Pentagon: Team Obama Is ‘Too Timid’ on Putin: America’s military brass keeps calling Russia an ‘existential’ danger to the U.S.—and the White House isn’t exactly thrilled. Every time a U.S. military commander calls Russia the biggest threat to the United States, the White House fumes.
- Get link
- Other Apps
- Pentagon: Team Obama Is ‘Too Timid’ on Putin
- Carter Crafts Close Team of Chiefs to Finish Out Obama Years
- A Better Deal With Iran Is Possible
- Department of Defense Press Briefing with Gen. Odierno on the State of the Army in the Pentagon Press Briefing Room
- Pentagon scoffs at Islamic State list of private info of U.S. government, military personnel
- Marco Rubio slams Obama's outreach to Iran and Cuba
- Grassley blasts White House over Cuban criminals
- Cuba: Now comes the hard part - Politico
- On His Birthday, Fidel Castro Wants US to Repay Cuba the Millions it Owes
- Islamic State used mustard gas against Kurdish peshmerga fighters: report
- 'Kurdish forces attacked with chemical arms in Iraq'
- Germany confirms possible ISIS chemical attack on Kurds
- US believes Islamic State likely used mustard agent in Iraq attack: WSJ - Reuters
- Russia denies hosting top Iranian commander
- Poll: Terror tops Americans' foreign policy concerns
- Albanian National Sentenced to 16 Years' Imprisonment for Attempting to ... - Federal Bureau of Investigation (press release) (blog)
- U.S. and Turkey Face Questions in Anti-ISIS Effort
- Saudi Arabia Setting Terms for Purchase of Russian Iskander Missiles
America’s military brass keeps calling Russia an ‘existential’ danger to the U.S.—and the White House isn’t exactly thrilled.
Every time a U.S. military commander calls Russia the biggest threat to the United States, the White House fumes.
In recent weeks, there’s been a dramatic, if little noticed, shift in how the Pentagon talks about the world. Russia—once dismissed as a military has-been—is now being regarded as an enemy with the potential to do “existential” damage to America. Everyone from the incoming chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on down is raising the alarm about a Russia that is revamping its nuclear arsenal, launching ultra-sophisticated cyberattacks, and, of course, stirring up trouble in Eastern Europe. And that talk is not sitting well with the staff at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Russia is just one of myriad threats, White House officials say—calling it a top threat is a step down a slippery slope toward the risk of conflict. And the talk from the Pentagon about arming the Ukrainians, so they can resist Putin? The White House is having none of it. Putting more weapons in the hands of Russia’s enemies would only create an excuse for more Russian violence, the White House worries, just as they are trying to secure a sustainable cease-fire.
The Ukrainians and America’s NATO allies in the Baltics “need to see us take action right away,” a senior defense official said. But the administration’s approach is to avoid “getting involved in any kind of conflict…They’re being a little too timid.”
Of course, nobody wants a wider war with the Russians; that’s a recipe for courting Armageddon. “But is giving lethal defensive weapons to the Ukrainians really going to do that?” the senior defense official asked. “Remember, the Russians don’t want to go to war with us, either.”
The questioning of the Russia threat has exposed an administration—and at times a Pentagon—divided about how to respond to threats to the United States. While the White House is seemingly focused on the nuclear deal with Iran—a deal forged with Moscow’s cooperation—the commanders are increasingly worried about the return of the Russian bear.
Top defense leaders believe that calling Russia a top threat paves the way to arm Ukrainians confronting Russian forces. Politically, they want the administration to recognize Russia as a top threat so they can devote the proper budget, sourcing, and troop resources to it. So far: no dice.
“The administration thinks the ranking of threats is not the most productive way to devise a strategy. But we are saying, ‘How else do we allocate increasingly limited resources?’” a second defense official explained.
“We have a nation that has used force to change internationally recognized boundaries,” General Philip Breedlove, commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Europe, told PBS NewsHour last week, the latest example of a commander talking about the Russia threat. “Russia continues to occupy Crimea. Russian forces now are in the Donbass in eastern Ukraine. So this nation has used force to change international boundaries. And this is a nation that possesses a pretty vast nuclear inventory and talks about the use of that inventory very openly in the past.”
The military’s pleas are a public manifestation of a 16-month assessment that has been making its way around the world to top U.S. generals. The warnings grew more dire with each Russian provocation, bellicose statement, and violation of hard-fought cease-fire negotiations in the war with Ukraine.
“Most assumed that the means of Russian pressure on Ukraine would be economic and perhaps an energy cutoff,” not military action, Steven Pifer, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, told The Daily Beast.
That’s not what happened. Russia seized the Crimea region of Ukraine and then backed Russian-speaking rebels in eastern Ukraine with weapons, training, and elite Russian troops.
“They are seeking a Cold War sphere of influence,” explained a third defense official, referring to Russia.
Russia’s ascent, among top U.S. military generals, as the top threat to the U.S. began with a widely circulated classified briefing born out of Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, the defense official told The Daily Beast. It was February 2014, and Russian forces had entered Crimea and installed a pro-Russian government. A month later, the Black Sea peninsula had seceded, and Russia successfully redrew the region’s map, all while dismissing international norms.
With each Russian move—its incursion into eastern Ukraine, its president’s bellicose rhetoric, its violations of cease-fire negotiations—the military updated its brief, each time raising its assessment of the Russian threat.
Like their counterparts in the Middle East caught off guard by ISIS’s capture of the Iraqi city of Mosul, U.S. commanders for Europe hastily began preparing a brief about the Russian threat. Soon, the intelligence community, the Pentagon, and the State Department added their input. And one four-star after another got the brief that Russia was a growing threat.
With each Russian move—its incursion into eastern Ukraine, its president’s bellicose rhetoric, its violations of cease-fire negotiations—the military updated its brief, each time raising its assessment of the Russian threat.
In February 2014, the U.S. Air Force deployed 12 A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft and approximately 300 airmen to train alongside their NATO counterparts. That spring, the Army deployed a company of troops to each of the Baltic states and Poland. Military equipment followed.
But it was the publication of Russia’s revised military doctrine at the end of 2014 that raised the threat from a regional matter to a global one. Not only did the document list NATO as the top threat to Russia, it also claimed for Moscow “the right to use nuclear weapons…in a case of an aggression against her with conventional weapons that would put in danger the very existence of the state.” In other words: a nuclear first strike.
The publicly pro-nuclear position—combined with Russia’s new investment in strategic weapons and advanced satellites, Moscow’s new willingness to deploy its nuclear-capable bombers, and the Kremlin leaders’ loose talk about using that nuclear arsenal—began to worry the Pentagon brass deeply.
“At DOD, we deal in worst-case scenarios,” the senior defense official said, using an acronym for the Department of Defense. “And now we’ve got this guy [Putin] deciding whether to launch? It’s a little bit scary.”
Compounding the concerns was a growing belief that Russia was the United States’ most sophisticated adversary online—even more so than China’s hackers, who recently made off with the personal information of tens of millions of government employees and their families. “I worry, frankly,more about the Russians, who are a lot more subtle and a lot more sophisticated about purloining our information,” Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Congress.
