Despite the fact that he will be leaving office in January, President Donald Trump has released his Secretary of Defense Mark Esper. He confirmed the news Monday on Twitter. A successor is already in place.

Trump and his administration only have a few weeks left in the White House after losing the election to Democratic challenger Joe Biden.

Who Will Succeed Esper?

The news broke on Monday afternoon local time that Trump had announced a change in his cabinet and released Secretary of Defense Mark Esper from his duties.

“Mark Esper has been terminated. I would like to thank him for his service,” the president wrote on Twitter. Esper’s successor is Christopher Miller, as Trump also confirmed via the platform.

Miller previously served as the Pentagon’s chief special operations officer and also served on Trump’s National Security Council. As an army officer, he also took part in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Only this past August, Miller became director of the National Counter-Terrorism Center.

Esper’s Dismissal was a Long Time Coming

Rumors of Esper’s dismissal had been circulating in Washington for months. However, such a step was anticipated in the aftermath of the election, especially in the event of a Trump victory.

Esper’s dismissal puts the Pentagon in yet another phase of leadership change as military officials seek to keep the US military prepared to deal with threats from Asia and resolve domestic political tensions.

Trump’s and Esper’s relationship has reportedly been strained since summer. The main reasons for the tension were protests against racism and police violence, in which the president presented himself as a hardliner and threatened to end the unrest in the country with military force if necessary.

Esper Was Not in Line With Trump’s Ideas

To do this, Trump would have had to activate the Insurrection Act of 1807, which allows the US president to deploy the US military domestically under certain circumstances.

Esper spoke out against using the US military to stop the unrest and visibly distanced himself from Trump on the matter. He described such a step as a “last resort” that should only be used in the “most urgent and worst situations.”

The fact that the Pentagon’s incumbent head is so publicly at a distance from the commander-in-chief is highly unusual and was not well received by Trump. US media reported at the time, citing Trump’s inner circle, that the president had already raised the question at the time of replacing Esper for the perceived insubordination.

In addition, there were disagreements about how to deal with the Confederate flag, among other things, which had come into focus in the racism debate in the US.

Esper had ordered that the flag be banned from all military facilities across the nation. However, he had avoided an open confrontation with Trump by renouncing an express ban on the flag.

Trump’s ‘Execution List’

Last Thursday, NBC reported that Esper had already prepared a resignation letter because he had long expected to be fired after the election. Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman had previously rejected the report, saying that the minister had no plans to resign and was not asked to resign.

Rumors of Esper’s possible firing and other government officials in the wake of the election persisted to the last. At the end of October, Axios published a report that spoke of a “Trump post-election execution list”, arguing the president sought to fire FBI Director Christopher Wray, CIA Director of foreign Gina Haspel, and Secretary of Defense Mark Esper if he won reelection against Biden.

Numerous layoffs, dismissals, and resignations within the administration have marked Trump’s tenure, which has seen the most severe staff turnover in decades. Esper succeeded General James Mattis at the Pentagon’s head after Mattis resigned in December 2018 over strategic disagreements with Trump.

L'articolo Trump Fires Secretary of Defense Mark Esper proviene da InsideOver.

The Pentagon’s ambitious plan to boost the U.S. Navy—which came amid the escalating tension in the disputed South China Sea—has raised concern as well as a question over whether both sides will engage in a possible military confrontation.

Major Boost to the US Navy

Pentagon boss Mark Esper revealed the plan to strengthen the US Navy fleet by bringing up the amount of ships to more than 355 from the existing 293. This will require an additional budget of billions of dollars that will be disbursed starting from this year until 2045.

“To achieve this outcome, we must increase funding for shipbuilding and the readiness that sustains a larger force. Doing this, and finding the money within the Navy budget and elsewhere to make it real, is something both the Navy leadership and I are committed to doing,” Esper stated.

Valiant Shield

The Pentagon’s latest information on September 20 stated that the U.S. Navy ship USS Antietam (C.G. 54) Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser carried out a Tomahawk land-attack cruise missile (TLAM) strike plan, with the Farallon de Medinilla range near Guam as the target.

The strike exercise is a part of Valiant Shield, a biennial military exercise focusing on integration involving all military divisions (Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force).

Guam’s military exercise strengthens Esper’s statement in his address last week that China poses a significant threat in the Pacific Rim.

The US Navy vs. the Chinese Navy: a Comparison

The Pentagon report submitted to Congress admitted that China has the larger navy with around 350 submarines and ships, including more than 130 main surface combatants.

China is planning to add more vessels to 360 by the end of 2020, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for China Chad Sbragia said.

The Pentagon even hailed China’s Navy for making significant progress in shipbuilding, ballistic and cruise missile development, and integrated air defense.

However, China snubbed the Pentagon report, calling it full of bias. The information was published during the ongoing tension between Beijing and Washington in the South China Sea, where China increased its military activity.

Popular Mechanics reported that China’s defense budget has grown sixfold in the last six decades, focusing on modernizing combat troops and building strength projection-especially for the Navy.

How Would a US-China Naval Conflict Play Out?

Many often speculate about who would win if both countries engage in a confrontation in the South China Sea. Yet, the answer is not that simple.

