The Collapse of the Soviet Union

Posted on December 26, 2011 by Maria

Marxist-Leninist doctrine predicted that capitalism would collapse on the “ash heap of history” as global communism triumphed as an economic system. Instead, 20 years ago Sunday it was the vanguard of the international communist movement, the Soviet Union, which disintegrated.

The two individuals who played the most prominent roles in bringing about the end of the USSR were President Ronald Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev. The policies formulated and implemented by both had very different objectives in mind, but the end result was the same.

Beyond Détente: Promoting Fundamental Change in the Soviet System

Early in the Reagan administration a fierce fight had erupted regarding the wisdom of engaging the Soviet Union. Many conservatives were convinced that détente had shown that any attempt at negotiations or engaging Moscow was doomed to failure. They also tended to believe that the USSR was on the ascendancy, particularly in the global arena, witness the success of Moscow’s backing for “National Liberation Movements” in Africa, Southwest Asia, and Central America. They leaned toward the sense that the regime, albeit aging, was firmly in control in Moscow and that any real change seemed impossible.

I was asked in 1981 by the National Security Council, through the then Military Assistant, ADM John Poindexter, to prepare a series of point papers on the state of the USSR and what US policy initiatives might be considered. I had just completed a 2-year IREX fellowship, which brought me to the USSR off and on the past two years.

My view was: The Soviet leadership was aging, the economy was in difficult straights (my dissertation was on the Soviet economy/energy dilemma), and the U.S. could pressure the USSR to achieve political and military change. Not sure how much impact the memos had, but they fed into the cauldron of competing opinions erupting within the Administration.

President Reagan was opposed to détente, but open to negotiating with the Soviets. This would come, in his mind, only after he had reversed the American military decline, resuscitated the economy, and restored confidence within the U.S. body politic. By 1983 he felt that we should reconsider our stance of not engaging the Soviets, based on what he perceived to be further Soviet decline and U.S. restoration of power and confidence. Yes, the 1984 elections and Nancy’s prodding had a role in his thinking, but he was also buffeted in the other direction continually by the naysayers.

Reagan’s policies were laid out in 1983 in NSDD–75, titled “U.S. Relations with the USSR”. The document directed two core objectives: first, “to contain and over time reverse Soviet expansionism”, and second, “to promote the process of change in the Soviet Union toward a more pluralistic political and economic system”.

The directive also laid out specific goals: In Eastern Europe, loosening Moscow’s hold on the region; with respect to Afghanistan, it was to “keep maximum pressure on Moscow….and ensure that the Soviets’ political and military costs remained high” while the occupation continued.

NSDD-75 was a very ambitious strategic guide, one that overtly would attempt to “change” the Communist system by ending the Party’s monopoly on power and bringing about the weakening of the Soviet economy. The directive called for a more ambitious media penetration (RFE, Radio Liberty) into the USSR and its vassal states, assistance to groups in the Soviet empire who would topple the Communist regimes, and using our technological and economic leverage (e.g., to stop the Soviet gas pipeline to Europe).

Reagan and Gorbachev: One wanted to reform the Soviet system; the other to fundamentally change it

For Reagan the immediate goal was to insure that the Soviets bore the burden for actions they were taking to support anti-Western political movements, and for pouring a considerable portion of their national wealth into the defense-industrial sector. For Gorbachev, who came to power in 1985 after years of desultory “leadership” behind aging and infirm General Secretaries–Brezhnev, Andropov and Chernenko–the objective was to reform a stagnating economic system through restructuring (“perestroika”) and greater openness (“glasnost”).

We did not fully appreciate at that time that Gorbachev, unlike his predecessors, was fully aware of the depths that the Soviet economy had fallen. It also appears that Gorbachev was deeply concerned about the President’s SDI program (“Star Wars”), believing that what was at stake was more than just a space defense program. He believed that if the United States once and for all combined its technological superiority with its economic potential, America would make an enormous “skachok” (leap) ahead. The General Secretary knew that he needed to redirect resources away from the defense sector to rejuvenate the stagnating Soviet economic system, but first he must stop the U.S. potential to jump ahead—which he feared our pursuing SDI would do.

