A team of security and arms
experts, meeting this week in Washington to discuss the matter, has concluded
that the range of the rocket that delivered sarin in the largest attack that
night was too short for the device to have been fired from the Syrian government
positions where the Obama administration insists they originated.
***
The
authors of a report released Wednesday said that their study of the rocket’s
design, its likely payload and its possible trajectories show that it would have
been impossible for the rocket to have been fired from inside areas controlled
by the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad.
In the report, titled “Possible
Implications of Faulty U.S. Technical Intelligence,” Richard Lloyd, a former
United Nations weapons inspector, and Theodore Postol, a professor of science,
technology and national security policy at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, argue that the question about the rocket’s range indicates a major
weakness in the case for military action initially pressed by Obama
administration officials.
***
To emphasize their point, the
authors used a map produced by the White House that showed which areas were
under government and rebel control on Aug. 21 and where the chemical weapons
attack occurred. Drawing circles around Zamalka to show the range from which the
rocket could have come, the authors conclude that all of the likely launching
points were in rebel-held areas or areas that were in dispute. The area securely
in government hands was miles from the possible launch zones.
In an interview, Postol said that
a basic analysis of the weapon – some also have described as a looking like a
push pop, a fat cylinder filled with sarin atop a thin stick that holds the
engine – would have shown that it wasn’t capable of flying the 6 miles from the
center of the Syrian government-controlled part of Damascus to the point of
impact in the suburbs, or even the 3.6 miles from the edges of
government-controlled ground.
He questioned whether U.S.
intelligence officials had actually analyzed the improbability of a rocket with
such a non-aerodynamic design traveling so far before Secretary of State John
Kerry declared on Sept. 3 that “we are certain that none of the opposition has
the weapons or capacity to effect a strike of this scale – particularly from the
heart of regime territory.”
“I
honestly have no idea what happened,” Postol said. “My view when I started this
process was that it couldn’t be anything but the Syrian government behind the
attack. But now I’m not sure of anything. The administration narrative was not
even close to reality. Our intelligence cannot possibly be correct.”
Lloyd, who has spent the past
half-year studying the weapons and capabilities in the Syrian conflict, disputed
the assumption that the rebels are less capable of making rockets than the
Syrian military.
“The Syrian rebels most definitely
have the ability to make these weapons,” he said. “I think they might have more
ability than the Syrian government.” [He's right.]
***
They said that Kerry’s insistence
that U.S. satellite images had shown the impact points of the chemical weapons
was unlikely to be true. The charges that detonate chemical weapons are
generally so small, they said, that their detonations would not be visible in a
satellite image.
The report also raised questions
whether the Obama administration misused intelligence information in a way
similar to the administration of President George W. Bush in the run-up to the
2003 invasion of Iraq. [Correct, indeed.] Then, U.S. officials insisted that
Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had an active program to develop weapons of mass
destruction. Subsequent inspections turned up no such program or weapons.
“What, exactly, are we spending
all this money on intelligence for?” Postol asked.
***
![[]](http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2014/01/16/12/38/167a2R.La.91.jpg)
Even the New York Times – one of the main
advocates for the claims that the rockets came from a Syrian government base –
has quietly dropped the claim.
But the U.S. is still taking the position
that the only acceptable outcome for the coming Syria negotiations is for Assad
to be replaced by the US-backed transitional government.
As with Iraq,
the “facts” are being fixed around the policy.
New Iran agreement includes
secret side deal, Tehran official saysBY PAUL
RICHTER
Tribune Washington BureauJanuary 13, 2014
WASHINGTON
Key elements of a new nuclear agreement between Iran and six world powers are
contained in an informal, 30-page text not yet publicly acknowledged by Western
officials, Iran's chief negotiator said Monday.
Abbas Araqchi disclosed
the existence of the document in a Persian-language interview with the
semiofficial Iranian Students News Agency.
The new agreement, announced
over the weekend, sets out a timetable for how Iran and the six nations, led by
the United States, will implement a deal reached in November that is aimed at
restraining Iran's nuclear ambitions.
When officials from Iran and the
world powers announced that they had completed the implementing agreement, they
didn't release the text of the deal, nor did they acknowledge the existence of
an informal addendum.
In the interview, Araqchi referred to the side
agreement using the English word "nonpaper," a diplomatic term used for an
informal side agreement that doesn't have to be disclosed publicly.
The
nonpaper deals with such important details as the operation of a joint
commission to oversee how the deal is implemented and Iran's right to continue
nuclear research and development during the next several months, he
said.
Araqchi described the joint commission as an influential body that
will have authority to decide disputes. U.S. officials have described it as a
discussion forum rather than a venue for arbitrating major
disputes.
White House press secretary Jay Carney said Monday that the
text of the implementing agreement would be released to lawmakers. He said the
six parties were weighing how much of the text they could release
publicly.
Asked late Monday about the existence of the informal nonpaper,
White House officials referred the question to the State Department. A State
Department comment wasn't immediately available.
Ray Takeyh, an Iran
specialist at the Council on Foreign Relations, said Iran and the other six
countries may have written the nonpaper to record understandings that they
didn't want to release publicly. The governments may plan to release "just a
short text, with broad principles and broad strokes," Takeyh said.
The
Nov. 24 deal between Iran and the six powers - the U.S., Britain, France,
Russia, China and Germany - aims to freeze Iran's nuclear progress for six
months. During that period, the two sides will try to negotiate a longer-term
deal aimed at ensuring that Tehran's nuclear program remains peaceful. The
agreement has come under fire in Iran and the United States from critics who
contend it is harmful to their side.