The US is still considered the world’s foremost military superpower with sophisticated weapon systems equipped with the latest technology. Washington would be unstoppable and undefeated in the case of a war erupting.

China may have more ships, but it cannot beat the US Navy, Esper emphasized.

“Even if we stopped building new ships, it would take the [People’s Republic of China] years to close the gap when it comes to our capability on the high seas. Ship numbers are important, but they don’t tell the whole story,” Esper stated.

At this time the US has 11 active aircraft carriers, while China only has two, while the US has 74 submarines, and China 66.

Even though the US fleet is seen as superior, it is divided around the world. In contrast, China can focus on countering the US in the Pacific.

Closing the Innovation Gap

China’s rapid military modernization has closed the gap with the S. Therefore, innovation is compulsory for the Pentagon

Using Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) and equipping ships and warplanes with a long-range missile to sink an enemy’s ship can be the best option for the Pentagon, as Elbridge Colby wrote in Foreign Policy. 

L'articolo Why is the Pentagon Worried About China’s Navy? proviene da InsideOver.

The coronavirus continues to spread on the USS Theodore Roosevelt aircraft carrier, putting the 4,865 sailors on board in severe danger. Nonetheless, the Pentagon had repeatedly opposed the idea of evacuating the crew in recent days. Now the first soldiers have left the carrier.

Over the last few days, it had been assessed whether evacuating the carrier was an option. The situation was unprecedented according to the current Acting Secretary of the Navy Thomas Modly. A highly sophisticated and nuclear-powered ship could not merely be evacuated entirely, as Modly stated. In addition, the capacity on the Pacific island of Guam, which is where the aircraft carrier is currently anchored, was insufficient. It could not accommodate the thousands of crew members.

How Bad is the Covid-19 Outbreak Onboard?

In total, there are currently over 100 confirmed infections among the Roosevelt’s crew of 4,865, which led the captain of the ship Brett Crozier to launch an appeal to his superiors. In it, he stated that it was an unnecessary risk to keep the 4,865-strong crew on board. Moreover, it was breaking the confidence of the sailors. A quick decision to evacuate the ship and quarantine the crew was therefore needed, Crozier wrote in a letter dated March 30.

Modly, meanwhile, said that US military leadership was very concerned about the situation and was taking all reasonable steps to resolve the situation as best as possible. The entire crew should now be tested, he added. Most importantly, there was no fundamental disagreement with the captain, he said. However, the Navy had only mentioned eight infections on Friday, which appears to be a discrepancy to the now reported 100 confirmed cases.

The situation for the US Navy remains tricky, however. As Crozier also stated in his letter, an evacuation was needed to exclude around 10 percent of the crew, as these individuals would have to remain onboard to ensure the functionality of all systems and to disinfect the ship. The alternative to this was simply that the ship is kept fully operational – even if the ship could not become virus-free and the death of some sailors had to be potentially expected, Crozier concluded.

Is Evacuation Necessary?

Secretary of Defense Mark Esper also responded yesterday, stating that an evacuation of the ship was currently unnecessary during an interview with CBS, particularly as none of the 100 infected people have been seriously ill to date. Besides, supplies and medical support would be provided to the carrier, Esper added.

Esper’s words became obsolete rather quickly when the news broke on Wednesday evening that thousands of crew members are now going to leave the aircraft carrier after all.

How Can an Evacuation be Done?

Modly recently confirmed that around 1,000 crew members have already left the ship, a number that is reportedly set to increase to 2,700 in the coming days.

Approximately 1,000 crew members are going to remain on board the Roosevelt, however, in order to keep the ship running. A complete evacuation was inconceivable due to the weapons, ammunition, expensive aircraft, and a nuclear reactor that is on board the ship, as Modly explained.

Crew members are currently accommodated at the U.S. Naval Base in Guam or, for those for whom a coronavirus infection has been ruled out, in hotels on the Pacific island. The general rule is that no one should be allowed to leave the base unless they have previously tested negative for Covid-19.

L'articolo Pentagon Evacuates USS Theodore Roosevelt proviene da InsideOver.

President Trump will divert another $7.2 billion of Pentagon funds for border wall construction this year, five times what Congress authorized for the project in the 2020 budget.

This is the second consecutive time that the President has diverted funds from military construction projects and counternarcotics funding. In 2019, Trump extracted $2.5 billion from military counterdrug programs to fund the Mexico-US border wall. This year, he plans to extract $3.5 billion.

Correspondingly, the president diverted $3.7 billion in military construction funding, more than the $3.6 billion he took in 2019. With the added funds, Trump’s administration would have diverted $18.4 billion of Pentagon funding toward completion of the barrier.

This is not the first time that the president has defied Congress. Last year, it was reported that Trump had deployed American troops to 53 out of 54 African countries without Congress’ knowledge or approval.

The administration originally planned to build a 509 mile-long border wall. According to internal planning figures, the diverted funds would enable the government to complete about 885 miles of new fencing by spring 2020. Yet, despite promises to complete 450 miles of barrier at the end of the year, only 101 miles have been completed.

Trump constantly promised voters a US-Mexico border wall during his campaign for presidency in 2016. Last year, the Trump administration asked Congress for $5 billion for the border wall construction. This led to the 35-day shutdown, the longest in US history, until Democrats agreed to provide $1.4 billion in taxpayer funding.