To do that he had to put a brake on Reagan’s military build-up. He also realized that deep and fundamental reforms of the corrupt, centrally managed political system needed to be undertaken. While he recognized that this would cause some disruption, he failed to anticipate that the changes he was implementing would soon spiral out of control.

Reagan was not content to allow events to proceed in the USSR on Gorbachev’s timetable. The United States took several measures to impose a burden on Moscow if it chose to continue its aggressive support of national liberation movements, its domination over East Europe, and for extensive funding of the military. Reagan directed that the U.S. support resistance movements against the Soviets in Central America and Africa, provide advanced missiles (e.g., Stingers) to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, and support revolutionary movements in East Europe.

Specifically, working closely with Pope John Paul II (not well known even today!), the U.S. provided intelligence and economic support for the Solidarity movement in Poland that led to the first crack in the Soviet Empire. Reagan also secured support from Lane Kirkland, head of the AFL-CIO, which provided key assistance to Solidarity.

America also persuaded its friends to assist in these efforts, including encouraging Saudi Arabia to “turn on the oil spigot” and flood the world with cheap petroleum in 1986. This act severely undermined the Soviets’ primary means to secure hard currency, depleted its foreign exchange reserves, made it difficult to import badly needed grain, and deeply impacted the thinking of the Soviet leadership.

By 1986 the war in Afghanistan led to increased public discontent, the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster seemed to personify the regime’s ossification and inability to handle crises, and the economy declined in the face of bad harvests and low global oil prices. Glasnost had led to the appearance of more popular media outlets, which then proceeded to highlight corruption in the highest echelons, rampant alcoholism, what the Stalinist regime had really done to the populace, and other formerly taboo topics.

The Empire Crubles: 1989-91

James Mann argues persuasively that Ronald Reagan defied the advice of his more hard line advisers and skillfully led the negotiations with Mikhail Gorbachev that led to the fall of the Soviet Union (“The Rebellion of Ronald Reagan”). I would agree. In fact, the President was constantly told by his chief intelligence experts, principally then Deputy Director of the CIA, Bob Gates, most Pentagon officials, and many State Department experts, that the General Secretary was not seeking fundamental change of the Soviet system and that at any rate it remained strong and impervious to outside leverage. Reagan disagreed and on many occasions overruled his advisors and directed that we engage the Soviet leadership in negotiations while continuing to exert pressure on the USSR’s economy. I believe that history has shown Reagan to be right in the course he chose.

By 1989 Moscow was faced with increasing challenges. Afghanistan was clearly a failure, and the regime agreed to withdraw Soviet forces that year. Confronted with large street demonstrations in East Europe against the puppet regimes, Gorbachev and Foreign Minister Shevardnadze refused repeated pleas from their Warsaw pact allies to intervene militarily—as they had done in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. As a result the Berlin Wall tumbled down, Germany was reunited, and Solidarity assumed power in Poland and Vaclev Havel’s “Velvet revolution” succeeded in Prague. And in 1991, following a failed coup attempt, the USSR itself dissolved.

In the end, the combination of greater political and social freedoms instituted by Gorbachev and the proactive policies implemented under Reagan to impose severe economic and political burdens on Moscow together led to the collapse of the Soviet Union, on Christmas Day, 1991.

-      Tyrus W. Cobb

Minister of Enlightenment

December 23, 2011

 

Posted in Domestic News, General News, Newsletter | Comments Off

National Security Global Roundup

Posted on December 11, 2011 by Maria

The Drone Dilemma: Iran has the real thing. Now what?

High level defense sources confirm that the drone the Iranians have displayed on TV is, in fact, an intact RQ-170 Sentinel. The capture—however it was done—is a severe blow to America’s super-secret surveillance program, leaving advanced, highly sensitive technology in the hands of an arch-enemy.

The sources also confirm that the beige-colored drone is a CIA adaptation of the craft. It is programmed to automatically return to its base of operation should it lose communication with its control central. No one is sure why it apparently “landed itself” safely in Iran, over which it was probably conducting surveillance. The Iranians claim they penetrated the drone’s internal communications and brought it down. This is highly doubtful, even should the Iranians have had Chinese or Russian “assistance”, which is also unlikely.

