On January 3, a drone strike near the Baghdad International airport killed Qasem Soleimani, the leader of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps’ elite Quds Force. American President Donald Trump ordered the killing from his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, thousands of kilometres far from Iraq.

How did it happen? The circumstances of the strike are still not entirely clear, at least not for ordinary citizens or even for the media. But in the night between 2 and 3 January, a US MQ-9 Reaper launched the strike against General Soleimani. However, it was not the first time for we are not talking about the dynamics under which Soleimani was killed, but how unmanned systems are transforming the ways wars are fought, and their future.

Drone operations in Iraq started during the Iran-Iraq War in the 80s – when Iran began developing the Mohajer-1 surveillance drone – and in the course of and after the Gulf War, the US military set about flying drones over Iraq, marking the first significant US deployment of modern military drones. Back to the last decade, the Central Intelligence Agency used armed, remotely piloted vehicles to wipe out small clusters of militants as they plotted against US forces in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Despite its limitations, the use of drones surged during the Bush administration. After Bush’ presidencies, Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran had all launched state-sponsored attacks and had become far more skilled at cyber exploits and espionage.

The situation today looks more critical since President Trump has taken over far more mature drone and cyber programs. Iran has also adopted its countermeasures: last June 2019 Iran shot down a US surveillance drone in the Strait of Hormuz, creating a dangerous new level of tension between the two countries.

Soleimani’s death was the last evident example of President Trump’s ability to take military action against the Islamic Republic of Iran. And drones are now playing a key role in the international debate.

But what about the United States? Does a drone can easily fly everywhere in the country? According to the US national aviation authority, the US Federal Aviation Authority (FAA), flying a drone is legal in the country, with certification requirements and different rules between the purpose of the fly, whether it is recreationally or for work.

Today, nearly 1.5 million drones and 160,000 remote pilots are registered with the FAA, the agency said. Yet mysterious drones have been flying over Colorado and Nebraska in recent weeks: authorities have not been able to figure out much about who may be controlling them. Federal deputies have spotted more than a dozen unmanned drones flying in the northeast part of the state. And last Wednesday, a drone came close to a medical helicopter in Colorado, increasing concern about the suspicious drones.

Only at the end of the year, the Federal Aviation Administration put forward a rule to empower the government to track most drones in the US. The rule requires drones to implement a remote ID system, which will make it possible for third parties to track them.

According to the witnesses who told local newspapers what they have heard and seen, the unknown drones flew over rural towns in Nebraska and Colorado, mostly after the sunset.

Before knowing the identity and purpose of the mysterious drones, and if the new law will regulate unauthorized drones that may pose a security threat, Americans are starting to be afraid of unmanned systems, not only those used outside the country.

L'articolo US Drones Are Not Only Flying Over the Middle East proviene da InsideOver.

Speculation is rife on the course the showdown between Saudi Arabia and Iran will take in the coming days. This is especially so after media reports emerged to allege the presence of links between Iran and the attacks on oil processing facilities in eastern Saudi Arabia in September this year.

According to the reports, Iran started preparing for the attacks four months earlier in its bid to punish the US for pulling out of the 2015 nuclear deal between Iran, on one hand, and world powers, on the other. Over five meetings, Iranian military commanders debated a list of targets, including US military bases in the Gulf, seaports in Saudi Arabia and Saudi oil installations, the reports said. Iran at the end opted for the oil installations and these were the state-owned Aramco oil processing facilities in eastern Saudi Arabia.

By picking these facilities as targets, Iran wanted to avoid a direct military confrontation with the US. It also wanted to avoid the possibility of a devastating American military reprisal in case American targets were at the heart of the attacks. Eighteen drones were used in staging the attacks on the Aramco processing plants on September 14. Three low-flying missiles were also used in inflicting damage on the facility. They temporarily brought Saudi Arabia’s oil production down to the half and caused world oil supply to drop by 5%. This caused a surge in world crude prices. Even before media reports in this regard, Saudi Arabia pointed accusing fingers at Tehran.

On November 23, Saudi Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Adel al-Jubeir, said Iran was responsible for the attacks on the Aramco oil installations in September. Speaking at the Manama Dialogue in Bahrain, Jubeir added that his country had asked the United Nations to send experts to investigate the issue. “We asked friendly states and the United Nations to send experts to investigate the attacks,” Jubeir said. “The results will be unveiled soon.” He said the drones and missiles that attacked the installations were manufactured in Iran and that the missiles and the drones arrived from the northern side of Saudi Arabia, not its southern side.

