Chinese strategy can be hard to grasp, with wildly different views from politicians and analysts, lots of scary headlines — lots of letters and numbers like the J20, THAAD or the F35 — as well as a certain mysterious quality and lack of knowledge about Chinese history.

But it isn’t as intimidating when you keep in mind a few key concepts.

China’s History Holds Crucial Clues

China boasts a history dating back thousands of years and has arguably the longest continual cultural tradition on the globe. But you don’t have to memorize the names of dozens of dynasties. (Perhaps if you really want to impress the ladies you could). The most important summation of thousands of years of history is to realize that they were the dominant power in Asia for much of their history and the government references this frequently in modern policy discussions.

The most important parts of modern Chinese history include two specific periods. From 1843 to 1949 China entered a period of weakness and civil war that only ended with the Communists taking power under Mao Zedong. During this time, the dynasty was largely helpless to stop Western intrusions. Chinese textbooks still cite the Opium War fought by the British. Various Western powers carved up spheres of influence. The US was the least offensive of these powers, but they still demanded and received open trading ports.

Matters became worse after the last leader of the dynasty fell in 1911 and the result was a general perception of weakness in contravention to much of Chinese history and an earned, but overused complaint of being victims. (See point #3.)

China’s Geography

That weakness made the second period, from 1949 to the present, much more pressing for China.  When they finally had a strong government and unified country for the first time in 100 years they set about reasserting their dominance. China has fought offensive preemptive wars with every one of their neighbors to settle territorial disputes or (re)assert their primacy. Many of these events tried to change the terms of what they call, unequal treaties, made with imperialist powers during their period of weakness.

The border with India was established when the British ruled there, and China tried to change the terms of the Sino Soviet Treaty of Friendship made when China was the much weaker partner. Regions like Mongolia, the Taiwan Straight, and Korea and Vietnam also represent historically important areas to China they considered part of their strategic interests.

The Difference Between Rhetoric and Reality

Points 1 and 2 combine to form this point. While China seems to be acting in a manner that recalls the traditional vigorous and expansionist early stages of dynasties, they do so under the old Confucian rhetoric which claims China is beset by foreigners and simply asserting their national rights against bullying imperialists. Knowing the simple difference between the rhetoric of being a victim, and their assertive and even aggressive actions explains their defense of those actions.

For example, the last time the US affirmed international law by sailing in international waters the Chinese claimed they fired two missiles as a defense against US aggression. The difference between true defensive measures and aggressive claims such as those in the South China Sea is that China violate maritime law to expand territory, while the US affirms international law to make sure territorial claims aren’t settled by force — which would naturally favor Beijing since it is the biggest power in the region.

China’s Mastery of Technology

Rhetoric verses reality also applies to weapon systems. The most common way Americans learn about China is some fearmongering article that promises to be a game changer, make the carrier obsolete, or expose a fundamental flaw in US strategy. The Chinese are fielding numerous impressive planes and plan to swarm US forces with overwhelming amounts of missiles.  But missiles are not a new technology. They might be faster, and harder to track, but the US defenses are also upgrading their tracking technology, adding numerous, low cost defensive layers like lasers, and obtaining better interceptors.

This is a response and counter response between China and America, not innovative game changing technology from one or the other. But newspapers are much like politicians, and find that scary, breathless articles get more clicks than nuanced analysis.

As far back as Santa Anna’s Mexican army invading Texas and as recently as Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, there have been supposedly large and advanced armies promising the mother of all battles only to evaporate upon contact with the US military.

Challenges to Chinese Power

That leads to the final point: any potential conflict between the United States and China won’t be fought by weapon systems. Thousands of years ago the classical Confucian scholar Guanzi advocated for a “broad knowledge” of history instead of simply focusing on weapons. Even the robots of the future such as unmanned aerial vehicles, and subs often have a human driver.

China faces similar problems to many of those in Western countries plus a few that are unique to them. Recruits from a sedentary and urban society on average are larger and have more breathing problems. Because of the one child policy many Chinese adolescents have also been spoiled and have what is called little emperor syndrome. One a larger scale, the one child policy is creating a demographic time bomb.

Like other Western countries, China relies on immigrant labor to fill key gaps in the economy, though unlike the West China puts many of them in forced labor camps. Thus, even if it has the best weapons Beijing may not have the best economic foundation or skilled soldiers to fight an actual hot war.