Why the Sentinel did not have a self-destruct mechanism is not known. It may have and the drone simply “thought” it was returning to its base of operations. Whatever, the Iranians have a golden opportunity to sell the drone intact or in pieces to certain adversaries. U.S. officials are concerned that others may be able to reverse engineer the chemical composition of the drone’s radar-detecting paint or the craft’s sophisticated optics technology that enables operators to make positive identifications of terror suspects from tens of thousands of feet high. The sensors would be very important for countries like China to exploit.

In Russia, voters, despite a fraudulent election, hand Putin a major defeat

Vladimir Putin’s “United Russia” party suffered a major setback at the polls, potentially losing its parliamentary majority just months before Putin seeks to return to the Presidency. The results will likely force the Party to form a coalition with opposition parties. United Russia garnered at best 47% of the vote, compared to its 64% in the previous election four years ago, and probably would have been much less if the authorities hadn’t resorted to ballot stuffing and illegal voting.

The election has emboldened the opposition, which has staged huge rallies and parades in Moscow, this time with the grudging permission of the authorities. Putin himself has been booed when he has made public appearances, something that he claims—as only a former KGB officer could suggest—was the result of American “meddling” in Russia (specifically Secretary of State Clinton).

Before anyone starts rejoicing, keep in mind that the major beneficiaries of United Russia’s fall have been the Communist Party, and the strongly nationalist Liberal Democratic Party led by the erratic Vladimir Zhirinovsky. So far those reaping the fruits of Putin and Medvedev’s downturn have not been the forces advocating for greater democracy and liberalization, although corruption and nepotism have been a focus. So far this is not a “Russian Spring”, perhaps more a “Russian revanchism” (return to the days of a “strong leader”?), but hold on—this shift is far from over.

Europe avoids a collapse—for now—but the debt crisis is far from solved

The 27-nation European Union summit ended with a band-aid being placed on the continent’s economic crisis, enough to get by for now but far less than what is necessary to seriously address Europe’s burgeoning debt crisis. While some breathed a sigh of relief that a global economic meltdown was averted, in fact the EU tried—and failed—to come up with a grand plan to fix the underlying fundamental challenge. At best they kicked the can down the road for a few months. That’s all.

The only “concrete” result of the Summit was a pledge—nothing more—to work towards a new treaty binding them together in an effort to save the Euro. Leaders have tried, and repeatedly have failed, to come up with a solution to the debt crisis, especially among the southern “PIGS”—Portugal, Greece, Spain and Italy. The pact that emanated from this meeting is very complicated, may require national referendums to pass, must be accomplished in a matter of months when it has taken years in the past to achieve even modest changes, and must overcome powerful employee unions’ opposition to any austerity measures.

The big winner, if there was one, from the meeting was Chancellor Angela Merkel, and the session signaled the growing clout of Germany. At the same time it marked a further distancing of the United Kingdom from the Continent and the increasing isolation of Britain from Europe—much of that due to PM David Cameron’s refusal to join in the commitment to a new treaty. Cameron himself sought a face-saving compromise, one that would allow him to satisfy the intense anti-Europe sensitivities of his Conservative Party. Cameron had incurred the wrath of his own party back home by suggesting the UK should be helpful in assisting its neighbors save the Euro. Ironically, Cameron is very much in synch with Germany and France as a leading advocate of austerity that Merkel and Sarkozy are pushing.

Both Merkel and Sarkozy said they had no interest in trying to placate Cameron and the UK. As a result, Britain is even further isolated in Europe.

The net result of the Summit is that the crisis has once again been delayed, Germany—and to a lesser extent France—has solidified its leadership and dominant position in European economic issues, Britain is even more isolated, and the countries on the southern rim must take domestically impossible austerity measures to reduce spending and rein in government employee compensation. Hmm—sound familiar?

JCS Chairman Dempsey reiterates that the most critical security issue is the Economy

Former Chairman of the JCS Admiral Mike Mullen raised some eyebrows when he stated explicitly that the biggest threat facing the U.S. was the national debt. This week the current Chairman, Army General Marty Dempsey, extended that worry further by saying that today “We are extraordinarily concerned about the health and viability of the euro….because of the potential for civil unrest and the breakup of the European Union”. Wow—very unusual for a CJCS, to say the least.