Russia’s sophistication in the war of ideas—with a global machine in the RT network and a small army of Twitter trolls—only added to the sense of a worldwide face-off.
At the same time, the Pentagon underwent an unusually high turnover period, replacing nearly every top general. Each one appeared before Capitol Hill to answer the same question: What is the biggest threat to the United States?
General Joseph Dunford, slated to be the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, his soon to be vice chairman, General Paul Selva, and the Army’s next top general, Mark Milley, agreed with a longtime assessment by General Breedlove that it was Russia. It is the only country in the world that could destroy the United States, given its vast nuclear weapons program and its president’s aim to break up the NATO alliance, they concluded.
“Russia presents the greatest threat to our national security,” Dunford asserted during his congressional confirmation hearing last month.
Dunford received a quick rebuke from the White House immediately afterward.
“These kind of assessments are dynamic,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said after Dunford’s statement. The general “has his own view, but I think he would be the first to admit that that’s—reflects his own view, and not—and doesn’t necessarily reflect the view of—or the consensus analysis of the president’s national security team,” Earnest said.
Regardless, the Pentagon already has begun making modest military adjustments. The U.S. military has moved 150 troops into the Baltic region and Central Europe, pre-positioned heavy equipment, conducted more exercises with its allies, and allotted nearly $1 billion to address the rising military threat.
The Pentagon’s 2015 budget allotted nearly $1 billion to “provide near-term flexibility and responsiveness to the evolving concerns of our allies and partners in Europe, especially Central and East Europe.” But the White House has said no to any efforts to provide lethal aid to Ukraine.
In his February confirmation hearing, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter all but endorsed giving the Ukrainians weapons. The White House quickly shot the idea down, much to the consternation of the Pentagon.
But while the military has been ringing the alarm bells, not everyone has been listening. Even some of the Pentagon’s top leaders aren’t convinced.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to the Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason
You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason
You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest and Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason
And it should be noted that each of the generals who spoke about a Russia threat came up through the ranks of a military that prepared for a war with the Soviet Union. It is a construct they have known—and been getting ready for—for decades. To resurrect that threat, some argue, is to bring back a comfortable, conventional foe in the face of a rising asymmetric one like ISIS.
An April CNN poll among Americans asked what is the biggest threat to the country. Russia came in behind ISIS, Iran, and North Korea.
Michael McFaul, professor of political science at Stanford University and former U.S. ambassador to Russia, said ranking the Russia threat was ancillary. The military’s responsibility is to make the public aware of future threats, he said.
The U.S. military leadership “is trying to bring attention to this new threat. They will be the ones that will go before the president and say, ‘This is the contingency plan,’” McFaul said. “We are going to be dealing with the Russian challenge for a long time. Preventative action could help you avoid military action later.”
Read the whole story
· · · · · · ·
With a background that includes infantry command and Special Forces, Gen. Mark Milley on Friday will become 39th Army chief, taking over for Gen. Raymond Odierno, perhaps the most outspoken military general in recent years. Milley is more than qualified for the job. But the personal bond he formed with Defense Secretary Ashton Carter years ago on a flight over Afghanistan certainly helped.
“I had a lot of opportunities to observe Mark on the ground leading our coalition of allies and partners and helping the Afghan people prepare to take responsibility for their own security,” Carter said as he announced Milley’s nomination in May.
Carter recounted a trip with Milley to Herat, Afghanistan, the day after an attack on the U.S.consulate. There he watched Milley “take command of the scene.”
“I was impressed by his candor and good judgment, and I knew right away that he had even more to offer to the United States Army,” Carter said.
The personal relationships and bonds forged between Carter and senior military leaders over the years shaped his recommendations to President Barack Obama as the nation’s top uniformed positions opened up.
With Milley, there was that flight in Afghanistan. With Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Robert Neller, whom Carter would recommend as commandant, there were meetings at the Pentagon meetings. Navy Adm. John Richardson, like Carter, holds a bachelor’s degree in physics. Now he is nominated to be the next chief of naval operations.
Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford and Air Force Gen. Paul Selva are considered two of the most strategic thinkers in the military. “We saw in them the same strategic perspective, operational experience, sound judgment, and total candor we value every day in our current leadership,” Carter said of Dunford and Selva, after he nominated them in May.
Becoming defense secretary during the latter stages of Obama’s second term means Carter has mere months —17 to be precise — to make an impact. That’s why he has surrounded himself with a familiar core of analytically minded leaders, several defense and military officials say.
“He needs people that he knows how they think, how they operate, already,” one defense official said.
And it’s not just on the uniformed side. When Carter needed an Army undersecretary, he chose a known quantity in Eric Fanning, his chief of staff. A former Air Force undersecretary, Fanning was the service’s acting secretary for several months before Secretary Deborah Lee James was confirmed. It is widely believed Fanning quickly will be tapped to replace Army Secretary John McHugh, who has announced he will retire in November.
Such relationships ought to allow these leaders to hit the ground running in their new jobs, allowing more time to work through Carter’s to-do list, Pentagon sources say. Carter has laid out a bold agenda, from personnel reforms through his Force of the Future initiative to trying to better relations between the Pentagon and tech community.
With the exception of the Air Force, timing has allowed Carter to hand-pick a new chairman and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the military heads of the Army, Navy and Marine Corps. He’ll also pick a new Army secretary in the coming months.
The Senate, in a matter of months, has confirmed all of the men selected for the top military positions with little drama throughout the process.
Selva, an Air Force cargo pilot, has already taken his seat in the Pentagon in a low-key Friday ceremony two weeks ago. There was no fanfare, no press conference, just a few pictures posted on Carter’s Flickr account.
There’s Neller, with whom Carter bonded on the battlefield and at the Pentagon in 2011 and 2012 where they worked together on projects to get those who were deployed essential equipment. At the time, Neller was the Joint Staff’s director of operations and Carter was the deputy defense secretary.
“We collaborated in the Warfighting Senior Integration Group, where we focused on providing urgent support to troops in the field in both Iraq and Afghanistan,” Carter said at Neller’s nomination announcement in May.
“[W]e traveled together, [in] the theater, around this country, where I saw Bob’s outstanding relationship with our troops,” Carter said. “He loves them, he relates to them, and they light up when he’s talking to them.”
Finally there’s Richardson, the head of the Navy’s nuclear programs who is the next chief of naval operations. Carter has called Richardson “a bold thinker, a tremendous leader, and the go-to officer for many of the Navy’s tough issues in recent years.”
In the coming weeks, these men will take their seats inside the Pentagon. Most will likely remain when Carter is likely to depart in early 2017. Whether they can enact his reforms before then remains to be seen. Many of the ideas would require congressional approval — no sure thing as the presidential race heats up.
Read the whole story
· · · · ·
FACE OFF
08.14.151:13 AM ET
Pentagon Fears It’s Not Ready for a War With Putin
The U.S. military has run the numbers on a sustained fight with Moscow, and they do not look good for the American side.