Conclusions

This basic primer on history, geography, rhetoric, technology, and broader knowledge should prepare you for the next breathless article about a mysterious Chinese weapon system, their supposed victimhood, or another flare up in the South China Sea.

L'articolo Five Keys to Understanding Chinese Strategy proviene da InsideOver.

Greek Minister of Foreign Affairs Nikos Dendias welcomed his Saudi counterpart Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al-Saud to Athens last week. It’s the second time the two ministers have met in less than a month. According to Dendias, the two countries are working together as two responsible guarantors of regional stability. This is a rather ill-advised statement, considering that the scope of the current Greek diplomacy and foreign policy does not qualify for such a role and simultaneously considering that Riyadh’s international attitude proves that the kingdom is more of a cause of regional tension than it is a responsible power that promotes peace and stability.

The Greek-Saudi Patriot Missile Deal

Besides their aligning interests in the Libyan front, as both countries are supporting Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar and the LNA, the specific reason for the Greek-Saudi meeting and the issue on the top of the agenda was the so-called Patriot deal. A drone attack against Saudi Arabia’s state-owned Saudi Aramco oil processing facilities took place in September 2019. Considering the impact on the main pillar of the Saudi economy—the energy industry—Riyadh sought to enhance air defense capabilities both domestically and through international partnerships. Their priority is to stop potential attacks from the Iran-backed Houthi rebels or any other affiliated groups.

The Greek government responded promptly to the Saudi call and has agreed to provide Patriot Surface to Air missiles (SAMs) from the arsenal of the Hellenic Airforce. At this point, it would be worth looking more into the rationale of the deal, as one might reasonably wonder why the Saudis had to take this missile system from Greece rather than directly from the United States.

Why Does Riyadh Want To Buy Patriot Systems From Athens And Not Washington?

Riyadh has traditionally secured major deals with the US defense industry. Considering the economic wealth and importance of the kingdom, these deals could be interpreted as a significant diplomatic means that ensured the stable and prosper bilateral relations between the two countries and the continuous US support for KSA in terms of defense and security. So, what is the point in having Greece deploying the missiles instead of a direct deal between Riyadh and Washington?

If US-Saudi economic relations can be understood as a foreign policy tool, this is where the latest agreement with Greece also fits in. After the recent visit of the Greek PM to the White House, Athens has been advised to satisfy the Saudi request in order to support the ongoing US confrontation with Iran. The long-lasting dispute between the two major players in the Middle East—Riyadh and Tehran—could stop being perceived as a regional clash through proxy actors in neighboring countries like Yemen and Lebanon, while the participation of an EU country in the air defense system of Saudi Arabia with personnel on the ground boosts the narrative of a multinational anti-Iran force standing up to Iranian aggression. It also sets the ground for other US-affiliated countries to join. But what could be the consequences of such a move for Greece?

Greek-Saudi Deal Is A Dubious Move Amidst Greek-Turkish Escalation

In order to understand the size of the force, the SAM batteries to be deployed to Riyadh account for almost 16 percent of the—probably—most sophisticated Hellenic SAM air defense system available. Combined with the specialized personnel that accompany the system—over 100 servicemen—that will be transferred to Saudi Arabia to support the mission, it is obvious that there is a severe impact on Greek capabilities and readiness, especially when taking into account the current escalation between Ankara and Athens and the continuous Turkish breaches of Hellenic airspace.

Even though the aforementioned numbers have not been confirmed by governmental officials yet, it is highly likely that they are accurate. After a—rather insufficient and unsuitable, as usual—criticism from the opposition parties, sources of the Hellenic Government have tried to downplay the consequences of this agreement, suggesting that a Patriot battery has been inactive until recently so the agreement with Riyadh would make no difference to Greek defense capabilities. Even if this claim is accurate, it is totally unacceptable for the current administration to admit that a critical weapons system has been out of service for an unspecified period of time, and it is equally unreasonable to suggest that when eventually it has been put back into service, it would shortly be shipped to Saudi Arabia in order to support operations irrelevant to the Greek interests. There are some rumors about a technical update from the US on the remaining Patriot systems in Greece on beneficial terms in return for the deal with KSA, but—while possible—those rumors are too generic and still remain unconfirmed.