“’Mexicans are rapists’ is the first thing Trump said when he came down Trump towers to announce his campaign for president,” Dr Christopher Phelps at the University of Nottingham’s Department of American and Canadian Studies said.

“The wall is extremely expensive to build. Half of Congress is currently controlled by Democrats who declined Trump money to build the wall. By diverting money from other areas, Trump doesn’t have to worry about Congress’ approval. That is his endgame.

“There might be some weakening of defense and other government priorities, but the Republican base does not care. They are excited about the wall. It is their anti-immigrant fervour that allowed Trump into power.

“It is classic scapegoating,” Dr Phelps continued. “Ordinary American families are facing a lot of difficulty in making ends meet. These economic problems arose after the 2008 financial crisis. People could have blamed Wall Street and capitalism, but they chose to blame immigrants.

Bernie Sanders’ campaign, for example, is focused on a more just financial system and economic order. The Republican base’s anger is displaced on immigrants, and they have no problem with Trump taking away money from anywhere to build the wall.”

“The US military is a hegemon on earth,” explained Dr Phelps. “It has such a gigantic budget that diverting some of those funds may not harm the American populace per se.

Congress approved nearly $700 billion for US’ defense spending this year. In 2019, the United States’ defense budget was more than the next nine countries combined.

“The wall is a symbolic thing, more than a practical thing,” Dr Phelps said. “Republican voters are not concerned with practical objections as to whether the wall would function. People could always find ways to scale it no matter how tall it is; they could find ways under it. There are also places along the border where the wall can’t be built e.g. rivers and lofts. It cannot be made 100% impenetrable.”

Construction of the barrier wall has faced numerous challenges in federal court. Last month, a federal district court in El Paso, Texas, ruled that Trump diverting funds meant for other purposes to the border wall was illegal. The court froze the $3.6 billion that the Republican administration had diverted.

Last week, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans lifted the injunction after an appeal by Trump’s government. The court, presided by a significant amount of judges nominated by infamous Republican presidents, Ronald Reagan and George Bush, claimed that work on the barrier could continue while legal challenges to the Trump government are pending. The $3.6 billion was previously Pentagon-allocated to road repairs, school construction projects on military bases, and a waste treatment plant.

“This is a victory for the rule of law,” Stephanie Grisham, the White House press secretary, expressed in a statement celebrating the court’s ruling. “We are committed to keeping our borders secure, and we will finish the wall.”

“This would not have been possible without the President’s steadfast determination and leadership,” Acting Homeland Security Secretary, Chad Wolf, said last week at an event marking the completion of the 100th mile of the barrier in Arizona,

“The new border wall system is an undeniable impediment to human smugglers, drug traffickers and other criminals who have exploited our lack of effective border infrastructure to smuggle drugs, people and illegal contraband into our country.”

For Dr Phelps, however, the physical barrier will not soothe America’s deep psychoanalytical and symbolic fears.

“Whiteness in America is at a tipping point,” summarised Dr Phelps. “This wall is not going to stop the problem.

“The US was, for a long time, a white republic. For the first time, demographics such as Asians, Blacks and Latinos will take over the White-majority population. The US is set to be a colour-majority country.

“The fact of the matter is that the Obama presidency was very uncomfortable for white Americans. For generation after generation, they schooled themselves on white superiority. One way to stop a colour-majority and superiority from overtaking white America is to build a wall. This is factual, not qualitative. If we look at exit poll data from the 2016 election, the number one variable that united those who voted for Trump was whiteness. The wall is all about whiteness. That’s why they’ve built this narrative of brown ‘others’ taking their jobs, raping their women and pillaging their country.”

L'articolo Trump Will Divert Additional $7.2 billion in Pentagon funds to Border Wall proviene da InsideOver.

Working for the United States Department of Defense at The Pentagon is usually the highlight of both military and civilian professionals, especially when they reach the upper echelons of the organization. However, a steady stream of retirements, including some surprise departures, have left the department – and by extension, US President Donald Trump – with a gaping hole once occupied by adept military expertise.

In April 2019, the tide picked up in earnest beginning with five out of seven members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff being replaced, according to The Wall Street Journal. Regional commanders in charge of command posts abroad were not immune to the turnover either, which by design to some extent. 

“The scheduled and periodic turnover of senior leaders throughout the US military at all echelons is a common occurrence and one for which we are well-prepared as an institution,”  said Air Force Col. Pat Ryder, spokesman for the Joint Staff. 

While that is true to some degree, the exodus has continued during what has arguably the most turbulent period of US foreign relations since the Cuban Missile Crisis in the 1960s. What began in April continued throughout the end of December, with the defense department closing 2019 with five resignations over a two-week span. 

The December resignations included: Tina Kaidanow, senior advisor for international cooperation; Steven Walker director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; Jimmy Steward, undersecretary of defence for personnel and readiness; Kari Bingen, principal deputy undersecretary of defence for intelligence; and Randall Schriver, assistant defence secretary for Indo-Pacific security affairs. 