A series of classified exercises over the summer has raised concerns inside the Defense Department that its forces are not prepared for a sustained military campaign against Russia, two defense officials told The Daily Beast.
Many within the military believe that 15 years of counter terrorism warfare has left the ground troops ill prepared to maintain logistics or troops levels should Russia make an advance on NATO allies, the officials said.
Among the challenges the exercises revealed were that the number of precision-guided munitions available across the force were short of the war plans and it would be difficult to sustain a large troop presence.
“Could we probably beat the Russians today [in a sustained battle]? Sure, but it would take everything we had,” one defense official said. “What we are saying is that we are not as ready as we want to be.”
One classified “tabletop exercise” or “TTX”—a kind of in-office war game—“told us that the wars [in Iraq and Afghanistan] have depleted our sustainment capability,” a second defense official explained, using military jargon for the ability to maintain a fight. The exercise was led by the Department of Defense and involved several other federal agencies.
In recent months, the top officers of the military have begun to call Putin’s Russia an “existential threat” to the United States. The results of those exercises—and Russian-backed forces’ latest advance in Ukraine—didn’t exactly tamp down those fears.
But these concerns about readiness and sustainability are not universally held—not even inside the Pentagon. Nor is there a consensus about the kind of risk Putin's Russia really poses. Everyone in the U.S. security establishment acknowledges that Moscow has roughly 4,000 nuclear weapons, the world’s third largest military budget, and an increasingly bellicose leader. There’s little agreement on how likely that threat could be.
“A war between Russian and NATO is an unlikely scenario given the severe repercussions Russia would face. In addition to the overwhelming reaction it would provoke, Russia’s aging military equipment and strained logistical capabilities make a successful offensive attack a very difficult proposition for them,” one U.S. intelligence official told The Daily Beast. “In short, direct conflict with Russia is a low probability, high-risk situation. The challenge of Putin’s erratic leadership is that low probability events are slightly more probable.”
The U.S. military still has the upper hand in so many ways, after all. But there are limits—severe limits—on those advantages. For its air power, for example, the U.S. military would be leaning on worn out fighter pilots and limited maintenance abilities for their planes. And the surveillance drones needed would have to be drawn from other conflict zones.
“Against an adversary like Russia, we can’t take the kind of air dominance we’ve had in conflicts since 9/11 for granted,” a second defense official explained. “Any conflict of significant magnitude against an adversary like Russia means we’d need to commit airmen and resources that are now operating in other parts of the world at a rate that minimizes their ability to train for that kind of fight.”
The official added, “We may very well be able to provide the airpower that would allow us and our allies to prevail in a high-end fight, but the current state of our air forces definitely doesn’t make that a sure bet.”
Around the time of that TTX, in June, the U.S. military also conducted four major field exercises with its NATO counterparts, called Allied Shield, consisting of 15,000 troops and 19 member countries. In March, Russia conducted its own exercises, at one point deploying as many as 80,000 personnel.
“The focus of the exercises is on what each side sees as its most exposed areas, with NATO concentrating on the Baltic States and Poland whilst Russia is focusing primarily on the Arctic and High North, Kaliningrad, occupied Crimea, and its border areas with NATO members Estonia and Latvia,” is how one reported summarized the dueling manuevers (PDF).
And like the tabletop exercise, Allied Shield suggested the U.S. could not maintain a sustained fight against the Russians.
Moreover, Russia’s blend of special forces, local proxies, weaponized propaganda, cyber espionage, and sneak attacks has many in the U.S. military struggling to figure out how to respond. Of course, they want to check Russian aggression—especially if Putin makes a move for America’s NATO allies in the Baltics. They’re not sure how do to that without starting down the path towards World War III. Especially now that Russia has declared itself open to the notion of using first-strike nuclear weapons in a conventional conflict.
The Daily Beast’s Anna Nemtsova, who is currently with U.S. military trainers in Ukraine, asked one of them what they would they do if their units were suddenly surrounded by Russian-backed forces.
“Let me think for a moment, that is a difficult one,” the American soldier said.
At his last briefing with reporters, Army Gen. Raymond Odierno, the outgoing Chief of Staff of the Army, said NATO exercises conducted in Europe exposed even small challenges that could have outsized impact in a fight against Russia.
“One of the things we learned is the logistical challenges we have in Eastern Europe. For example, Eastern Europe has a different gauge railroad than Western Europe [where U.S. has traditionally trained] does so moving supplies is a more difficult. So we are learning great lessons like that,” Odierno said.
“We may very well be able to provide the airpower that would allow us to prevail in a fight, but the current state of our air forces definitely doesn’t make that a sure bet.”
More serious was Odierno’s warning that “only 33 percent” of the U.S. Army’s brigades are sufficiently trained to confront Russia. That’s far short of the 60 percent needed. Odierno said that he does not believe the Army will reach those levels for several more years.
During the height of the Cold War, there were roughly 250,000 U.S. troops deployed to Europe. After the first Gulf War, that number fell to roughly to 91,000. That number today stands at 31,000—although some additional troops have been added since the stealth invasion of Ukraine.
And yet, many throughout government are not nearly as worried as the military. In fact, these insiders suspect that the Pentagon’s warning is more a means to seek leverage amid threats of budget cuts. The military is hoping to stave off major cuts to its ground force and cash flow, as the war in Afghanistan winds down.
Lawrence Korb—a senior fellow at the Washington D.C.-based Center for American Progress, which is closely aligned with the Obama White House and the Hillary Clinton campaign, said that he believes the military is taking advantage of Russian aggressions over the last two years to fight its budget battles.
Further, Korb is not convinced the exercises reflect reality, noting the U.S. spends roughly $600 billion on its defense compared to Russia’s $60 billion. Russian weapons are far less modern, and Putin had to abandon his $400 billion plan to upgrade them earlier this year as the Russian ruble fell.
“We’d clean their clocks. [Russian troops are] not that good. They are not as modern,” Korb said. “I think [the military] took advantage of recent Russian aggression because it has become clear we would not use large ground armies” to confront groups like the self proclaimed Islamic State.”
The U.S. military is now worried about Russia “in the same way the Navy [once] talked about the Chinese” to stop cuts to its budget, he added.
But Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, who retired in 2012 as the commander of U.S. Army Europe, said that the Russian threat existed far before the latest budget squabbles. And when he raised them in 2010, they fell on deaf ears.
“We were beating the drum of Russia in 2010 and we were told [by Washington officials], ‘You are still in the Cold War.’ All the things we predicted would happen, happened, but it wasn’t at the forefront of the time,” Hertling said.
“This gets to a lack of trust between the government and the military,” Hertling added. “We were monitoring Russian movement and they were increasing not only their budget but their pace of operation and their development of new equipment. They were repeatedly aggressive and provocative even though we were trying to work with them.”