Two-Fold Impact On Greek-Iranian Relations

At the same time, this move will certainly deteriorate the long-term bilateral relations between Athens and Tehran. Iran has traditionally been an important partner to Greece, with significant commercial and cultural ties having long been established between the two countries. Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis in a diplomatic blunder was urged to declare support for the US administration after Soleimani’s killing. This move has been heavily criticized, considering that all the other EU leaders have tried to be as neutral as possible in order to contribute to the de-escalation of the tension and not provoke Tehran further; not surprisingly the Greek reaction has pushed Iran to officially lodge a demarche through diplomatic channels. Among others matters, the statement mentioned any facilitation from a third country to US Forces deployed and ordered to operate against the Islamic Republic would be perceived as a hostile act.

Even if the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs, alongside the major in-country media outlets, tried to downgrade the incident, indicating that the Greek-Iranian relations remain well-tempered, Athens is now making a controversial deal with one of Tehran’s worst enemies. Criticism within Greece has focused on the impact of this development on the commercial ties between the two countries, with many voices mistakenly suggesting that Iran is still one of the major oil providers for Greece, although there has been a tremendous downturn on Iranian oil imports to Greece since Trump started abandoning JCPOA. Of course, we don’t doubt that Tehran is an important trade partner for Athens and the last moves would have a negative impact, but the most vital and concerning aspect for Greece has been once again internally neglected.

This is the impact on the internal security of the state and the perception of the terrorist threat in Greece. A statement from the Greek PM would hardly trigger a violent reaction from Tehran, however, a substantial engagement of Greek forces on Saudi ground might be a step too far for the Iranian leadership. We have previously discussed how insufficient Greek infrastructure is, in controlling Middle East-originated individuals entering the country; we have also explained the heightened risk ensuing from this situation, from a security perspective, explaining that the perpetrators of some of the most high profile attacks in European metropolitan cities have entered Europe through Greece.

The risk perception could remain manageable as long as Greece is adopting a responsible neutral and balanced stance in the region. But the surprising decision of the Patriot deployment to Saudi Arabia might well provoke an unprecedented Iranian reaction. We have seen several times in the past that the triggering of dormant proxy cells in third countries as a means of Iranian retaliation is a possibility even if Tehran hardly ever takes the credit for such actions—at least officially. Athens should have already secured the appropriate countermeasures before proceeding to such controversial diplomatic maneuvers. At this point, we seriously doubt if any countermeasures were taken.

L'articolo Controversial Greek-Saudi Weapons Deal Moves Forward proviene da InsideOver.

Israel announced earlier this month that they have developed a breakthrough in fielding laser-based systems that allows them to intercept incoming rockets, drones and other aerial threats. The key breakthrough for the Israelis comes from the laser’s power and accuracy.  It now produces a sustained beam that can accurately target and destroy incoming missiles.

Lasers differ from other interceptor technology in that it doesn’t use projectiles or interceptor missiles. This makes lasers an inexpensive and limitless supply of defenses against rockets (if the power is on). This is important because bad actors like Iran has shown that the relatively inexpensive drones could be targeted by thousand-dollar missiles. In one extreme example, a US ally used a multimillion-dollar Patriot missile to shoot down a 200 dollar drone. Using lasers avoids those extremes and saves the defending state money.

But the technology is not without its flaws. The effective range of these laser weapons is relatively short. It can only engage one target, most likely a missile, at a time. And it must sustain the laser on the target for a certain amount of time to damage, destroy, or confuse its sensors. As Americans have known since the Gulf War, and the Russians found out in Syria, lasers can lose effectiveness in hazy atmospheric conditions created by sand storms, smoke, or heavy wind that kicks up dust.  Of course, there is never any of that is the Middle East or during a war, so the limitations make this an important complementary piece in missile defense.

The Israeli developments have an important application for US missile forces and strategy against missiles. The Airforce reported recently reported that its Self-protect High Energy Laser Demonstrator (SHIELD) could be tested on F15s as early as 2021 and later mounted on F16s and F35 fighters. Traditionally, the lasers have required vast amounts of power and a long cool downtime that made them ineffective. It is advances with cooling and power that allow the technology to be miniaturized and mounted on planes.

It has all the same limitations as the Israeli defense, but like they found, it remains formidable as an additional layer of defense. Lasers would force enemy defenses to expend more missiles to destroy both stealth and non-stealth fighters. Stealth bombers currently rely on their stealth, but this would add a defensive weapon system. And even slow-moving transports and electronic warfare planes could benefit and be tougher to kill. For example, the F35s are notorious gas hogs that make the fleet of air refueling ships particularly important and vulnerable to long-range missiles launched by advanced fighters like the J20. But if successful, the lasers would give them an important tool for survivability that makes even logistical platforms tough to kill.