Forced Out 

While resignations allowed some officials to leave their posts with dignity, others were not afforded the same opportunity. In the case of Navy Secretary Richard Spencer, Defence Secretary Mark Esper fired him in a highly publicised event. The move came as a result of controversy surrounding Navy SEAL Chief Eddie Gallagher.

Spencer’s handling of the affair, notably circumventing the chain of command and trying to deal directly with the Trump administration to preserve Gallagher’s SEAL rank, ultimately contributed to Gallagher retaining his status and becoming a conservative icon.

Spencer served four years as captain in the Navy.

In July, Adm. William Moran announced he would retire and suddenly declined the top naval post of Chief of Naval Operations. The position also would have placed the four-star officer to serve on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 

While Moran was not forced out in a technical sense, it was undoubtedly in the works after he was discovered to be relying on a public affairs advisor who had been reprimanded for partying with junior officers. The questionable judgement was viewed as unbecoming and unprofessional by Spencer, who was still in his position at the time, and he indicated that he would have asked for Moran’s resignation had he not willingly provided it.

Battle-Hardened Servicemen Relinquished Coveted Top Posts

Higher up the chain, Ryan Zinke resigned as Secretary of the Interior amid allegations surrounding a development project in his home town of Whitefish, Montana. Zinke had previously served in the Navy as Commander in the famous SEAL Team Six. Notably, he was the first SEAL to ever serve on a presidential cabinet. 

Turning to generals, Trump replaced Gen. Jim Mattis replaced with Lt. Col. Mark Esper from the Army for the position of Secretary of Defence. While Esper did accumulate 20 years of military service, it was less than half of Mattis’ 44 years, from 1969 to 2013. Mattis did not leave on good terms after turning in his resignation, alluding to differences of strategy. Trump decided to expedite his departure, essentially firing him before his planned resignation date.  

Like Mattis, Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster had decades of experience before serving as Trump’s national security advisor. Also like Mattis, McMaster was initially viewed as a possible counter to Trump’s impulsive decision-making. When it became clear the two had different opinions on foreign policy, Trump chose to replace him with John Bolton, who was also subsequently either fired or dismissed, depending on whose account you believe. 

Gen. John Kelly had the most experience of them all after serving in the Marine Corps. Trump picked him to fill the post of Secretary of Homeland Security before promoting him to White House Chief of Staff. The relationship between Trump and Kelly deteriorated so much that it was reported the two were no longer on speaking terms shortly before Kelly left his position. 

Kelly had been most-aligned with Trump, mostly in his support of stricter immigration controls. Kelly’s successor, Mick Mulvaney, went on to tell the press that quid pro quo, as in the case of Ukraine, happens “all the time” and that the media should “get over it.”

Finally, Dan Coats, director of national intelligence, had 2 years of military experience from 1966 to 1968. While his service record was brief, he went on to graduate from law school before serving as representative, ambassador to German, and two stints as senator before joining the Trump cabinet. 

Most critically, Coats disagreed with Trump on foreign policy hotspots including North Korea, Iran, and Russia. He was dismissed shortly after Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy was made public, signalling that Trump blamed Coats for it.

Pompeo and Esper Fill the Void

The high-profile departures of military veterans begs the question of “Who is left?” After Trump decided to assassinate Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, US Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky, said the president had received “bad advice” when making the decision. A brain-drain in both the Pentagon and White House may have simply left no one to give good advice. 

Two cabinet members remain who possess military expertise and the rarer quality of having Trump’s ear: Esper and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Coincidentally, both men have professional experience working the aircraft industry, Esper as executive vice president of the Aerospace Industries Association and Pompeo at several manufacturers he purchased with some military friends. 

Pompeo, on the other hand, remains composed while under pressure and demonstrates a wealth of emotional intelligence. He has shown that his political views mostly align with Trump and that he is capable of keeping the president from making rash decisions. Pompeo’s professional qualifications are impressive; he is a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, West Point and Harvard graduate, former congressman, and entrepreneur. 

In a way, he is like an alternate reality version of Trump, where the future president succeeded at his military boarding school and chose not to dodge the military draft. In that world, Trump may have returned from the war a different man; a man much like Pompeo.

L'articolo Washington Military Leadership Vacuum Grows proviene da InsideOver.

Despite a Pentagon report stating otherwise, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo insisted that ISIS is less of a threat now than it was prior to military intervention in Iraq and Syria. On a “CBS This Morning” broadcast, Pompeo cautioned that we shouldn’t take the report wholly on face value, but rather look at the overall threat that ISIS continues to pose. In March, U.S. President Donald Trump boldly proclaimed the ISIS caliphate was defeated. 

ISIS Defeated? 

“We just took over, you know, you kept hearing it was 90 percent, 92 percent, the caliphate in Syria, now it’s 100 percent. We just took over 100 percent caliphate, that means the area of the land we’re just have 100 percent, so that’s good,” Trump told U.S. troops at a military base in Alaska. 

Trump credited his administration solely with the supposed accomplishment, even displaying two different maps of ISIS-held territory. One was from the election night in 2016 and the other was from March. Judging from the maps of red ISIS pockets, one might have concluded that the U.S. and its allies had indeed routed the terrorist group, but the reality was not quite as a spectacular, according to the Pentagon report.

“Despite losing its territorial ‘caliphate,’ the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) solidified its insurgent capabilities in Iraq and was re-surging in Syria,” the report stated. 