Since then, the Army has shrunk rapidly—by 80,000 troops. Should Congress enact the across-the-board budget cuts known as sequestration, the Army could fall from 450,000 soldiers to 420,000, making it the smallest U.S. ground force since the end of World War II. Odierno has called such figures dangerous.
“The unrelenting budget impasse has compelled us to degrade readiness to historically low levels,” Odierno said last month at a conference.
Either way, the London-based European Leadership Network released a report Wednesday, and concluded the dueling large scale military exercises are aggravating tensions, not deterring the opposing side, as intended.
“Russia is preparing for a conflict with NATO, and NATO is preparing for a possible confrontation with Russia. We do not suggest that the leadership of either side has made a decision to go to war or that a military conflict between the two is inevitable, but that the changed profile of exercises is a fact and it does play a role in sustaining the current climate of tensions in Europe,” found the report, titled Preparing for the Worst: Are Russian and NATO Military Exercises Making War in Europe more Likely?
· · · · · · · · ·
Imagine you’re a conflicted lawmaker in the U.S. Congress. You’ve heard all the arguments about the Iran nuclear agreement, pro and con. A vote on the deal is coming up in September and you have to make a decision. But you are torn.
Most of your colleagues don’t share your angst. They have concluded that the risks of the nuclear accord far exceed its benefits. They will vote to disapprove.
Some take the opposing view. They accept President Barack Obama’s argument that the agreement will effectively block Iran from developing a nuclear weapon for a very long time at little risk to U.S. interests.
You are in a third group. You recognize the substantial achievements in the deal, such as Iran’s commitment to cut its stockpile of enriched uranium by 98 percent, gut the core of its plutonium reactor, and mothball thousands of centrifuges. But you have also heard experts identify a long list of gaps, risks, and complications. These range from the three and a half weeks that Iran can delay inspections of suspect sites, to the billions of dollars that Iran will reap from sanctions relief—some of which will surely end up in the hands of terrorists.
For his part, the president seems to believe that he negotiated a near-perfect deal. In his recent speech at American University, he described the pact as a “permanent” solution to the Iranian nuclear problem. It was a shift from when hetold an NPR interviewer in April that once limitations on Iran’s centrifuges and enrichment activities expire in 15 years, Iran’s breakout time to a nuclear weapon would be “shrunk almost down to zero.” Both statements—achieving a “permanent” solution and Iran having near-zero breakout time—cannot be true.
The president has said a “better deal” is a fantasy. But you never took seriously the unknowable assertion that the Iran accord is “the best deal possible,” as though any negotiator emerging from talks would suggest that what he or she has received is anything but “the best deal possible.” And you cringe whenever advocates of the agreement hype its achievements as “unprecedented,” knowing this is not a synonym for “guaranteed effective.”
You may not believe in unicorns, as Secretary of State John Kerry said you must to accept the idea of a “better deal,” but you have been impressed by suggestions on how to strengthen the agreement. The United States could even implement many of these proposals without reopening negotiations with the Iranians and the P5+1 group of world powers. Here are several such options:
- Consequences: Repair a glaring gap in the agreement, which offers no clear, agreed-upon penalties for Iranian violations of the deal’s terms short of the last-resort punishment of a “snapback” of UNsanctions against Iran. This is akin to having a legal code with only one punishment—the death penalty—for every crime, from misdemeanors to felonies; the result is that virtually all crimes will go unpunished. The solution is to reach understandings now with America’s European partners, the core elements of which should be made public, on the appropriate penalties to be imposed for a broad spectrum of Iranian violations. These violations could range from delaying access for international inspectors to suspect sites, to attempting to smuggle prohibited items outside the special “procurement channel” that will be created for all nuclear-related goods, to undertaking illicit weapons-design programs. The Iran deal gives the UN Security Council wide berth to define such penalties at a later date, but the penalties have no value in deterring Iran from violating the accord unless they are clarified now.
- Deterrence: Reach understandings now with European and other international partners about penalties to be imposed on Iran should it transfer any windfall funds from sanctions relief to its regional allies and terrorist proxies rather than spend it on domestic economic needs. U.S. and Western intelligence agencies closely track the financial and military support that Iran provides its allies, and will be carefully following changes in Iran’s disbursement of such assistance. To be effective, these new multilateral sanctions should impose disproportionate penalties on Iran for every marginal dollar sent to Hezbollah in Lebanon, Bashar al-Assad in Syria, etc. Since these sanctions are unrelated to the nuclear issue, they are not precluded by the terms of the Iran agreement.
- Pushback: Ramp up U.S. and allied efforts to counter Iran’s negative actions in the Middle East, including interdicting weapons supplies to Hezbollah, Assad, and the Houthis in Yemen; designating as terrorists more leaders of Iranian-backed Shiite militias in Iraq that are committing atrocities; expanding the training and arming of not only the Iraqi security forces but also the Kurdish peshmerga in the north and vetted Sunni forces in western Iraq; and working with Turkey to create a real safe haven in northern Syria where refugees can obtain humanitarian aid and vetted, non-extremist opposition fighters can be trained and equipped to fight against both ISIS and the Iran-backed Assad regime.
- Declaratory policy: Affirm as a matter of U.S. policy that the United States will use all means necessary to prevent Iran’s accumulation of the fissile material (highly enriched uranium) whose sole useful purpose is for a nuclear weapon. Such a statement, to be endorsed by a congressional resolution, would go beyond the “all options are on the table” formulation that, regrettably, has lost all credibility in the Middle East as a result of the president’s public rejection of the military option. Just as Iran will claim that all restrictions on enrichment disappear after the fifteenth year of the agreement, the United States should go on record now as saying that it will respond with military force should Iran exercise that alleged right in a way that could only lead to a nuclear weapon. It is not for the president 15 years from now to make this declaration; to be effective and enshrined asU.S. doctrine, it should come from the president who negotiated the original deal with Iran.
- Israeli deterrence: Ensure that Israel retains its own independent deterrent capability against Iran’s potential nuclear weapon by committing to providing technology to the Israelis that would secure this objective over time. A good place to start would be proposing to transfer to Israel the 30,000-pound, bunker-busting Massive Ordnance Penetrator—the only non-nuclear bomb in the U.S. arsenal that could do serious damage to Iran’s underground nuclear installations—and the requisite aircraft to carry this weapon. This alone would not substitute for U.S. efforts to build deterrence against Iran. But making sure Israel has its own assets would be a powerful complement.
You wish the president would embrace these sound, sensible suggestions. Inexplicably, he hasn’t. And nothing in the administration’s public posture suggests that he will change course before Congress votes.
So, what will you do?
Some of your colleagues have floated the idea of a “conditional yes” as an alternative to “approve” and “disapprove.” They, like you, recognize that the agreement has some significant advantages but are deeply troubled by its risks and costs. They want to attach strings to their “yes” vote, in the belief that this will bind the president and improve the deal.