“This is why we hold Iran responsible for the attacks,” Jubeir said. “We expect the international community to take steps to bring Iran to account. We said repeatedly that we do not want war, but the Iranians cannot be allowed to evade being questioned for their wrongdoing.” The Iran-backed Houthi militia of Yemen claimed responsibility for the attacks in their bid to absolve the Iranians from international blame and probably punishment. Nevertheless, the US and Saudi Arabia rejected this claim of responsibility. The sophistication of the attacks, they said, pointed to Iranian involvement.

True, Iran wanted to take revenge on the US for pulling out of the 2015 nuclear deal and imposing sanctions on it by striking at a close ally. vNevertheless, the attacks on the Aramco oil installations were the latest development in a long ideological conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, one where religion comes at the center. Iran has been throwing its full weight behind Shiite regimes, forces, and groups in the region since its 1979 Islamic Revolution.

In a way, this destabilizes some Arab states with sizeable Shiite populations and tightens the noose around majority Sunni states, including Saudi Arabia and most of the Arab Gulf. The two countries have spent tens of billions of dollars in the past nine years in backing rival political forces; militias; governments, and organizations. They are involved in proxy wars in Syria and Yemen. They move the strings in Iraq and Lebanon.

Nobody knows for sure what Saudi Arabia will do in the coming days to make Iran pay for its alleged attacks on the Aramco oil processing facilities. Riyadh is now apparently consulting with its allies, especially the United Arab Emirates, where Saudi Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman arrived on November 27, on the most appropriate action. The coming few days will show what it will do.

L'articolo Uncertain Future For Saudi Arabia-Iran Showdown proviene da InsideOver.

With the demise of Al-Baghdadi and ISIS virtually defeated on the battlefield, it is worth having a look at President Obama’s counterterrorism policy, which has often been misinterpreted, while remaining subject to criticism.

Change was coming

In 2008, Barack Obama proclaimed change. Change after eight years under Republican leadership. Change to re-establish faith in US foreign policy. Two wars, torture and Abu Ghraib had forced the newly elected Commander in Chief to readjust the agenda. Appreciation for this paradigm shift had been shown almost immediately. Without having even celebrated his first anniversary at Pennsylvania Avenue, Obama received a certain annual Scandinavian recognition. ‘For extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples’ so the reasoning for awarding him a Nobel Peace Prize. In retrospective, a recognition for wishful thinking, it would appear.

Obama’s tenure started with three executive orders to underline the change in approach the US would take under his leadership on the world stage. Those included the ban of torture, a review of detention policy and the end of Guantanamo Bay – one of his signature ideas and security-wise not without severe implications.

When Obama had moved into the Oval Office, 242 people had still been incarcerated in Guantanamo. Moreover, while he was not able to shut down the facility entirely, only 41 detainees had been left when President Trump succeeded him.

Former Director of National Intelligence General James R. Clapper in one of his last reports, concerning reengagement of former detainees in terrorism through July 15th, 2016 points out that 693 detainees had been released since 2002. Of those detainees, 17.6% have been confirmed to re-engage in terrorist activities, and 12.4% are suspected of having re-engaged in terrorist activities.

In summary, 30%, or 208 of those 693 that have been released, are subject to terrorism – to the date of the report. Furthermore, there have been at least twelve former detainees, who have been implicated in attacks on Americans. A suboptimal situation, not merely security-wise but furthermore for future operation.

It raised the following questions for Obama. First, should the United States continue to capture suspects – though at a different, probably less grey-area facility than Guantanamo? Second, will suspects go through a process of due diligence? Third, how would a relocation be facilitated after having released a perpetrator guilty of an act of terrorism?

To avoid all of these issues, Obama changed the modus operandi from boots to the ground to drone strikes and therefore almost solely put killing and not detention on the agenda. The idea had not been new. Obama inherited the program from his predecessor, George W. Bush, but by extending it exponentially, it became a whole different dynamic.

The ‘do not capture but kill doctrine’ led to 51 reported drone strikes within his first year of the presidency – more than during the eight years under President Bush combined. In 2010, this number more than doubled to 118.

Under Obama’s presidency, 473 drone strikes were conducted and eliminated between 2,372-2,581 terrorists, who were either members or affiliated with a terrorist organisation such as Al Qaeda and the Taliban and had been deemed to the national security of the United States.

Besides the drone strikes, Obama also increased the use of special forces. In terms of the success of these operations, the killing of Osama bin Laden was the critical event and displayed how the US would and could strike without deploying significant contingents of troops in foreign countries. A craft, that was once again put on display when al-Baghdadi was eliminated two weeks ago.