The planes aren’t the only systems receiving upgrades. The navy recently reported that its High-Energy Laser and Integrated Optical-Dazzler with Surveillance – or HELIOS (HELIOS) lasers could be mounted on its Zumwalt class destroyers as early as 2021. These ships, along with the Arleigh Burke Class are some of the most important components in missile defenses. They have specialized radar and complement of missiles that are designed to withstand massive swarm attacks from potential adversaries like Russia and China.

Like the Israelis, the ships will benefit from an unlimited supply (as long as the ships remained powered) which frees up their intercepting missiles for other targets. It lowers the cost of defending against missiles and the lasers can be linked with the Aegis technology for speedier targeting and interception.

History is littered with super technologies that over-promised and under-delivered. The King Tiger tank from Germany and the super Battleships of the Japanese were supposed to win the war for them.  But they both had limited effect. And the F35 this has a host of problems. Plus, this technology is only in its advanced testing phase and would have limitations once it is fielded.

The potential threats from adversaries fielding new and faster rockets as well as numerous low tech dangers like drones produces scary, clickbait headlines about the threat they post. But the strength in defence lies in having multiple, interlocking systems that overlap and are continually upgraded to meet them. The Israelis will use lasers to supplement their Iron Dome missile defence, and they are adding underground sensors to detect infiltration from those who fire shoulder-mounted rockets. And the US is using lasers to add another layer to their combat air patrol, AEGIS cruisers, and close-in weapon systems. Readers can be reasonably confident that Western nations can meet current and future threats.

L'articolo Israeli Lasers and the Future of American Missile Defense proviene da InsideOver.

Iran will not easily forget the dawn of January 8, 2020. And perhaps never will. Revenge for General Qassem Soleimani was stained not by the blood of American soldiers in the Middle East but rather by the passengers and crew of the Ukraine International Airlines flight 752, which left Tehran-Imam Khomeini international airport and was shot down by a missile a few minutes after take-off.

The disaster immediately appeared to be more than just a fatal tragedy. The timing of the incident, the night that Iran launched its operation against two USA bases, caused people to predict something different. And in fact, it was. After the initial news of the Ukrainian plane crash and the first accusations from western intelligence, Iran admitted it: the Boeing 737 that left Tehran was shot down by anti-aircraft artillery. It was due to the tragic error of mistaking the civilian airplane for an enemy military plane or missile.

The confession from the Iranian government, which came with condolences from Hassan Rouhani and Mohamed Zarif and the dramatic confession of the commander of the aerospace force of the Pasdaran, General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, did not, however, lay to rest all the questioning. Something from that never-ending night in Tehran is still not clear.

The missile that hit the Boeing

According to the press, the Ukrainian Boeing was hit by two 9K330 missiles from the Russian-made Tor-M1 mobile air defense system, and this was never denied by Tehran. In a video of the incident, two contrails from the missiles can be seen 21 seconds apart: a time factor that we will come back to.

Iran bought 29 Tor-M1 models (Sa-15 “Gauntlet” in NATO code) in 2006. The system is used for short/medium-range air defense since it can engage targets with radar up to 25/30 kilometers away and hit them at a maximum distance of 12, with engagement that ranges from 10 to 6,000 meters.

The 9K330 missile, which is used by the Tor-M1, is radar-guided with a proximity fuse. This means that the radar directs it to the target and its warhead doesn’t explode on contact but rather at a predetermined distance. When it is launched, it rises vertically to a height of 20 meters then tilts with the help of jets, and heads towards the target. Its safety distance, or the minimum distance beyond which the missile is active, is 1,500 meters.

Timing and distance: something doesn’t add up

Everything makes it seem like the Iranian version is correct. However, according to the missile data, something from the video (so far one of the rare “direct” sources for explaining the mystery) doesn’t perfectly add up. And it would be advantageous to analyze it to understand if there is, in fact, a second theory other than this just being the tragic decision of an Iranian soldier.

In the video, we cannot see the missiles take off vertically, but this could be a matter of perspective, but what’s more significant is that the sequence shows the second missile hit the aircraft, a fatal hit, 21 seconds after the first.