Critically, the report put the blame on the withdrawal of U.S. forces which handicapped American-backed Syrian troops. Not only did the removal of American troops hinder the training of the Syrian military, but it also mean a sudden gap in intelligence operations which might have helped ISIS spread its ideology and recruit more fighters from a camp that hosts displaced Syrians. 

The damning report portrays the Trump administration’s Middle East strategy as a failed one and even ill-advised. In Syria, 3,000 troops at one time were assisting the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in its fight to regain its country from the grips of ISIS. While that number may seem low, it was a sufficient amount to serve as support for the SDF. Trump, however, had other plans for how to manage U.S. involvement and during his campaign, he pledged to remove all U.S. troops from Syria. After he announced a victory against ISIS, he amended his plans by deciding to keep 200 troops there as a deterrent against a possible resurgence. That idea did not seem to work as evidenced by the Pentagon’s report. 

Resurgent and Spreading 

“It’s complicated,” Pompeo said about a possible ISIS resurgence. “There’s certainly places where ISIS is more powerful today than they were three or four years ago. But the caliphate is gone and their capacity to conduct external attacks has been made much more difficult.”

Pompeo’s spin on the report might bear some truth to it; after all, years of sustained U.S.-backed fighting would naturally set ISIS’s strength back, but his admission that it could be more powerful in some areas of the region is not an overwhelming endorsement of Trump’s strategy. While Pompeo is focused more on the threat capacity and general risk of the group, the Pentagon’s report gave a more wholesome analysis of the situation and none of it was particularly flattering. The fact that Pompeo could find a way to spin any positive news from it is a testament to his loyalty to the administration. With an upcoming election year, having Trump look like a success against ISIS would resonate well with voters and he would appear to have fulfilled a campaign pledge.

Another part of Pompeo’s defense of Trump’s strategy was that ISIS’s capability to coordinate attacks outside of Syria was reduced. While that might make sense because it effectively lost its centralized command network, the reverse has actually proven to be true. Just a few days before Pompeo’s interview, ISIS took responsibility for a suicide attack at a wedding in Kabul, Afghanistan. 63 were killed and nearly 200 more were injured. 

ISIS continues to boast an incredibly strong affiliate network, especially across Africa and South Asia. These related groups that are linked to the Syrian ISIS could prove to be an even greater threat than the Syrian component as they are spread out and have the ability to strike virtually anywhere. Instead of fighting a contained threat in Syria, the U.S. has to contend with increased terror cells elsewhere. 

Pompeo’s defense of the Pentagon report was perhaps the best of all possible responses to a ferocious condemnation of the Trump Administration’s policy in Syria. There simply was very little positive news from those pages and seizing upon the one good morsel was realistically his only option. While Pompeo’s stance is still that the U.S. is winning the war against ISIS, it handing over the reins completely to SDF and withdrawing remaining U.S. forces could prove to be an unspoken admission of defeat in the near future, but Trump and Pompeo will surely find a way to spin it as a victory.  

L'articolo Pompeo Spins ISIS Report As Positive But Admits “It’s Complicated” proviene da InsideOver.

Donald Trump has stopped the potential attack on Iran, because the White House leader believes there is no reason to venture into a new conflict in the Middle East that this time could have devastating effects on the whole region (and certainly also globally). However, it was not only Trump who called off the hounds in his administration. Another fundamental part of the American state – the Pentagon – has asked to avoid open warfare and has been holding back from armed intervention for some time.

American generals do not want a war with Tehran. Or at least they are perfectly aware that, despite the clear technological superiority of the United States, it would not be able to cover all the risks of a full-scale war against what could be considered the greatest military power in the Middle East, together with Israel. Underestimating the strength of the Islamic Republic is a mistake that the Pentagon knows full well that it cannot make. Tehran has already shown that it has the ability to react to attacks, but, above all, it has demonstrated a far greater strategic ability than the other countries of the Middle East to go up against the United States in recent years. Furthermore, a direct war with Iran would not be without consequences for the US military and their allies.

The first problem primarily concerns Iranian military strength, which is undoubtedly significant, and which the Global Firepower Index places 14th in its world rankings. As recently mentioned by The Washington Post – which reports on the studies of the Congressional Research Service – Tehran can currently count on an army of about 700,000 men. Of these, 350,000 are regular forces, while the Revolutionary Guards, the Pasdaran, comprise 125,000 men, plus 20,000 for their navy alone, and an unknown number for their air force. There are also the security forces (about 60,000) and the Basij, the Iranian paramilitary force that receives orders directly from the Pasdaran. Their numbers are unknown, and they are generally to be considered usable only in the case of full-scale conflict on Iranian territory. In any case, as a minimum there would be at least 300,000 reservists.

From a numerical point of view, therefore, Iran already represents a significant opponent to the intervention of any army, and is evidently the strongest power in the entire Persian Gulf and in the Middle East. However, quantity is certainly not synonymous with quality – this is demonstrated by the fact that Tehran cannot compete with Washington from an air force and navy point of view, or in terms of missiles, at least at present. Iran has around 300 military aircraft, but these are mostly Mig-29, Su-24, or old F-4, F-5 and F-14 fighter jets purchased before Ayatollah Khomeini’s Islamic Revolution. Additionally they have 89 transport aircraft and 104 training aircraft.

