Journal: Israel Exposed on Nuclear Warheads Back to 1975

08 Wild Cards, 10 Security
Chuck Spinney Recommends

Nuclear Offer to Apartheid Regime Blows Diplomatic Cover Israel's Nukes Out of the Shadows

By JONATHAN COOK

Counterpunch, 26 May 2010

Nazareth. Israel faces unprecedented pressure to abandon its official policy of “ambiguity” on its possession of nuclear weapons as the international community meets at the United Nations in New York this week to consider banning such arsenals from the Middle East. Israel’s equivocal stance on its atomic status was shattered by reports on Monday that it offered to sell nuclear-armed Jericho missiles to South Africa’s apartheid regime back in 1975.

The revelations are deeply embarrassing to Israel given its long-standing opposition to signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, arguing instead that it is a “responsible power” that would never misuse nuclear weapons technologies if it acquired them. Reports of Israel’s nuclear dealings with apartheid South Africa will also energise a draft proposal from Egypt to the UN non-proliferation review conference that Israel — as the only nuclear power in the region — be required to sign the treaty.

Israeli officials are already said to be discomfited by Washington’s decision earlier this month to agree a statement with other UN Security Council members calling for the establishment of a Middle East zone free of nuclear arms.

Read entire story

Journal: Brazil, Turkey, Iran Blow Off USA–Righteously

01 Brazil, 02 Diplomacy, 05 Energy, 05 Iran, 08 Wild Cards, 10 Security

 

Chuck Spinney Recommends

This important essay by Ray McGovern makes a compelling case for the recommendation he makes last two paragraphs which are repeated in italics below:

“As a former CIA analyst, I hope that Obama would have the presence of mind to order a fast-track special National Intelligence Estimate on the implications of the Iran-Brazil-Turkey agreement for U.S. national interests and those of the countries of the Middle East.

Obama needs an unvarnished assessment of the agreement’s possible benefits (and its potential negatives) as counterweight to the pro-Israel lobbying that will inevitably descend on the White House and State Department.”

US, Israel Challenged on Iran

by  Ray McGovern, Antiwar.com,May 20, 2010

 

The times may be a-changin’ — at least a bit — with the United States and Israel no longer able to dictate to the rest of the world how crises in the Middle East must be handled, though the new reality has been slow to dawn on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her neocon friends in Congress and the U.S. media.

They may think they are still in control, still the smart ones looking down at upstarts like the leaders of Turkey and Brazil who had the audacity to ignore U.S. warnings and press ahead with diplomacy to head off a possible new war, this one over Iran.

On Monday, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva announced success in persuading Iran to send roughly 50 percent of its low-enriched uranium to Turkey in exchange for higher-enriched uranium that would be put to peaceful medical uses.

Read More: 

http://original.antiwar.com/mcgovern/2010/05/19/us-israel-challenged-on-iran/

Journal: Whither EU, Whither NATO?

02 Diplomacy, 03 Economy, 10 Security, 11 Society

Chuck Spinney

One of the probable spinoffs of America's disastrous “you are with us or against us” unilateralism in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Iran, etc., is a loss of our moral authority to lead other nations into supporting our adventures. In this regard, the future of Nato is the big question mark. This question can not be separated from the internal stress now endangering the future of EU. The attached op-ed by William Pfaff, a euro-centered, American writer, provides an interesting perspective on these questions.  CS

What Next for NATO?

Posted By William Pfaff On May 18, 2010 @ 11:00 pm

The European Union doesn’t know where it stands at this moment. NATO thinks it knows and is gambling.

 

http://original.antiwar.com/pfaff/2010/05/18/what-next-for-nato/print/

Journal: Turkey Emergent

02 Diplomacy, 08 Wild Cards, 10 Security
Chuck Spinney

CS Note: Note this is focused on deterring Israel and is consistent with Turkey's emerging regional grand strategy of rapprochement with its neighbors, in this case Iran and Syria.

Thursday May 13, 2010 by Saed Bannoura – IMEMC & Agencies

Turkey has installed Anti-Aircraft Hawk Missiles at a village close to the Syrian border in an attempt to prevent Israeli war jets from violating Turkish Airspace in case of an attack against Iran or Syria.