The comments illustrate two points. First, one would expect the country’s top military man to comment on global terrorism threats, the military challenges in the Mideast, or what rogue nations like North Korea or Iran do. Here the Chairman is again saying that the economy and particularly the debt crisis, are at the top of the challenges we face. Second, his focus illustrates that the European economic crisis is also an unexpected concern and focus of our military commanders—the health of the economies of our key allies.

The national budget has also fixated the top military and civilian leadership at the Pentagon. Not surprisingly, since the failure of the so-called “Super Committee” means that the stipulations proscribed in the Budget Control Act passed by Congress now come into play. This “sequestration” means that government spending will be automatically cut by $1.2 trillion in 2013, with the axe falling primarily on the Defense Department. In addition to the $350 billion of cuts already agreed on, DOD could lose up to another trillion dollars—nearly a fifth of the total—from its projected spending plans through 2023. If that happens, according to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, America would have the smallest ground force since 1940, the fewest ships since 1915, and the smallest air force in its history.

Well, it’s doubtful that sequestration will actually happen, but given the paralysis that now encompasses the nation’s capital, who knows?

NRC Chairman Jaczko is causing the nation serious damage his colleagues charge? So why has he not been removed?

Even though he has been the subject of an extremely scathing report by the Inspector General of his own agency. Even though now all four of his fellow commissioners of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission say that they have “grave concerns” that the NRC Chairman, Greg Jaczko, is causing “serious damage” to the Commission and has created a horrible work environment marked by “bullying” and a total “lack of understanding”, he has not been removed.

How could this be? This is the Chairman who overrode a Technical Panel review that concluded that closing the Yucca nuclear waste repository was illegal. But he brushed aside that conclusion and ordered the Repository to be shuttered anyway. Congressman Darrell Issa says that the letter of complaint from Jaczko’s fellow commissioners shows a serious breach of trust. Commissioners and staff have complained about the Chairman’s “brusque” style, that the Commission’s staff operates in an atmosphere of intimidation, and that his behavior is “absolutely unacceptable”.

So why has he not been replaced? President Obama has the authority and has been urged to do so by Congressional representatives? How is that such incompetence, corrosive behavior, widely condemned unilateral decisions, and having created a “chilled work environment”, could permit him to stay on, you might ask. How could it be that a Chairman of a key agency who has been lambasted by his own Inspector General could stay on?

Oh, silly us. We forget that Jaczko formerly worked for SEN Harry Reid, the Majority Leader and key ally for the President’s legislative agenda, whose opposition to the Yucca repository is well known. It appears that Reid will not permit his one time lackey, or staffer, to be replaced. In fact, just today, SEN Reid labeled the charges against Jaczko as nothing but “a politically-motivated witch hunt”. Did he forget that two of the four Commissioners are Democrats appointed by President Obama?

It also appears that Nevada’s senior leadership, including SEN Dean Heller, GOV Brian Sandoval, and former SEN Dick Bryan, who heads up the state Committee on Nuclear Projects, are content to not raise any concerns and leave this corrosive individual in charge of the very important NRC, despite his demonstrated incompetence and lack of trust and support. And that’s a shame, isn’t it?

Tyrus W. Cobb

Minister of Enlightenment, the NSF

December 11, 2011

Posted in Domestic News, Eastern Europe, Iran, Middle East, Newsletter | Comments Off

Iran Shoots Down US Drone Amid Evidence of Growing Western Covert Programs

Posted on December 7, 2011 by Maria

Iranian armed forces claim they shot down an unmanned U.S. drone spy plane over its eastern border region. This event occurred amid growing indications that the U.S., Israel and other countries have launched fairly sophisticated covert programs aimed at destabilizing the regime and impairing Tehran’s nuclear weapons program.

The U.S. has confirmed that it lost an RQ-170 Sentinel UAV that was the same kind reportedly used to keep watch on Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan. The drone is equipped with stealth technology which allows it to fly at lower altitudes, but remain safe from anti-aircraft missiles. American sources said that the plane was flying over Western Afghanistan but they “lost control of the UAV”. It really wasn’t flying over Iran, you understand. Hmmm.