Obama’s role in the rise of ISIS

While the drone policy was undoubtedly a success, despite criticism regarding collateral damages and alleged violations of international law, Obama’s track record of showing leadership in the Middle East is the opposite.

In August 2010 Obama announced the end of the combat mission in Iraq and it would be fair to argue Obama never had an interest in Iraq in the first place. His actions during his tenure as well as his views while being a senator in 2006, illustrate this perfectly. He had labelled the invasion in Iraq ‘a botched ill-advised US military incursion into Muslim country’ and argued that the US’ response to 9/11 was ‘playing to the script’ of the terrorists, who would now win ‘this global battle of ideas’.

The latter is a rather interesting choice of words, but most importantly, testimony to the Commander in Chief Obama was. The war in Iraq had been won when Obama came into office. In 2010 US commanders advised Obama to maintain 20.000 troops in Iraq. He chose only to deploy 3000-5000 instead. Obama considered Iraq to be a useless occupation, that would not contribute in the fight against terror, and so all remaining troops had left on December 12th, 2011. While to this day the question of whether or not Obama is responsible for the rise of ‘ISIS’, it is arguably fair to say that the withdrawal of troops did not add to the stability of the country. The power vacuum was subsequently filed by ISIS, which then spread its territory exponentially over the next years. Subsequently, the withdrawal of troops and the rise of ISIS throughout the Middle East forced Obama to redeploy 5,000 troops into the region. A costly flip flop that made the world less safe, one could argue.

The latter can be verified when looking at the figures. Within a year, attacks committed by ISIS in Iraq increased from 400 in 2013 to more than 950 in 2014 and the State Department also accounted for an increase in world-wide terrorism of 35% during the same period. A figure only superseded by the staggering increase of more than 80% of people who died due to terrorism in the same period.

Logical steps could have included boots on the ground and going after ISIS’ sanctuaries, after their money and make it as unattractive to fight against the United States as possible. Instead, however, Obama’s inactiveness helped terrorism to spread all over the Middle East, regardless of his drone program and is arguably more dangerous than ever.

No, Obama’s tenure has not been successful in terms of fighting terrorism, and the lack of a realist approach is the primary failure of Obama’s eight years in office: If not apologising, he confessed the United States’ sins to the world, instead of showing strength and determination against terrorism.

The real change was brought in by President Trump, who, while still being a candidate, made fighting ISIS one of his priorities. Once in office, he ordered the Pentagon to outline within 30 days for him how to defeat the terrorists.

As a result, Trump, unlike Obama, delegated authority to his generals, leaving them with the means of aggressively targeting ISIS without the centralised process and with fewer layers of sign-offs by the Commander in Chief.

Furthermore, while Trump’s statement of having defeated ISIS may or may not be inaccurate, he certainly took the right steps to annihilate the terrorists and showed much more determination and coherence in his approach. Obama’s drone policy was insufficient in the big picture and arguably did not achieve in eight years, what President Trump’s strategy has delivered in three.

L'articolo Was Obama’s War on Terror A Foundation for Trump’s Success? proviene da InsideOver.

On Wednesday, October 23, the Albanian Police General Director, Ardi Veliu, flanked by his counterterrorism colleague, Albania’s Anti-Terrorism Chief Gledis Nano, announced that the state security services intercepted another Iranian terror cell, thwarting the planned attacks which it was preparing to carry out on Albanian and European soil. Albanian officials stated that the attacks were being facilitated by a division of the Iranian armed services, known as QUDS. These intended attacks were directed at an Iranian dissident group, the MEK, who have taken refuge in the small Balkan nation.

This terror cell and the thwarted attacks are only the latest Iranian-backed terror operation which has been targeting Europe. France has stated that Iran was definitely behind an October 2018 planned attack near Paris which targeted a group similar to the MEK, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI). Earlier this year, the UK stated that it had intelligence evidencing that Iran had terrorist sleeper cells positioned in Europe funded and directed to conduct attacks.

France responded to the Paris attempt by expelling an Iranian diplomat from the country. In the months following France’s expulsion, Albania expelled two diplomats from the Iranian embassy in Tirana, including the Ambassador; who the Albanian government accused of “damaging its national security”.

Wednesday’s announcement addressed matters which stretched back to 2018. Veliu stated that Albanian security services were assisted by “sources inside the cell”. The individuals responsible for the attack are known to Albania, as two of the three named by Veliu were originally arrested back in March 2018 but released due to insufficient evidence to warrant further legal proceedings at that time. They are now believed to be in Austria and Turkey.