In his interview, Araqchi touched on
the sensitive issue of how much latitude Iran will have to continue its nuclear
research and development.
U.S. officials said Sunday that Iran would be
allowed to continue existing research and development projects and with
pencil-and-paper design work, but not to advance research with new projects.
Araqchi, however, implied that the program would have wide latitude.
"No
facility will be closed; enrichment will continue, and qualitative and nuclear
research will be expanded," he said. "All research into a new generation of
centrifuges will continue."
The research and development issue has been
an important one for many U.S. lawmakers, who fear that Iran will try to forge
ahead with its nuclear program while the negotiations are underway. At an
administration briefing for senators Monday, members of both parties raised
concerns about the centrifuge research issue, aides said.
President
Barack Obama on Monday again hailed the implementing agreement
and appealed to Congress not to impose new sanctions on Iran, for fear of
driving the country from the bargaining table.
"My preference is for
peace and diplomacy, and this is one of the reasons why I've sent the message to
Congress that now is not the time for us to impose new sanctions; now is the
time for us to allow the diplomats and technical experts to do their work,"
Obama said. "What we want to do is give diplomacy a chance and give peace a
chance."
Read more here:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/01/13/214365/new-iran-agreement-includes-secret.html#emlnl=World_Newsletter#storylink=cpy
Washington
Post
January 17, 2014
Iraq’s
Maliki says he has asked for weapons from U.S., will also seek training for
troopsLoveday
Morris and Ernesto Londoño
b Iraq has asked the United States for new
arms to beat back the dramatic resurgence of al-Qaeda-linked militants in a
western province and would like U.S. troops to train its counterterrorism
forces, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said in an interview Thursday.
The
Iraqi leader said he provided the wish list after a phone call with Vice
President Biden on Tuesday. U.S. officials said it might be easy to deliver
those weapons, which include assault rifles and artillery, to Baghdad
soon.
“Some is on hand, and we can supply it quickly,” a senior American
diplomat said Thursday, speaking on the condition of anonymity to be
candid.
The request for stepped-up U.S. assistance is adding urgency to a
debate over the types of weapons that Washington ought to provide to Maliki’s
government and the leverage that aid could give the United States.
Despite the stunning revival of the Sunni insurgency, with militants
carrying out an intense wave of attacks over the past year and seizing control
of key cities in Anbar province, Maliki said he had no regrets that his
administration did not reach a deal with Washington that would have kept some
U.S. troops in Iraq after the 2011 pullout.
“Since the American
withdrawal, we’ve had a friendly relationship, but this strong bilateral
relationship doesn’t mean we need American forces here,” a weary-looking Maliki
said in the interview, conducted in his office in Baghdad’s heavily barricaded
Green Zone.
U.S. officials have watched Iraq’s soaring violence with
alarm over the past year, as an insurgency that the American military took
credit for decimating has reemerged as a powerful regional force. But they also
have come to see the crisis as an opportunity to retain influence in Iraq, and
they worry that if they’re unable to meet its urgent needs, Baghdad will
increasingly turn to other countries for materiel.
“We’re at a point
where there is an opportunity to reinvigorate the partnership,” said retired Lt.
Gen. James M. Dubik, who led the command that trained and equipped Iraq’s
security forces in 2008. “We ought to take that opportunity.”
The weapons
Maliki has requested are a small piece of the massive list of defense items that
Iraq is trying to buy from the United States. Baghdad is also seeking Apache
helicopters, but the prospective sale has been snarled in Congress, where
lawmakers have sought assurances that Iraqi security forces won’t use the
aircraft to crush political opponents or crack down on dissent in Sunni
communities.
Dubik said that such concerns are legitimate but that they
also provide Washington with an opportunity to nudge Maliki to govern more
inclusively, an objective that the Obama administration regards as vital in the
run-up to parliamentary elections scheduled for spring. “I think we’re right in
trying to get assurances that the equipment will be used properly,” he said.
“Therein lies part of the opportunity.”
Since 2005, the Pentagon has
processed military orders for the Iraqi government worth nearly $10.5 billion.
Iraq has initiated other orders that, if approved, could raise that sum to
nearly $25 billion, according to a recent report by the Congressional Research
Service.
U.S. military officials say that keeping the Iraqi armed forces
reliant on American weapons systems would give Washington leverage for decades
and foster a relationship built during the Iraq war.
Because the U.S.
defense export system is slow and sometimes stymied by politics, Iraq in recent
years has begun to turn to Russia, South Korea and other countries that have
more nimble military sales programs.
“Iraq has needs, and it also has
resources,” a senior U.S. official told reporters in a recent briefing conducted
on the condition of anonymity. “We don’t actually gain leverage over the Iraqis
by withholding these systems. We tend to cede that leverage to our strategic
competitors.”
Maliki said during the interview that he would support a
new U.S. military training mission for Iraqi counterterrorism troops in Jordan,
marking the first time he has expressed support for a plan that the Pentagon has
been contemplating in recent months. U.S. military officials have not provided
details on the scope or timing of such a training mission.
The Iraqi
leader said he is “satisfied that we will achieve victory against al-Qaeda.” But
he cautioned that the situation is complicated and intertwined with the
sectarian conflict in next-door Syria.
“The whole region’s events are
connected,” he said. “To solve the problem in Iraq, we cannot look at it in
isolation from the other events in the region.”
Maliki deflected blame
for the ongoing crisis in his country, saying the Sunni violence has been
“exported” to Iraq by another Arab country,
1 attachment