The same can be said about their navy. Iran, according to the latest data, possesses about a hundred warships, including surface vehicles and submarines. Although it is not comparable to the US Navy, already present in the Persian Gulf with the Fifth Fleet, it is quite clear that it should still be considered an instrument of war capable of decisive strikes against neighbouring countries and any merchant or military craft crossing the Persian Gulf. This is an area largely controlled not so much by the Iranian navy as by the Revolutionary Guards. If you also consider the system of underwater mines that the Persian authorities have installed in various areas of the sea that divides Iran from the Arabian Peninsula, in particular in the Strait of Hormuz, and the fleet of assault motorboats possessed by the Pasdaran, it is understandable that there is a fear that the Gulf could turn into hell on earth.

This fear is also provoked by Iran’s missile arsenal. From a defensive point of view, Iran has around 150 I-HAWK systems, plus a supply of Russian S-300 systems. Deliveries had been frozen for about ten years before this block was removed by Russia in 2016 with the delivery of the first S-300. Tehran has requested to begin negotiations with Moscow for the purchase of S-400s. However, for now there is silence from the Kremlin, who are aware that excessively arming Iran does not benefit their Middle Eastern strategy. As well as these systems, Iran has an offensive missile capacity, the cutting edge of which comprises the Shahab-3, a medium-range ballistic missile, which has a range of almost 1300km and has a variant that can even reach 2000km. With these missiles alone, Iran can reach any Middle Eastern capital as well as US targets and allies in the region.

It is for this latter reason why the Pentagon and the President of the United States do not want to arrive at a military conflict, since war with Iran would involve a clash with an enemy that could destabilise the whole region. Tehran could hit all the US allies in the Gulf and in the Middle East, but above all it would put at risk both the sea through which a large part of the world’s oil is transported, and also all the areas of conflict in which Iran is involved. The Islamic Republic forces could not only affect US allies, but also cause conflicts in any area where proxies for Tehran are present; they could escalate tensions on the Israeli-Lebanese border with Hezbollah, in Syria, Iraq and Yemen (with the Houthi militias), and with all the global militias linked to Tehran and the Quds forces. This could also jeopardise naval traffic in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. The United States cannot afford this level of risk: Iran in recent years has built a network of alliances that may be perfectly capable of putting the entire region in danger.

Precisely for this reason, the approach of the White House and the Pentagon was much less severe than that of some advisers in the American administration. A conflict? Better not, or at least not with bombers and warships. It is therefore not a coincidence that Washington has opted for a wave of cyber attacks against Iranian military infrastructure, and in particular the Pasdaran. They wanted to damage Iran digitally with a precise raid, but without triggering a conventional military retaliation. However, cyber warfare and American technological leadership should not be taken for granted. Iran has a technological strength that far exceeds the expectations of many detractors. Furthermore, this US attack also served to test the capabilities of Persian defence against cyber warfare.

L'articolo Men, Missiles, Allies and the Pasdaran: Why the Pentagon Fears Iran proviene da InsideOver.

A 60-page PDF report recently published by the Pentagon has caused quite a stir among nuclear proliferation experts and atomic weapons scholars. The document has attracted so much attention due to its controversial content, the authors cited, due to the fact that it is the first document of its kind in 14 years, and also because the file was almost immediately taken down from the websites of the Department of Defense. This peculiar episode is further confirmation that nuclear weapons have once again become part of the military strategies of the great powers in recent years. But it also says a lot about the complex power games within the most important department in the United States.

A nuclear strategy instruction manual

On 11 June ,the US joint chiefs of staff published a document entitled Nuclear Operations. According to the preface, the document sets out the fundamental principles and guidelines for planning, executing and assessing nuclear operations. Last year, the Trump administration released the latest Nuclear Posture Review, which highlighted the new needs of America’s nuclear arsenal, the risks from other powers and the needs to be met, notably the production of low-yield warheads. But if that document represented a sort of theoretical statement of intent, the one published by the joint chiefs of staff represents a hypothetical instruction manual.

Experts were surprised by some very specific details, demonstrating how America’s nuclear doctrine could slip dangerously from one of deterrence to attack in the coming years. Perhaps the most controversial passage is found in the third chapter. The Pentagon appears to be convinced that by using nuclear weapons, conditions can be created for achieving decisive results by re-establishing strategic stability.

This passage is essential to understanding the paradigm shift that has occurred. There are officials at the Pentagon who are convinced that it is not only possible to fight a nuclear war, but that such a conflict is “winnable”. The document goes on to say that specifically:

The use of a nuclear weapon will fundamentally change the scope of a battle and create conditions that affect how commanders will prevail in conflict

A few pages on, the authors cite the Art of War by Sun Tzu, namely that it is a doctrine of war not to assume the enemy will not come, but rather to rely on one’s readiness to meet him; not to presume that he will not attack, but rather to make one’s self invincible. The document reiterates that nuclear operations include not just deterrence but also “strike, assessment and return to stability,” and also that it is possible to win a nuclear conflict.