A Turkish paper reported that Turkey will not allow Israel to use its Airspace to attack Iran, Syria or any other country, and will act against any such violations.

The Anti Aircraft batteries were installed in Kayeel village, south of Turkey and located close to the Syrian b14 Mayorder.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, a Turkish military official stated that the batteries are meant to protect Turkey and its Airspace against any violations, including American or Israeli war jets should Israel or the United States decide to attack Iran or Syria.

 
Turkey Installs Anti-Aircraft Batteries Near Syrian Border

http://www.imemc.org/article/58667

See Also:

Journal: MILNET NIGHTWATCH on Turkey in PK-AF

Journal: NIGHTWATCH Turkey-Israel, Sudan

Journal: The Rise and Rise Further of Turkey (Along with the Collapse of Israel and the NeoCons)

Journal: Chuck Spinney Sends…Turkey and Iran

Journal: Water, Science, Politics, & the Middle East

Review: New Turkish Republic–Turkey As a Pivotal State in the Muslim World

Review: The Second World–Empires and Influence in the New Global Order

Review: The New Rulers of the World

 

Journal: The Arrogance of Ignorance in Afghanista (inter alia)

08 Wild Cards, 10 Security
Chuck Spinney

A Roadmap to Folly in Afghanistan

The Arrogance of Ignorance

By FRANKLIN C. SPINNEY

Counterpunch

http://www.counterpunch.org/spinney05172010.html

Nisos Kos, Greece

A report by Jonathan Landay and Dion Nissenbaum for McClatchy Newspapers provides important insights into our rapidly diminishing prospects for success in Afghanistan, some direct, others inferential:

First, the direct: the Qandahar operation that General McChrystal began trumpeting in late February is clearly going wobbly before it begins. The promise to demonstrate progress (i.e., to see light at the end of the tunnel) in Afghanistan by this summer is being bow-waved at least into the Fall, during the height of mid-term election season. The scope of the looming operation is also being scaled back, and its goals are being redefined in more ambiguous terms.

. . . . . . .

That the leaders in the United States military believe they can construct a successful strategy based on the premise that outsiders like themselves will be able to manipulate Pashtun leaders like puppets descends into transparent absurdity, when one juxaposes McChrystal’s ambition to the fact, well known among Pashtuns if not Americans, that the United States has contributed directly or indirectly to the murderous horror that has been Afghanistan since 1979.

The American complicity in this horror goes back at least to 1979, when the US National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, established the policy of inflaming Islamic fundamentalists (via the CIA) to destabilize Afghanistan in the hope that the threat of fundamentalist instability on Soviet Union’s vulnerable Central Asian flank would induce the Soviets to invade Afghanistan. Brzezinski’s aim was seduce the Soviets into entrapping themselves in their own Vietnam-like quagmire. The plan worked like a charm, as Brzezinski proudly admitted in a still little appreciated interview in the influential Parisian news magazine, Le Nouvel Observateur (15-21 January 1998, translation

Now, ten years and a lot of stirring later, the details of the script may have changed, but the arrogance of the ignorance shaping the outlook of our leaders has not.

here). When asked if he had any regrets, Brzesinski dismissed the question in a tone that dripped with condescension, “What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?” [see the last two paragraphs of the interview]

Journal: Two-State Genocide or One-State Rule of Law?

02 Diplomacy, 08 Wild Cards, 10 Security, 11 Society

The below article by Professor Aruri is an excellent summary of the Palestinian-Israel conflict. It provides yet more information on why the two-state solution is kaput. Had he discussed the water issue, his case would have been even stronger, but this is a nitpick on an excellent analysis that is both clearly and succinctly written.

Chuck Spinney

 

Weekend Edition

May 14 – 16, 2010

Obama and the Middle East

Is There Hope for a Two-State Solution?

By NASEER ARURI

Counterpunch

 

http://www.counterpunch.org/aruri05142010.html

Phi Beta Iota:  The author's bottom line quote and quick link:

Within a few years, Palestinians are likely to constitute a majority in all the territories controlled by Israel today. Already, the prospects of a workable and durable two-state solution have been ruled out. Will the President use the financial resources the US provides Israel as a means of enforcement and pressure? Most likely, no. Finally, if the process fails, will the President be prepared to give a full accounting of why it failed? Again, most likely, no. Perhaps a single state based on the equal protection of the law (as in the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution) could emerge as the only humane alternative to the insufferable status-quo.

