sounds of airplanes overhead and said there was a two-hour interruption of Internet service. A Pentagon spokesman, Rear Adm. John F. Kirby, said that evacuation, which took approximately five hours, was secured by United States Marines who had been working at the embassy and military aircraft, including F-16s.

In a statement on Saturday, Marie Harf, a State Department spokeswoman, said the decision to evacuate was not made lightly.

“Securing our facilities and ensuring the safety of our personnel are top department priorities,” she said, adding that United States was “currently exploring options for a permanent return to Tripoli as soon as the security situation on the ground improves.”

After the withdrawal on Saturday, the embassy compound sat empty and unguarded. No one answered at the front gate. A man, driving away from the compound and clearly frustrated, asked a reporter if he worked at the embassy.

“There was no one here,” he said.

The Americans had been processing documents for him — he did not specify what kind — but now, those documents were stuck inside.