This is a unique dynamic, but to this, we can add another issue, which could be more resolutive. Assuming that the missiles were fired from the military base near the airport, the second missile would have hit the airplane at a distance less than the minimum safety distance for activation of the warhead on the missile that the Tor is armed with.

All sources agree that the 737 was flying at an elevation of 2,400 meters above sea level, which is a more than sufficient distance for the missile to “activate”. But, we must subtract the elevation of Tehran from this, and it stands at around a thousand meters above sea level. Therefore, the actual elevation of the Ukraine Airlines Boeing was around 1,300 meters. If the first missile hit the airplane at a distance somewhere between 2,700 and 3,300 meters from the presumed point of take-off, and therefore beyond the safety limit, the second missile, which arrived 21 seconds after, would be below this limit as evidenced by the reconstruction of the route held by the Boeing.

That interval of time that passed between the first and second launch is long for the tactics employed in the use of the Tor system: after the first missile usually, the next one is launched a few seconds later to carry out a lethal 1-2 hit on the target. Twenty-one seconds is too long.

A manpad? It would change everything

At this point, we can reflect on a second possibility. Let’s start by saying that this is a hypothesis based on the analysis of sources available to everyone. Black boxes and actual data are under the scrutiny of the investigators.

Iran has a series of portable surface-air devices, called man-portable air defense systems or manpads, which can be fired by a single man, and these have flight profiles and safety devices that better conform to what we see in the video. In particular, Iran has an uncertain number of Strela M-2, Strela 3, Igla-S, Misagh-1 and 2 manpads and from what it seems also some Singer manpads left from supplies secretly obtained from the United States (Iran-Contra affair) during the Iran-Iraq war of the ‘80s.

The famous 21 seconds between the missiles are more appropriate for the time it takes to carry out a second launch of a manpad from the same device or a second one once it was clear visually that the airplane was still in flying condition. Furthermore, this theory would be better suited to explaining how it was possible that the operators of the Tor-M1 system, which falls under the Iranian anti-aircraft “defense belt” could have mixed up a civilian aircraft, equipped with a regular transponder, with a military target.

An unsettling scenario

Naturally, it’s difficult, with the methods available, to discover the truth. And perhaps it is impossible. But what’s certain is that something happened that night in Tehran. What started with the assassination of Soleimani became a mess of accusations, counter-accusations, threats and appointments that have us predicting that something is changing within the higher ranks of the Islamic Republic and the Revolutionary Guards.

The killing of Soleimani, a man who was considered a loyal follower of Ali Khamenei, has marked a clear turn in Tehran’s strategy in the Middle East. Esmail Ghaani, Soleimani’s vice commander and the new leader of the Quds, is a systematic man who many believe is much less autonomous compared to his predecessor and much closer to the hard wing. The Supreme Leader has chosen Ghaani, following the path of continuity, but in actuality, his nomination goes beyond simple bureaucratic substitution. In the meantime, the assumption of responsibility by General Hajizadeh discredits the head of the most important force in the Pasdaran’s strategy after the Quds, the aerospace force, which leads the missile program.

The political earthquake sparked by the killing of Soleimani, pushed forward by the desire for revenge and ended (for now) with the sermon of Ali Khamenei in his Friday prayer (the first time in eight years) shows that something is changing in the system of the Islamic Republic. Also, the images of Rouhani leaving the prayer behind Khamenei before the end, with the shocked expression of the Parliament president, Ali Larijani, could be a sign of a rift. The Supreme Leader’s sermon is never just a simple sermon: the ayatollah’s words were a fire against the world.

This rift is founded on doubts surrounding the airplane incident, which seems increasingly packed with mysteries.

If it wasn’t the Tor system but rather a manpad, proving thus a contradiction of the universally accepted theory, then there is someone who picked up that weapon and fired. Who and for whom is impossible to know, but it would certainly be the backdrop to that sort of mini-revolution that the Republic’s establishment is witnessing. But as for why that flight was chosen, there are many hypotheses and no certainty.

Of course there is the fact that that airplane should never have left on a night of missile raids, as Commander Hajizadeh had ordered. But that order was ignored by Tehran airport. It’s true that the Boeing plane, having received the ok from the control tower, took off like normal without receiving any further instructions.

Another mystery is the fact that the Revolutionary Guards, which has a base near the Khomeini airport, could have committed such a careless error as to mistake an airline plane leaving from an airport a few kilometers away with an enemy aircraft. The radar of a system like that of the Iranian anti-aircraft would not have made such an error, and a soldier is not alone in firing missiles. There is a battalion behind him. The third mystery, which we can only slightly touch on, is understanding if behind the destruction of the airplane was not just an internal fight but also the desire to hit that plane specifically.