Veliu identified the Iranian-based head of the operation only as “Peyman”. The two other named members of the terror group had ties to the region. An Iranian residing in Turkey, Abdolkhalegh Malek Zadeh, was stated to be involved in both Iranian state-sponsored terrorism activities but is also known to be involved in organized crime. Veliu stated that Zadeh has been connected to a Turkish drug-trafficking network, whose operations are international. It is believed that Iranian operatives are working with Europe’s organized crime underworld to facilitate its intended terror attacks.

The Turkish element to the terror cell is of no surprise. The relationship, including criminal, between Turkey and Iran is well documented. Turkey and Iran have been critical partners, along with Russia, in directing the outcome of the Syrian civil war. Iran has reportedly been using the Syrian conflict as an excuse to attack Israeli assets involved in the conflict as well. The Iranian regime has deployed the QUDS force into Syria to conduct drone operations and attack Israeli assets.

Additionally, Turkey has been instrumental in Iran’s attempt to circumvent sanctions against the country. In 2017, the US Justice Department secured a guilty plea against a Turkish based Iranian banker, Reza Zarrab, who implicated Erdogan as complacent in the bank’s operation to assist Iran. Zarrab, a client of Rudolph Giuliani, Trump’s attorney; Giuliani reportedly attempted to free Zarrab by asking Trump to send Zarrab to Iran via a prisoner swap. Something which may be coming to fruition, as Iran has forwarded a list of prisoners to comprise the possible swap.

A third individual also represents what some say is a systematic problem which the MEK are dealing with. Veliu named, Alireza Naghashzadeh, as a part of the operation in Albania.  Naghashzadeh is believed to formerly be a member of the MEK, who defected from the group and reportedly returned to Iran and joined the QUDS force; the group responsible for planning these and other suspected operations.

Veliu and Nanos described the intended attack and the three individuals as terrorists; “A terrorist cell of the foreign operations unit of Iranian QUDS was discovered lately by Albanian intelligence institutions,”.  They conclusively stated that the intended target was “the Iranian opposition [group MEK],”. Wednesday’s announcement comes as Albania is reportedly seeking to arrest the individuals involved, having had over a year to collect additional evidence and build a prosecutable case.

The group reportedly tasked with carrying out Iran’s terrorist activities and eliminating the MEK is the QUDS force. The QUDS is a very shadowy, but an official and recognized, arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard which is used for, essentially, foreign matters. Veliu stated that the QUDS cell was “sent to Albania from 2018 to plan attacks against the MEK,”. QUDS is known to be tasked by the Iranian government to carry out operations spanning from hacking to assassinations to bombings.

Attacks contributed to QUDS include the 1983-84 bombings of the US Embassy and military compound in Beirut. Additionally, QUDS engineered the armour-piercing IED’s which have been deployed by terrorist groups in Iraq and Afghanistan to attack military vehicles. The group is known to have operated in, as well as with armed groups in, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinian Territories. QUDS is the only state-operated military unit to be labelled a “terrorist group” by the United States.

The MEK, or Mujahedin e Khaliq (also referred to as People’s Mujahedin of Iran), is a small resistance group, whose origins date back to the 1960’s, started by Marxists-minded university students. They are a very controversial group, as most resistance groups are; at times it has even been called a cult. During the Iranian Revolution, the MEK targeted both US citizens and interests; which resulted in the US designating them as a terrorist group. Today, the MEK, no longer labelled as terrorists, are considered a US ally in the alliance against Iran.

Just as the MEK played a key role in toppling the regime of the US-backed Shah, it intends to accomplish the same with the current Iranian regime. In the 1980’s, the MEK sided with Saddam Hussein and their compound was reportedly attacked by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, and those who survived fled the country for Europe.

Currently, the MEK are scattered across the European continent. They are believed and or known to have compounds in various European, including EU member, states; from the UK to Germany to Albania. Their leader, Maryam Rajavi, is based in Paris, France. Rajavi asserts that the MEK intend to create a non-nuclear Iran which operates as a democracy, under the principles of a separation of state and religion, and a free-market economy.

Over the past year, Iran has increased its violent international activities across the region and world. Iran has been deemed responsible for a series of attacks and seizures of oil tankers. In September, Iran was named as the party responsible for the missile attack against Saudi oil resources. Though, these attacks only represent known Iranian operations. The expertise of the QUDS force is actually in training, supplying, funding, and directing others to conduct attacks rather than carrying them out themselves. And, to that end, their actual evil footprint in Europe is still relatively unknown.

L'articolo The Iranian Operations Against MEK proviene da InsideOver.