Naseer Aruri, is Chancellor Professor (Emeritus) at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. He is the author of

 

Dishonest Broker, published by South End Press, Cambridge, MA.

Journal: Pentagon Intellectual Spaghetti…

02 Diplomacy, 08 Wild Cards, 10 Security

 
 

 

The following spaghetti diagram has been making the round of Versailles … it purports to summarize the strategy for winning the hearts and minds of the Afghans. But this is just the tip of the systems dynamics iceberg. This diagram is based on an attempt to model the non linear feedbacks implied in General Petraeus's Counter Insurgency Manual, FM 3-24. I do not know whether this is the product of a contractor or the military, the author of the technique was a Navy officer in 2008, but this is 2010 and the graphic has a contractor logo.

 
 

 

The author of the famous Afghan Spaghetti diagram is Navy Capt Brett Pierson, who worked on the JCS staff in the Pentagon. Pierson's bis is, reproduced below:

 

“Captain Brett Pierson is a 1987 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and was designated a Naval Aviator in 1989. Fleet assignments have included VS-38, VS-33, and a command tour as the Commanding Officer of VFA-147. He has been deployed in support of Operations SOUTHERN WATCH, RESTORE HOPE, and IRAQI FREEDOM. Brett is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School and was named the 1997 FORCE Test Pilot of the Year and 2002 USAF TPS Outstanding Flight Instructor. Captain Pierson has over 650 carrier arrested landings and 3,500 flight hours in 50 different aircraft. In December 2006 he reported to the Pentagon for duty on the Joint Staff where he currently serves in the Warfighting Analysis Division of J8. While on the Joint Staff, he was awarded the 2007 DoD Modeling and Simulation Award for Excellence for his work developing a system dynamics model of counterinsurgency based on the Army Field Manual FM 3-24.”

Reference A:  System Dynamics and Coin Modeling 2010

http://www.oss.net/dynamaster/file_archive/100513/f5ffe44103bf516a5191d460bc8b3d98/System_Dynamics_and_COIN_Modeling_v13.ppt.pdf

Reference B: Afghanistan Dynamic Planning

http://www.oss.net/dynamaster/file_archive/100513/73ba6c9145529b0fbe6a85319e5205cf/Afghanistan_Dynamic_Planning.pdf

 
 

 

The intellectual framework in the preceding briefing was then tailored specifically for Afghanistan in a the brief that culminated in the famous spaghetti Diagram. That brief is attached here. Note the explanatory comments are more in the manner of hypothecated assertions rather than empirically derived relationships.

 
 

 

For those of you who think these spaghetti diagrams reflect a new or innovative way of thinking about systems I refer you to the following figure of the comm links in Europe that were being designed in the mid 1970s to deal with a Soviet led attack on the Nato countries in Western Europe — the chart was produce in the mid-to-late 1970s and reached the four star level in the Air Force. The figure was later reproduced in my book, Defense Facts of Life: The Plans Reality Mismatch (Westview 1985).

—————

CS comments:

This Powerpoint Briefing is the dynamics model of FM-24, the Counterinsurgency Manual for which Pierson one the award in 2007. It is converted into PDF format for easier access.

Phi Beta Iota: All of the above is earnest, well-intentioned, even brilliant in its conceptualization–like the movie Top Gun–it's wonderful right up to the point where it crashes and burns from its complete disconnect from reality.  USA does not have the collection, processing, analysis, or decision-making capacity to leverage any of these concepts.  The ONLY way to get this right is to start with integrity in the first place (don't send our troops in harm's way based on lies, ideology, and treasonous misappropriation of the public purse), and to have hundreds of thousands of human brains that are trained, equipped, and organized for multinational, multiagency, multidisciplinary, and multidomain information sharing and sense-making (M4IS2) without regard to secrecy, technology, or money.  The US Government is, in one word, stupid, at the same time that its leadership (both political and professional) is completely lacking in integrity.

noble gold