But the legislation enabling Congress to review the Iran deal does not accommodate a “conditional yes.” Votes are to “approve” or “disapprove.” Legislators may negotiate with the White House over every comma and colon in a resolution of conditionality, and they may even secure one or two grudging concessions from the White House. But neither a resolution of Congress calling for these improvements nor ad-hoc understandings between the White House and individual legislators has the force of law or policy. According to the Iran-review legislation, the only thing that matters is a yea or nay on the agreement.
Is there really no “third way”?
The answer is yes, there is. Pursuing it requires understanding what the relevant congressional legislation is really about.
Advocates of the agreement have characterized a congressional vote of disapproval as the opening salvo of the next Middle East war. In reality, a “no” vote may have powerful symbolic value, but it has limited practical impact according to the law. It does not, for example, negate the administration’s vote at the UN Security Council in support of the deal, which sanctified the agreement in international law. Nor does it require the president to enforce U.S.sanctions against Iran with vigor. Its only real meaning is to restrict the president’s authority under the law to suspend nuclear-related sanctions on Iran.
Here’s the catch: By the terms of the nuclear agreement, the president only decides to suspend those sanctions after international inspectors certify that Iran has fulfilled its core requirements. In other words, congressional disapproval has no direct impact on the actions Iran must take under the agreement to shrink its enriched-uranium stockpile, mothball thousands of centrifuges, and deconstruct the core of its Arak plutonium reactor. Most experts believe that process will take six to nine months, or until the spring of 2016.
Why would Iran do all of these things if it can’t count on the United States to suspend sanctions in response? While it’s impossible to predict with certainty how Iranian leaders would react to congressional disapproval of the agreement, I’d argue chances are high that they would follow through on their commitments anyway, because the deal is simply that good for Iran. After Iran fulfills its early obligations, all United Nations and European Union nuclear-related sanctions come to an end. They aren’t just suspended like U.S. sanctions—they are terminated, presenting Iran with the potential for huge financial and political gain.
The “deal or war” thesis propounded by supporters of the agreement suggests that Iran, in the event of U.S. rejection of the deal, would prefer to bypass that financial and political windfall and instead put its nuclear program into high gear, risking an Israeli and American military response. But that volte-face makes little sense, now that Iran has painstakingly built a nuclear program that is on the verge of achieving the once-unthinkable legitimacy that comes with an international accord implicitly affirming Iran’s right to unrestricted enrichment in the future. In such a scenario, Iran would reap an additional benefit in continuing to implement the agreement: The United States, not Iran, would be isolated diplomatically.
The key point is that a “no” vote on the Iran deal has little practical impact until next year. Between now and then, such a vote buys time, adding up to nine months to the strategic clock. If, before the vote, Obama refuses to adopt a comprehensive set of remedial measures that improves the deal, then a resounding vote of disapproval gives the president additional time to take such action and then ask Congress to endorse his new-and-improved proposal.
Chastened by a stinging congressional defeat in September—one that would include a powerful rebuke by substantial members of his own party—the president might be more willing to correct the flaws in the deal than he is today. That would surely be a more responsible and statesmanlike approach than purposefully circumventing the will of Congress through executive action that effectively lifts sanctions—an alternative the president might consider if he is hell-bent on implementing the agreement.
Those who claim that a “no” vote would destroy the agreement argue that Europe would simply stop enforcing sanctions against Iran should Congress reject the deal. But this too doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny. In my view, the Europeans are more likely to wait six to nine months to see whether Iran fulfills its core requirements under the deal so that they can claim validation for their decision to terminate sanctions. If Congress were to approve Obama’s new-and-improved proposal before Iran complies with its requirements, the United States would still be on schedule to waive its sanctions at the same time that the European Union and United Nations terminate theirs.
So, if you are among the legislators who view the Iran agreement as flawed and are frustrated by the administration’s unwillingness to implement reasonable fixes, there is a way to urge the president to pursue the “better deal” that he keeps urging his detractors to formulate, but that he can’t seem to accept as a possibility. “No” doesn’t necessarily mean “no, never.” It can also mean “not now, not this way.” It may be the best way to get to “yes.”
Read the whole story
· · · · · · · · ·
The Pentagon is currently investigating the release of over 1,400 names, emails and passwords belonging to U.S. military, state and federal government personnel that was posted Tuesday onTwitter by a pro-Islamic State hacking group.
Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Jeffrey Pool pentagon-said-the-namesemails-and-passwords-uploaded-to-twitter-by-a-group-calling-itself-the-islamic-state-hacking-division-appear-to-be-not-only-out-of-date-and-incorrectly-formatted/article/432623/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter” target=”_blank”>told <a href="http://SCMagazine.com" rel="nofollow">SCMagazine.com</a> the information released appears to be either old or incorrect.
“The passwords listed do not pass in any form our strength test,” Lt. Col. Pool said, comparing them to a password the average person would quickly create in order to register online for an event.
He added that the email addresses listed do not match the format currently in use, but instead reflect an older configuration that has been out of use for several years, <a href="http://SCMagazine.com" rel="nofollow">SCMagazine.com</a> reported.
It was not made clear how the group, known as the Islamic State Hacking Division, obtained the personal information, but Col. Pool said the list did include names of people outside the military and that the FBI had taken over that aspect of the investigation.
The Pentagon has not increased its threat stance or asked its members for additional vigilance in response to the data dump.
An anonymous representative for the group issued Wednesday a chilling threat, saying members of the terrorist organization would behead U.S. military members in their homes, and warning the attacks could come “very soon.”
This is not the first time a pro-Islamic State hacking group has caused a problem for the Department of Defense. In January, a group calling themselves the CyberCaliphate hacked the U.S. Central Command Twitter and YouTube accounts.
August 14, 2015, 6:14 PM (IDT)
DEBKAfile Exclusive: The Egyptian Navy took delivery Sunday of a Russian "Lightning" missile Corvette R-32 (NATO coded: Moskit P-27) to replace the ship sunk by an Islamic State Kornet anti-tank missile on July 16 off the Sinai coast of Rafah. The new vessel is already in service with the Egyptian Navy. It is armed with high-speed SS-N-22 rockets capable of Mach 2.2 at low altitude and Mach 3 at high altitude. The ISIS attack on the Egyptian ship raised concerns about the security of sea traffic on the Mediterranean and in the Suez Canal.
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 2
FAYETTEVILLE, N.C. (AP) - An officer who was most recently the commanding general of U.S. Army Forces Command at Fort Bragg is taking over as the Army's top officer.
The Fayetteville Observer reported (http://bit.ly/1TxLwpp) Gen. Mark A. Milley will take over as the Army chief of staff in a ceremony ...
NEW YORK (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio is slamming President Barack Obama's outreach to Iran and Cuba, calling his diplomacy with the two nations evidence of "every flawed strategic, moral and economic notion" that has driven his foreign policy.
In a blistering speech Friday to the conservative-leaning Foreign ...
WICHITA, Kan. (AP) - The U.S. military said Thursday that it is committed to "a fair and equitable process" in the case of national security leaker Chelsea Manning and other prisoners accused of breaking rules at the military prison at Fort Leavenworth.
The response comes a day after Manning's lawyer ...