Collateral damage is a tragic inevitably of any war, but when military attacks go awry and kill only civilians without striking intended enemy militants, it opens up the door for a broad range of questions. Such an unfortunate situation happened recently when over 30 pine nut farmers were killed by a Central Intelligence Agency drone in Afghanistan. The Sept. 19 attack shocked the Middle Eastern nation. While it is no stranger to war, an American attack on civilians far removed from terrorist targets is unusual. 

Innocent farmers

American drones struck as night began to fall in the eastern province of Nangarhar. In addition to the fatalities, US drones also injured 40 other workers.

“The workers had lit a bonfire and were sitting together when a drone targeted them,” tribal elder Malik Rahat Gul told Reuters. 

The attack at Wazir Tangi was intended to destroy a Daesh hideout. Details on how it ended up striking pine nut farmers instead have not yet been revealed and perhaps never will. Residents voiced their anger at the attack by calling for an apology and financial reimbursement from Washington. 

“Such mistakes cannot be justified. American forces must realize (they) will never win the war by killing innocent civilians,” said Javed Mansur, a resident of Jalalabad city where victims were buried the following morning. 

Civilian casualties in Afghanistan are on course for a record high this year. The United Nations estimated that for the first half of the year, there were 1,366 deaths and 2,446 injured, putting the year on pace to exceed the previous three years, each of which tallied more than 5,000 victims. To be clear, the UN records civilian victims from all sources, including terrorist groups such as Daesh as well as established militaries such as America and its allies. However, the drone strike on the farmers cast America in a bad light as US President Donald Trump continues to expand the US drone program while simultaneously reducing its accountability to the American public. 

Under former President Barack Obama, the U.S. drastically amplified its drone usage. During his first year in office, he directed the CIA and Pentagon to launch more drones than his predecessor did in 16 years— 53 strikes in Pakistan. After expanding the drone usage to Yemen and Syria, Obama too incurred the wrath of negative press over civilian deaths. Because of this, only three strikes were carried out in Pakistan during the final year of his presidency. 

Under Trump, there were 100 in Yemen alone during 2017, up from Obama’s 44 for the state in the previous year. Furthermore, while his predecessors focused drone strikes on al-Qaeda fighters, Trump’s military is targeting any militants opposing the Afghan government. 

Into Africa

While all branches of the American military use drones to some extent, it is the CIA which has received renewed focus under Trump, and not just in the Middle East, but Africa too. In Nigeria, officials said American drones have been using the Dirkou airport as a makeshift base for launching strikes in Libya. Maj. Sheryll Klinkel, a Defense Department spokeswoman, denied U.S drones operate out of Dirkou, despite a New York Times reporter witnessing them take off and land. 

The CIA also opened a $110 million base in Agadez, Niger which began operations at the beginning of the year. Drones from the bases in Niger are also used in Somalia to strike al-Shabaab terrorists. Between the CIA and Pentagon, 30 raids were carried out in 2017. 

When Trump came to office, he not only ramped up the drone strikes, but also removed some of their civilian casualty accountability as well, undoing a piece of Obama’s legacy. When Obama came under fire for collateral damage, he instituted several measures to bring order to how strikes were carried out, which included greater coordination between military intelligence and the CIA.  A single database was shared between them to analyze target and evaluate their threat levels. 

Also, he created what became known as the Presidential Policy Guidance. This manual specified that if a strike were to be carried out in area outside of a war zone, the president’s entire cabinet must agree to it and, importantly, there should be “near certainty” that civilians will not become caught in the crossfire.

No accountability

Under Trump, those measures are most-certainly expelled as remnants of an era he seeks to undo. Had the rules been authored by George W. Bush, a Republican president, perhaps Trump would have been willing to abide by them. 

Critically, Trump revoked an Obama executive order mandating the CIA to report on civilian casualties outside of war zones. According to a Nations Security council spokesman, the action removes “superfluous reporting requirements that do not improve government transparency, but rather distract our intelligence professionals from their primary mission.” While it’s true that the National Defense Authorization Act requires the White House to submit an annual report on civilian casualties, this information is limited to the common war zone areas, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Furthermore, the NDAA does not apply to the CIA as did the Obama-era executive order. Consequently, a CIA attack in Africa would not make the report given to Congress. 

The removal of CIA reporting requirements comes at a time when the White House is increasing its reliance on unmanned aerial vehicles. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimated that there have been 2,243 drone strikes in the first two years of Trump’s tenure. By comparison, there were only 1,878 in Obama’s entire eight-year administration. With the recent killing of innocent Afghan farmers and the aggressive CIA rollout in Africa, perhaps there should be more reporting instead of less.

L'articolo Trump Expands CIA Drone Strikes While Reducing Accountability proviene da InsideOver.