These will probably just remain mysteries. But if it wasn’t just a Tor error, the idea is that someone wanted to make the system falter – from within or from the outside, we don’t know.

For now, with the investigations still underway and taking for granted the “official” version, one result seems almost clear: that key figures in Iranian politics have been weakened, first and foremost Rouhani and Zarif, those who are discussing the new nuclear deal behind closed doors.

Translation by Alexa Ahern

L'articolo Missiles and Mysteries: Hidden Truths Surround Ukrainian Flight 752 proviene da InsideOver.

The operation was called “Soleimani Martyr” and the code that identified the attack was called “O Zahra”, in honour of the daughter of Mohammed and mother of Hussein, a key figure of Shia Islam and Iran in particular. The Iranian attack on the United States began around 1.20 a.m.on 8 January 2020, at the same time of day that Qassem Soleimani was struck by an American military drone that killed him near Baghdad, Iraq, on 3 January 2020. Another symbolic act in Tehran’s plan for revenge which, through the Supreme Leader, ayatollah Ali Khamenei, swore toavenge the death of the leader of the pasdaran and gave the nation’s seal of approval.It was a targeted and precise attack yetcontained and not excessive.

L'articolo Iran’s Attack on the American Bases Explained proviene da InsideOver.

Iran has retaliated for the killing of Soleimani and struck two US bases in Iraq with several missiles. Initial US reports suggest that the attack caused no American casualties. Nonetheless, the world is spellbound by how Washington will react.

In any case, the Iranian retaliatory attack on US soldiers in Iraq fuel fears of further escalation and a possible new war in the Middle East. The Pentagon confirmed attacks on the US bases Ain al-Assad west of Baghdad and in northern Erbil on Wednesday night.

After the attacks, CNN and Fox News first announce that President Trump would likely address the nation in the later hours. Instead, Trump responded via Twitter writing, “All is well!” while also announcing a statement for Wednesday morning. Potential victims and damages were currently being assessed, he added. And: “We have the most powerful and well-equipped military anywhere in the world, by far!”.

Meanwhile, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards stated that “Operation Martyr Soleimani” had obliterated the Ain al-Assad airbase with 35 missiles. The attack with ballistic missiles on the “base occupied by the Americans was a complete success in every respect.” Moreover, Iranian state television reported, contrary to the US’ statements, 80 “American terrorists” were killed in the attack.

Around 5,000 US soldiers are stationed in several bases in Iraq, leading the international military alliance against the terrorist militia “Islamic State.” “These bases have been on high alert for signs of planned attacks by the Iranian regime on our troops and interests in the region,” the US Department of Defense commented.

The Iranian government’s first official statement after the attacks came from Foreign Minister Zarif, who stated that Iran was not striving for escalation or war but will defend itself “against aggression.”. Iran had “taken and completed proportionate self-defense measures” under Article 51 of the UN Charta.

Iran’s leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei went one step further and referred to the attacks as a “slap in the face” for the United States. Moreover, the US troops would have to leave the region, as their presence is the source of corruption, but because the United States was “the enemy of Iran.”

Meanwhile, the Revolutionary Guard warned the “great Satan” USA of conducting counterattacks. Every US response would be answered with a stricter response, which could also include attacks on Israel, a spokesman of Khamenei stated. In addition, US allies should know that their bases, which are made available to the Americans, could also be targeted by Iranian attacks if attacks on Iran were carried out from there. The United States should withdraw its troops so that their lives are not endangered.

It remains to be seen to what degree Iran’s statements and figures, and indeed perhaps the whole attack, are simply propaganda measures. Clarity on it will likely be provided once President Trump addresses the public today. However, the US media stands by its reporting that there were no casualties on the part of the United States and that Iran fired “only” twelve missiles.

The likelihood of a calculated propaganda attack by Teheran will increase if initial US reports on casualties are accurate, based on the locations Iran targetted. Al-Assad and Erbil host significantly fewer US soldiers than, for instance, Balad, which is in even closer proximity to Iran and arguably easier to hit. Thus one can assume that if Iran wanted to cause maximum damage, it could very likely have attacked a different base. Whether or not this is the case and Iran’s attempt to save face without starting an all-out war will likely be answered over these next hours.