The U.S. is investigating what it says are "credible" reports that the Islamic State militant group used mustard gas in an attack against Kurdish peshmerga fighters this week, causing several of them to fall ill, U.S. officials in three separate offices of the Obama administration said Thursday.
All three officials ...
A secret National Security Agency document has revealed the massive nature of China’s cyberattacks against the United States, with nearly 700 intrusions in private-sector and government networks.
The cyberattacks were outlined on a map that pinpoints what are described by the electronic spy agency as “victims of Chinese cyber espionage over the past five years.” The map was first disclosed by NBC News.
The locations include Washington and the entire Eastern Seaboard, as well as key areas such as Silicon Valley in California, the locations of U.S. nuclear weapons laboratories, and nuclear missile and military bases. NSA detected the most attacks in California, with numerous strikes.
Read the full article at the Washington Times.
For the second time, an Albanian man living in New York was been sentenced to prison after admitting he tried to support terrorists in Pakistan.
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 3
A senior Russian diplomat has strongly denied claims that an Iranian general has visited Moscow in violation of the United Nations sanctions.
Within the Republican Party, there is a significant divide between those who desire a more active and a more passive foreign policy.
A former Army pharmacy specialist has pleaded guilty to stealing drugs from a military hospital.
Two weeks after the United States and Turkey announced the plan, it is unclear which forces will fight the jihadists and what support they will receive.
A Croatian expatriate worker believed to have been beheaded by the Islamic State’s Egyptian affiliate was initially abducted by a different group that demanded a ransom.
The government of Rwanda uses intelligence operatives to systematically spy on, harass, and even kill opposition figures living abroad, according to a report issued by a Canadian security agency.
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 4
U.S. News & World Report |
FTC Chair Ramirez Cools Tech Antitrust Concerns
U.S. News & World Report House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., commended the guidelines, as he and other Republicans have sought more information from the FTC on its aims for antitrust enforcement. “This is a good first step and we are pleased that the FTC ... FTC Issues Guidelines on Powers to Police Unfair CompetitionWall Street Journal FTC Adopts Flexible Principles for Unfair Competition CasesBloomberg Big Law Business FTC Competition Guidelines Draw CrowdBroadcasting & Cable ModernHealthcare.com all 31 news articles » |
National Review Online |
Will Huma Abedin Survive the Clinton Scandal Vortex?
National Review Online And in court on Monday, Hillary Clinton admitted Abedin had an e-mail account on the now-infamous private server run out of Clinton's house while she was secretary of state, and that the account “was used at times for government business.” State ... Hillary Clinton email probe turns to HumaPolitico Myths And Facts On Hillary Clinton's Email And Reports Of "Top Secret" MaterialsMedia Matters for America (blog) Hillary Clinton's problems are only getting worseChicago Tribune New York Times -Arkansas Online -Fox News all 3,296 news articles » |
© Copyright 2015, THonline.com, Dubuque, IA. Powered by BLOX Content Management Systemfrom TownNews.com. [Terms of Use | Privacy Policy]
Politico |
Cuba: Now comes the hard part
Politico But so far the momentum has come almost entirely from the White House, and the newly opened embassies mark the final big step that Obama can take by himself. Reopening the embassies, as well as taking Cuba off of the list of terrorist sponsoring ... Grassley blasts White House over Cuban criminalsDubuque Telegraph Herald all 294 news articles » |
Fidel Castro turned 89 on Thursday, and to mark his birthday, the former Cuban President requested that the United States pay back the "many millions of dollars" owed to his country because of the old embargo.
French President Francois Hollande faces pressure after a newspaper revealed that the true cost of breaking the Mistral contract with Russia may be more than double the declared sum.
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 5
A top US Navy commander unveiled the force's vision for the future of its carrier-based air power, and it involves stealth fighter jets, carrier-launched drones, submarine-detecting helicopters and laser weapons.
Belarus has ordered new combat aircraft from Russia, according to the commander of Belarus' Air Force and Air Defense Forces.
Saudi Arabia is discussing buying Russian-made Iskander tactical missile systems.
The German Defense Ministry says Daesh terrorists have launched a chemical attack on Kurdish forces fighting the militants in northern Iraq.
A so-called “hacking division” of the Daesh Takfiri group has released names, home addresses and other sensitive details of hundreds of US military and embassy staff in an alleged “hit list.”
Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has strongly condemned a top US military commander over his remarks on the possibility of the disintegration of Iraq.
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 6
Afghan forces are fully responsible for their nation’s security but still need and deserve the broad support of U.S. and coalition forces .
Ukraine’s state security agency has released a new video purporting to show a Russian army officer who was detained last month in eastern Ukraine appealing to President Vladimir Putin to secure his release.
When militants affiliated with the extremist group Islamic State (IS) issued a video showing prisoners being blown up with explosives, the Afghan Taliban condemned it as "horrific."
The leader of a political coalition of moderate Syrian opposition forces has told Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov that a Russian-Iranian proposal to end Syria's four-year-old civil war is unworkable.
The fight against Islamic State (IS) militants is at a stalemate.
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 7
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has expressed “grave concern” to his Russian counterpart about a "sharp rise" in separatist attacks in eastern Ukraine.
Arizona Capitol Times |
Lawsuit over tracking cell phone users could have widespread impact
Arizona Capitol Times And that causes the phone to report back, allowing police to track its location, even if the phone is not in use. The device is ... Hodai, represented by ACLU attorney Dan Pochoda, then sued. After reviewing the ... “The release of the records will not ... |
Albanian National Sentenced to 16 Years' Imprisonment for Attempting to ...
Federal Bureau of Investigation (press release) (blog) The sentence was announced by Acting U.S. Attorney Kelly T. Currie of the Eastern District of New York, Assistant Attorney General for National Security John P. Carlin, Assistant Director-in-Charge Diego G. Rodriguez of the FBI's New York Field Office ... and more » |
Washington City Paper (blog) |
Different Justice for a Disgraced FBI Agent and Antwuan Ball
Washington City Paper (blog) Reporter Jim McElhatton has covered D.C. crime for decades and witnessed this intersection between Wilson's case and disgraced FBI agent Matthew Lowry during his reporting. DL_prison_lorton-1. George Ball took a rare afternoon off from his job as a ... |
Boston Globe |
J. Wallace LaPrade, at 89; FBI chief in the '70s
Boston Globe The Virginia-born LaPrade arrived in New York as an assistant FBI director determined to restore the reputation of a sullied agency that he pledged would be more sensitive to civil liberties. He described the bureau's founder, J. Edgar Hoover, who had ... |
Pot bust: FBI seizes 1500 plants, cash, gun in Providence raid
The Providence Journal An FBI investigation culminated in 10 search warrants being served Wednesday at the two addresses, a news release from U.S. Attorney Peter F. Neronha and other law enforcement officials said. Besides the marijuana plants, investigators seized about ... and more » |
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 8
Daily Beast |
The FBI Agent Who Hunted N.W.A
Daily Beast After the letter was made public, the FBI had to publicly clarify that the bureau had no intention of suppressing N.W.A's art or free expression. Ahlerich — who would soon go on to do things far more worthy of his time and talents, such as ... |
A young swatter who though he was uncatchable has been convicted after the FBI tracked him down via his IP address.