Regional use of nuclear warfare

The document then moves from the realm of theory, listing the practical aspects to be considered in the event of a nuclear attack: yield selection, height of burst, fallout, and weapon system selection, whether by gravity bomb, intercontinental ballistic missiles or submarine-launched ballistic missiles. But the report is not just a detailed list of instructions for “decision-makers”. It goes much further. It analyses a series of aspects, such as whether troops or the command and control systems would survive a nuclear attack.

In line with the Nuclear Posture Review, the authors demonstrate that they share the principle that nuclear weapons, despite their complexity, are very much like any other type of weapon. In the Cold War years, possible thermonuclear conflict was seen as something taking place on a large scale, with warheads being fired from the two opposing blocs. But the report is clear that small-scale, regional nuclear warfare is a possibility.

The quotes used to open each chapter caused a few eyebrows to raise among non-proliferation experts, particularly a quote from Herman Kahn. Known as a futurist and expert on military strategies, he worked for many years as an analyst for the RAND Corporation, and postulated the notion of a “winnable nuclear war”. Between the 1970s and 1980s he wrote: “My guess is that nuclear weapons will be used sometime in the next hundred years, but that their use is much more likely to be small and limited than widespread and unconstrained.” Unsettlingly, Kahn was the inspiration behind the character of Dr. Strangelove, the eponymous character in Stanley Kubrick’s film.

Leaks

The document was taken down shortly after publication without any particular explanation. The spokesman of the joint chiefs of staff told the Guardian that the document was taken down because it was confidential and should be for official use only. The fact that these leaks appear and are then removed shows that there is a degree of confusion within the Pentagon. The department is still rudderless. Donald Trump withdrew the nomination of Patrick Shanahan, who had replaced Jim Mattis, and nominated Mark Esper instead, but it is still unclear whether the appointment will receive Senate confirmation. This is all taking place against the backdrop of rising tensions with Iran, and escalating nuclear tensions across the globe.

The evolution of the nuclear scenario

This new nuclear doctrine comes at a time when the US, under Donald Trump, is working to reformulate their role as a nuclear power. Last year, the White House withdrew from two nuclear treaties, one with Iran, and the INF treaty signed with Russia in 1987. More than a few hawks in the administration, John Bolton chief among them, would also like to dismantle the US-Russia New START treaty signed in 2010, and in force until 2021, which limits the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads. It is also true, however, that despite the treaty called for by the Obama administration, both Washington and Moscow have worked, and continue to work, to carry out a vast plan to modernise their arsenals, from warheads to control and command systems. There are also risks arising from the new global players, notably China.

Translation by Stephen Dinkeldein

L'articolo Pentagon Changes Nuclear Doctrine and Prepares for War proviene da InsideOver.

Those who think the United Kingdom has disappeared from the international scene are mistaken. London is more than present in the various crisis zones, from North Africa to the Middle East, from the Sahel to the South China Sea. And appears to have no intention of withdrawing. The recent moves of the British government appear to indicate a basic truth, albeit perhaps less apparently than in preceding decades: despite its fragility, the UK is present, out there, and, even if as a ghost of its old self, ready to maintain its role as inheritor of Empire.

Let`s begin with one of the crisis zones nearest to Italy and which affect Italy most: Libya. There is another actor, silent yet with a greater presence than one might think, in the conflict in this North African country, a conflict which it has followed for some time and which it itself contributed to instigating – London. The UK is present in the local, regional and international war taking place in Africa, and its activities must not be underestimated. In recent months Britain has more or less assumed the role of spokesperson for the Western Alliance and, in particular, for the special relationship with the US. The documents of the UN Security Council all originate from drafts drawn-up by London. And British Special Forces have been involved for years in Libyan territory, while totally below-the-radar. And over these years, the UK has many times spoken of Libya as a potential happy hunting ground for Russia, witness how almost all the accusations towards Moscow concerning the presence of its contractors there have emanated from Great Britain. Furthermore, let`s not forget how a few days ago it was precisely British Intelligence which sounded the alarm on the possible presence of ABU BAKR AL BAGHDADI in Libya, so confirming also the presence of British aerial spies overflying many areas of the North African country. Thus London is in Libya. And it is fundamental not to forget it, especially because further south, in the Sahel, British forces are present, albeit in agreement with the French, Germans and Americans, and especially in Niger, the true nucleus of that Saharan belt.

But Libya is not the sole crisis zone where the UK is present. British diplomatic moves in recent weeks have been very interesting since they regard Syria also, a conflict forgotten but not finished for all that – a conflict which threatens to flare-up again with the Iran-US crisis. An escalation, this, which, among other things, marks an explicit parting-of-the-ways between the aims of London and Washington. The British are opposed to a mounting of the tensions in the Persian Gulf, and have already expressed that view at the Pentagon and the White House. However, meanwhile, in Syria, they continue to develop their mission. UK Special Forces have formally left Syria, but this does not mean that the UK has lost interest in a war where its fighter-planes and élite troops have intervened a number of times. Further, in the international coalition led by the USA, British forces play a fundamental role. A role obviously important also in Iraq, where ex-President of Kurdistan Massoud Barzani has received in Erbil the British Ambassador to Iraq, Jon Wilks. Their discussions covered ISIS and the refugee Yazidis, while stressing the necessity to continue the struggle against Islamic terrorism.