Nonetheless, the fact that, unlike in the past, Iran has not used proxies, but conducted the attacks directly has established a new level of escalation.

Whatever facts and statements will transpire from Washington, this will be President Trump’s biggest test as Command in Chief. His reaction today will not only decide war and peace but probably his presidency.

L'articolo Iran Attacks The United States proviene da InsideOver.

North Korea does not celebrate Christmas, but it is willing to make an exception this year to give the United States a gift. According to Ri The Song, first Vice Minister at the Foreign Ministry, it us up to Washington to decide the nature of the present. Reading between the lines, Pyongyang appears to be hinting at further missile tests if the US refuses to return to the negotiating table. The gift could be a concession, however, if American diplomats reengage their North Korean counterparts after months of stalled discussions. 

Merry Christmas

It is not entirely clear what the gift may entail, however, so for now, Ri’s comments have only provoked speculation. The last time North Korea gave the US a “gift” was in 2017 for the Fourth of July when it test-launched an intercontinental ballistic missile. Pyongyang set a deadline of the end of the year for nuclear discussions, but with only three weeks left in December and no news from Washington, time will likely run out. 

Ri accused the US of purposely delaying peace negotiations for political gain. 

“The dialogue touted by the US is, in essence, nothing but a foolish trick hatched to keep the DPRK bound to dialogue and use it in favor of the political situation and election in the US,” he said.

The North Korean situation has taken a backseat to other pressing matters, such as the US-China trade war and the Iranian nuclear deal. At home, US President Donald Trump is also facing impeachment over a scandal involving Ukraine and Democratic presidential frontrunner Joe Biden. Although Trump opened the door to talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un when he took office, discussions have lacked steady progress. Trump even became the first sitting president to meet with a North Korean leader at the demilitarized zone since the Korean War, an impressive gesture toward building a new relationship. 

Trump appeared unfazed by Kim’s promise of a holiday gift.

“We’ll see what happens,” he said, speaking from London. “My relationship with Kim Jong Un is really good, but that doesn’t mean he won’t abide by the agreement we signed. I hope he lives up to the agreement, but we’re going to find out.”

Updated Technology

The agreement Trump referred to was signed at a summit in Singapore on June 12, 2018. Each agreed to establish relations in the pursuit of peace and prosperity. Furthermore, Pyongyang agreed to work toward denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. This year, North Korea began test-firing missiles once more, but Trump did not budge.

“North Korea fired off some small weapons, which disturbed some of my people, and others, but not me,” Trump said. Although he said he hopes Kim abides by their agreement, it has become clear that Kim is only willing to do so if the US returns to the negotiating table. 

Pyongyang fired another missile on a new launcher dubbed its “super-large” launcher Nov. 29 in what it claimed was a “final review” of the setup. The practical effect of the test is that North Korea is ready to deploy updated offensive missiles, but the underlying message was meant not for its South Korean adversary, but the Trump administration. Kim is not baiting the US into war, but rather flexing the nation’s muscles to convince Washington to reopen diplomatic discussions. 

Waiting Game

It is neither a new nor recent strategy; Iran is using a similar playbook by gradually reducing its adherence to the Obama-era nuclear deal. The strategy has not worked for Tehran, but North Korea may find success where the Middle Eastern state has failed because Trump has expressed admiration for Kim and spoken highly of talks. At the last meeting between the two powers, American officials told the media they felt talks were “good,” even as North Korean diplomats expressed the opposite sentiment. 

Trump has met Kim, but while the American leader viewed it as a concession, Kim was emboldened by the move. As American negotiators continued to hold discussions, the Trump administration was comfortable with the pace and lack of progress, aside from a non-binding agreement signed between Trump and Kim. Pyongyang has different take on the situation, preferring to have a formal deal in place before the end of 2019. 

North Korea perhaps wants a deal made before the US election season begins in earnest because they fear Trump might lose and due to the time demands required to run for president. If Trump is busy holding rallies, he will not have time to focus on North Korea. A Christmas gift is a reminder that the problem is still there and Kim is not content to wait idly in the hope that one day Trump might pick up the phone again and arrange for another summit. Trump’s nonchalant demeanour indicates that he has larger obsessions at home (i.e. impeachment) and abroad (Iran and China) and when you deal with Trump, you do it on his terms, at his pace.

L'articolo North Korea Promises Christmas Gift for America proviene da InsideOver.