August 14, 2015, 10:19 AM (IDT)
The German military confirms a possible chemical weapons attack on Kurdish Peshmerga soldiers fighting the Islamic State group (ISIS) in northern Iraq. A US official said this was “plausible.” A group of Western experts has arrived to take samples after a Tuesday night mortar attack on Kurdish positions in Makhmur, 35 km southwest of the capital, Irbil, following claims that the rounds were loaded with chemicals, possibly mustard gas or chlorine. He said Peshmerga forces in the area were instructed to use gas masks in case of mortar attacks until results are verified in the laboratory.
The New Yorker |
China's Long Minsky Moment
The New Yorker Back in 2007, according to cables released by WikiLeaks, a senior figure in the Chinese Communist Party, Li Keqiang, told the U.S. ambassador that China's G.D.P. figures were “man-made and therefore unreliable.” Other Chinese officials insist that ... and more » |
 Sputnik International |
Former CIA Officer:Cuba Could Play Bridge-Builder to Restore US-Russia Ties
Sputnik International WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — Badly strained US relations with Russia could unexpectedly benefit from revived American diplomatic ties with Cuba, former CIA counterterrorism officer and Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) senior investigator John ... |
Mandy Patinkin is moving from a show about a fake CIA to a project about the real one. The Homeland star will narrate Showtime's new documentary, The Spymasters, which looks at the world's most powerful and clandestine ...
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 9
Showtime announced today at the TCA Summer Press Tour that it will premiere The Spymasters, a documentary that goes inside the workings of the CIA, the world's most powerful and clandestine spy agency, on November ...
Before the start of business, Just Security provides a curated summary of up-to-the-minute developments at home and abroad. Here’s today’s news.
IRAQ and SYRIA
The US suspects ISIS of using chemical weaponsagainst Kurdish forces in Iraq this week, officials said. It is suggested that ISIS may have obtained a mustard agent in Syria; this is the first indication that the group has chemical weapons at its disposal. [Wall Street Journal’s Adam Entous]
The Islamic State claimed responsibility for a bomb attack in Baghdad yesterday which killed at least 60 people. [New York Times’ Omar al-Jawoshy and Tim Arango]
Turkey and the US have taken preliminary steps to establish a “safe zone” in northern Syria though many details of the plan remain unclear, Turkish officials and Syrian rebel leaders have said. [New York Times’ Ben Hubbard]
Syrian Kurds, allied to the US, are confused by America’s growing allegiance to Turkey. [PBS’s Larisa Epatko] The Economist writes that “every day is carrying Turkey away from peace,” suggesting that de-escalation between the PKK and Turkey is still possible.
Australia may join airstrikes against ISIS in Syria, the country’s prime minister has said. [Al Jazeera]
ISIS is carrying out a greater number of attacks outside of Iraq and Syria. The Washington Post hosts visual graphics representing a year of attacks across the region.
US-led airstrikes continue. The US and coalition military forces conducted 12 airstrikes on Islamic State targets in Syria on August 12. Separately, military forces carried out a further 12 strikes on targets in Iraq. [Central Command]
Presidential candidate Jeb Bush defended former president George W. Bush’s Iraq War legacy in a speech on Tuesday night. [Politico’s Eli Stokols]
Three female ISIS defectors gave an interview with NBC News’ Richard Engel.
A visit by US ambassador to Syria Robert Ford to the uprising in city of Hama four months into the rebellion against the Assad regime was “the beginning of a string of US actions in Syria that were hastily planned, based on the incorrect assumption that Assad would soon fall,” writes Hannah Allam. [McClatchy DC]
“The Chilcot inquiry has arguably failed its remit, but its remit was probably not the one you think.” Gaby Hinsliff discusses the failure of the inquiry into Britain’s role in the Iraq War. [The Guardian]
“The road to Raqqa is the road from freedom’s burden.” Roger Cohen explores what drives thousands of young European Muslims to travel and join the Islamic State. [New York Times]
IRAN
Only one in three Americans approve of President Obama’s handling of the Iranian situation, according to a new Gallup poll released yesterday. [The Hill’s Jesse Byrnes]
Current and former Democrat members of the House Intelligence Committee wrote a letter urging their colleagues to support the nuclear accord, using past intelligence assessments to back their argument. [The Hill’s Julian Hattem]
If Congress votes down the Iran deal, Obama has “broad powers to act alone;” Michael Crowley explores what the president could do to “salvage” the deal at Politico.
Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew argues that rejecting the Iran deal “fl[ies] in the face of economic and diplomatic reality,” writing that after two years of negotiations with Iran, the international community does not believe increased sanctions will dissuade Iran from pursuing nuclear capabilities, in an op-ed for the New York Times.
Many of the critics’ arguments against the Iran deal are “irrelevant to the more urgent task of trying to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons by 2017,” argues Harold Brown at the Washington Post.
GUANTÁNAMO BAY
The Justice Department is expected to either block or accept a habeas corpus petition to release a Guantánamo Bay prisoner before midnight today. Tariq Ba-Odah’s eight-year hunger strike has left him weighing just 74lbs; he was cleared for release five years ago. [Reuters]
The decision regarding the release of Ba-Odah will test President Obama’s resolve on the closure of the detention facility, suggests Murtaza Hussain. [The Intercept]
The Defense Department is blocking the transfer of three longtime Guantánamo Bay detainees for whom diplomatic deals to transfer home have been completed by the State Department, including UK permanent resident Shaker Aamer. [The Guardian’s Spencer Ackerman]
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Al-Qaeda’s leader pledged allegiance to the new leader of the Taliban, breaking a year’s silence. Ayman al-Zawahri’s message made no mention of the two year delay in announcing Mullah Omar’s death. [New York Times’ Rod Nordland]
A different group initially abducted a Croatian national believed to have been beheaded by the Islamic State’s affiliate in Egypt, according to the Croation foreign minister. [New York Times’ Joseph Orovic]
New guidelines tightening the programs that distribute the Pentagon’s unused gear and weapons to local law enforcement agencies will soon come into effect, one year after the military response in Ferguson, Mo. [Washington Post’s Dan Lamothe]
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon held a video conference with the heads of UN peacekeeping operations, Force Commanders, and Police Commissioners in the wake of revelations concerning sexual abuse by UN peacekeepers in the field, including Central African Republic. [UN News Centre]
The Pentagon is concerned that it is not prepared for a sustained military campaign against Russia, defense officials told The Daily Beast, reports Nancy A. Youssef.