Yet London`s diplomatic moves do not stop “just” at these two scenarios. British diplomacy is active in yet another area of tension which at this time could flare-up again: the Eastern Mediterranean and, in particular, Cyprus, an island where the UK maintains two military bases, indicating unquestionably the importance this territory holds for the UK. The seabed around Cyprus has been for some time at the centre of a very important stand-off between Ankara and Nicosia. And everyone is involved in this struggle, including the international players with their oil giants. Not least London. It`s not by chance that the British Foreign Ministry has intervened in the middle of the stand-off, asking Turkey to cease all drilling activity off Paphos in the south-west of the island. A request that has irritated not only Turkey but also the Cypriot government, since the Foreign Office has spoken of an area “of which the sovereignty is under discussion”. A statement which Cypriot President Nicos Anastasiades described as “unacceptable”.

Translation from Italian by John Lanigan

L'articolo The Silent Empire of the UK proviene da InsideOver.

Since US President Donald Trump assumed office, he has made it his mission to be a self-proclaimed dealmaker. In his words, America would have “only the best deals” under his administration. Consequently, Washington has been at odds with new foes and old alike as Trump has forced himself onto the bargaining table. On issues ranging from trade to nuclear arms, he’s managed rope Iran, North Korea, China, Japan, France, and even Canada into renegotiation discussions, even on issues that were settled with the outgoing Obama administration.

Politically speaking, two of those countries stand out from the rest: Iran and North Korea. For decades, both countries have been avowed enemies of the U.S., and Western society to a broader extent. When President Barack Obama left office, his Secretary of State, John Kerry, had just finalized the Iran nuclear deal. Known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, it provided a framework which coerced Tehran to abandon its nuclear ambitions in lieu of the removal of sanctions.

And by all accounts it was working. The International Atomic Energy Agency reported in September 2017 that Iran was in full compliance with the agreement even as Trump insisted that it was not upholding its end of the deal. Facts notwithstanding, Trump pulled the U.S. out of the deal with an executive order.

Trump’s strategy appears to be leading the U.S. to a confrontation with Iran that could rival anything we’ve seen between the two since the 1980s. The decade following the Iran-Iraq War was particularly tumultuous and included a number of smaller attacks initiated by both sides.

This month, the Pentagon an U.S. Central Command made the decision to deploy a carrier strike group to the Middle East. The Pentagon obtained aerial footage depicted missiles loaded onto Iranian boats. That alone would be worrisome for American and her allies, but it also coincided with the destruction of four tankers off the coast of the United Arab Emirates on May 12, attacks that Tehran has vehemently denied. Thus far, there has been no evidence of its involvement although investigations have yet to begin.

Interestingly, the spy photograph has not been released by American intelligence, leading many to question its authenticity. Despite this, the Trump administration has consistently labeled Iran as a rising threat that could launch attacks against American troops in region, specifically those fighting in Syria and Iraq.

National Security Adviser John Bolton is thought to be the architect behind the recent “rise” of Iran and its alleged aggressive moves in the Persian Gulf. Many might recall that four years ago, Bolton penned a passionate piece for The New York Times entitled, “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran.” At that point in time, Obama was pushing negotiations forward with Tehran, however Bolton still wanted a preemptive war.

As noted in Foreign Policy, Bolton’s strategy appears directly lifted from the one he used to successfully convince President George W. Bush to invade Iraq over a decade ago. Although weapons of mass destruction were never discovered, the war culminated in the loss of thousands of civilians and troops, ultimately setting the stage for the rise of Daesh. Although invasion plans have yet to be drawn up (to our knowledge), there’s no mistaking that the head of Trump’s foreign policy clearly desires an armed conflict of some level.

He’s not alone, either. The U.S. Centcom commander, General Kenneth McKenzie, spoke forcefully about the the dangers of an empowered Iran.

“The long-term, enduring, most significant threat to stability in the Central Command area of operations is Iran,” McKenzie said.

Despite all this, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei declared that there will be no war.

“We don’t seek a war, and they don’t either. They know it’s not in their interests,” Khamenei stated.

If a war with Iran doesn’t materialize, Bolton might be satisfied with heightened North Korean hostilities. The U.S. took the unusual step of seizing a cargo ship leaving the Southeast Asian peninsula. It was loaded with coal, a manifest in violation of U.S. sanctions. Unlike his predecessor and opposite from his strategy on Iran, Trump began his tenure with opening dialogue with Kim Jong Un. Instead of tearing up a deal, he reached out to strike one. After leaving empty handed on two occasions, Trump has defaulted back to restoring sanctions.

In retaliation, Kim resumed missile test launches that had been halted for a couple years.

The conflicts between both Iran and North Korea will likely continue to simmer until the 2020 U.S. presidential election, and that is likely by design. Even though Trump privately has said he doesn’t want war, at least on member of his cabinet does. Bolton might be pulling the strings to set up Trump for a successful reelection bid. Wartime presidents have historically been elected every time. A fresh war beginning so soon before the election season begins would give rally more supporters to his cause and also would distract the American voter from the recent Mueller Report.

L'articolo Trump Courting War with North Korea and Iran proviene da InsideOver.