Defense Secretary Ash Carter’s team of chiefs is coming together, however with President Obama soon leaving office, “they don’t have much time to accomplish several ambitious projects,” reports Marcus Weisgerber. [Defense One]
Read on Just Security »
Read the whole story
· · · · ·
AP EXCLUSIVE: Top secret Clinton emails include drone talk
Washington Post WASHINGTON — The two emails on Hillary Rodham Clinton's private server that an auditor deemed “top secret” include a discussion of a news article detailing a U.S. drone operation and a separate conversation that could point back to highly classified ... and more » |
Purported ISIS militants post list of 1400 US 'targets'
CNN International - 11 hours ago
(CNN) A group calling itself the Islamic State Hacking Division this week posted online a purported list of names and contacts for Americans it refers to as "targets," according to officials. Though the legitimacy of the list is questionable, and much ...
'Isis hacking division' publishes personal details of US targets online urging ...
The Independent - 1 hour ago
A list of American “targets” – including the FBI and Nasa – has been listed online by a group calling itself the Islamic State hacking division. Details of 1,400 mostly US military and government personnel were published in a spreadsheet online urging ...
ISIS hacks details of military personnel, posts online
Dispatch Times - 2 hours ago
Islamic State hackers can buy techniques, strategies and hacking information on the dark web at low cost, so a document like this would not be hard to assemble, said Bill Stewart, executive vice president of Booz Allen Hamilton's cybersecurity division.
Stockport Council investigates Islamic State hacking claims
Manchester Evening News - 1 hour ago
Stockport Council is investigating claims a worker's personal details had been leaked online by ISIS. Council bosses said there is no evidence of a security breach but the matter is being investigated with other agencies 'as a matter of urgency'. The ...
Daesh claims to have hacked hundreds of British officials' details
Al-Bawaba - Aug 12, 2015
Hundreds of names were reportedly leaked online by Daesh as part of a "hitlist". (AFP/File). Follow >. Click here to add Abu Khaled al-Cambodi as an alert. Click here to remove the Abu Khaled al-Cambodi alert. Disable alert for Abu Khaled al-Cambodi.
Isis list 'an open call for lone wolf attacks' - security analyst
New Zealand Herald - 11 hours ago
Homegrown extremists will not be concerned a kill list the so-called Islamic State purportedly published is riddled with dated or public information, a security analyst says. The list, published on social media, is mostly of American soldiers and ...
Pentagon scoffs at Islamic State list of private info of U.S. government ...
Washington Times - 16 hours ago
This March 27, 2008, file photo, shows the Pentagon in Washington. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File) more >. By Kellan Howell - The Washington Times - Thursday, August 13, 2015. The Pentagon is currently investigating the release of over 1,400 names, ...
NASA, military personnel on latest ISIS hit list; Pentagon doubts source
<a href="http://AL.com" rel="nofollow">AL.com</a> - 14 hours ago
Islamic militants claim they have released personal information on thousands of U.S. government workers and military personnel, similar to the names and photos posted to social media earlier this year. Print Email · Leada Gore | <a href="mailto:lgore@al.com">lgore@al.com</a> By Leada ...
Pro-Islamic State group issues threat: 'Soon we'll behead U.S. military in ...
Washington Times - 21 hours ago
This screen grab made Monday, Jan. 12, 2015 show the front page of the U.S. Central Command twitter account after is was hacked. The twitter site of the military's U.S. Central Command was taken over Monday by hackers claiming to ... more >. By Kellan ...
Man on Isis list 'wary of threat'
New Zealand Herald - 17 hours ago
The father of an Aucklander on a "kill list" published by Islamic State fighters - who claim to have hacked the computers of US military personnel - describes the development as alarming. The list, published on social media, is mostly of American ...
Justice Minister Michael Keenan confirms Islamic State hack of Australians' data
Sydney Morning Herald - Aug 13, 2015
Terror expert Greg Barton says it would have been embarrassing for security forces that the Australians on an Islamic State hit list were first contacted by a Fairfax Media journalist. The Abbott government would not clarify whether authorities knew ...
ISIS Sucks at Hacking
Gizmodo - 16 hours ago
A band of vandals is taking credit for doxxing some 1,400 American military and government personnel. Identifying themselves as the Islamic State's “hacking division,” the group is telling its followers to “act and kill” the infidels. That threat rings ...
Alleged ISIS 'hit list' threatens 1000+ Americans
<a href="http://wwlp.com" rel="nofollow">wwlp.com</a> - 8 hours ago
(CNN) – A new twist in the ISIS terror threat: an apparent hit list containing personal information about more than 1,000 Americans has been discovered, along with a threat against those individuals. A dry-looking spreadsheet, with sensitive, ...
Govt confirms eight Australian's details leaked in IS-linked data dump
ABC Online - Aug 12, 2015
ELEANOR HALL: Doubts are being cast on the quality of the information leaked by a group calling itself the Islamic State Hacking Division. The group is boasting that it's released the phones numbers and passwords of 1,400 people via social media. And ...
Islamic State Hacking Division: At least eight Australians named on internet ...
ABC Online - Aug 12, 2015
The Federal Government has confirmed at least eight Australians feature on a "hit list" released by a group calling itself the Islamic State Hacking Division. The group has released details of 1,400 people, including mobile phone numbers, credit card ...
ISIS claims to release another US military "hit list"
CBS News - Aug 12, 2015
Hundreds of military personnel and embassy staff could be at risk after hackers associated with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) leaked what the militant group claims to be their names, email addresses and passwords online. ISIS' so-called ...
Australia investigates Islamic State 'hit list' claims
BBC News - Aug 12, 2015
Authorities are investigating claims the so-called Islamic State (IS) has published information about Australian officials, urging attacks on them. A group claiming links to IS had allegedly obtained and published online data mostly about US defence ...
'Soon, Very Soon You Will See': Pro-Islamic State Hacking Group Issues ...
<a href="http://TheBlaze.com" rel="nofollow">TheBlaze.com</a> - Aug 12, 2015
A representative for a pro-Islamic State hacking group issued a chilling warning to members of the U.S. military and government Wednesday, promising that “very soon” followers of the organization would retaliate for overseas bombing targeting the ...
Read the whole story
· · · · · · · ·
 CNN International |
Purported ISIS militants post list of 1400 US 'targets'
CNN (CNN) A group calling itself the Islamic State Hacking Division this week posted online a purported list of names and contacts for Americans it refers to as "targets," according to officials. Though the legitimacy of the list is questionable, and much ... Isis list 'an open call for lone wolf attacks' - security analystNew Zealand Herald Pentagon scoffs at Islamic State list of private info of U.S. government ...Washington Times ISIS Sucks at HackingGizmodo ABC Online -CBS News -BBC News all 148 news articles » |
 Reuters |
US believes Islamic State likely used mustard agent in Iraq attack: WSJ
Reuters WASHINGTON The United States believes Islamic State militants likely used mustard agent in an attack on Kurdish forces in Iraq earlier this week, the first indication the militant group has obtained a banned chemical weapon, the Wall Street Journal ... Washington Says Use of Mustard Gas by Islamic State 'Plausible'NDTV Islamic State Gets Mustard GasWall Street Journal all 36 news articles » |
- Get link
- Other Apps
Comments
Post a Comment