Iran claims that it either shot down the RQ-170 or managed to break into the communications system and bring it down electronically. If true that would be very worrisome, but these claims are highly doubtful. However, we do know that only six weeks ago Russia delivered the “Avtobaza” ground-based electronic intelligence and jamming system to Iran. The S-300 is more than a traditional AAA system in that it is designed to jam side-looking and fire control radars and manipulate guidance and control systems of enemy missiles and aircraft. Was this system able to break into the communications link that permits a UAV to be controlled from a remote location? So far doubtful—we think that the RQ-170 simply lost guidance and crashed in Iran. Still, if the drone did not self-destruct after losing guidance and is largely intact, this could be an intelligence windfall for Tehran.

There is growing evidence that the West is engaged in a covert war against the Iranian regime and, specifically, its nascent nuclear weapons program. According to Michael Hirsch (writing in the Dec 4 edition of the National Journal), this may include the Stuxnet virus, the blowing-up of facilities, and the assassination or kidnapping of scientists. He notes that Israel’s 1981 attack on the Osirik nuclear reactor was preceded by assassination attempts on Iraqi scientists.

In turn Iran is taking precautionary steps. The top leadership of the nuclear weapons program, such as Mohsen Fakrizadeh, are hidden way from sight, and the regime is burying its facilities deeper underground. Iran is also employing offensive tactics against the West. This includes the Revolutionary Guards’ attempt to blow up a Washington, D.C., restaurant while the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. would be dining there. And, while less known, to also bomb the Israeli Embassy. They have stepped up their involvement in Iraq in an attempt to undermine stability there. The Quds force and other elements are funneling arms, money and supplies to militant groups throughout the world, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Syrian minority dictatorship, and Hamas in Gaza. Much of this has been going on for some time but the pace seems to have been picking up.

The West has employed sanctions against Iran, specifically trying to strangle its oil and petrochemical infrastructure, and has increased financial measures designed to cripple Tehran’s economic potential. At the same time, Western nations worry that applying too much pressure on the oil industry could lead to a collapse of that sector, resulting in a severe reduction in the supply of oil to the world market. They also worry that Tehran could retaliate by closing the Straits of Hormuz, through which 40% of the world’s oil trade flows.

China and Russia are likely to veto any deeper sanctions; thus, the attraction of employing covert measures against the regime.

Observers are speculating that certain Western agencies were also behind recent bombings of Iranian nuclear program sites, and have been secretly supporting the Green Movement in an attempt to further weaken the regime and spread discontent. Whether this turmoil is really driven by outside forces or reflects growing Iranian domestic discontent with the regime, the Mullahs, the Military and the Revolutionary Guards are clearly worried. It is good that they are and good that they are off balance.

I have advocated that while the U.S., Israel, and its allies should not “take the military option off the table”, there is no viable strike option on Iran that really could do much damage. It might, in fact, rally the dissidents to support the regime. The best options are to continue to increase sanctions on Tehran’s petrochemical sector, impede its financial systems, maintain secret surveillance over key areas, provide extensive support to anti-regime elements, and employ intrusive Cyberwar techniques.

–Tyrus W. Cobb
December 5, 2011

Posted in Iran, Middle East, Newsletter | Comments Off

GOOD-BYE COUNTER-INSURGENCY; HELLO AIR-SEA BATTLE

Posted on November 28, 2011 by Maria

The U.S. is running as fast as it can from the defining strategy and focus of the last decade—fighting counter-insurgencies and engaging in nation-building. The new leitmotif the Defense Department is embracing is the “Air-Sea Battle’, with an unmistakable laser on China, the development of regional alliances to “contain” the PRC, and a stress on naval and air strike capabilities. The Department appears to be putting “COIN” in the rear-view mirror quickly, even with some 100,000 troops still deployed in combating insurgencies in the volatile Mid-East.

The shift in DOD’s strategic emphasis was clearly laid out recently in a major speech given by the Vice-Chairman of the JCS, Admiral James “Sandy” Winnefeld. According to the Vice, the military is moving past COIN at a rapid velocity and must now plan for a new threat environment that will be centered in Eastern Asia and the Western Pacific. “We are not likely to have as our next fight a counterinsurgency”, the Admiral said. This means that while for the past decade we have been training troops in fighting insurgencies on land, assisting the troops in learning Arabic, securing villages and winning friends by drinking “Three Cups of Tea”, the “world has changed”, Winnefeld stated.

Future conflicts will likely occur in “a far more technically challenging environment”. The fight will be much closer to a conventional military conflict characterized by “intense electronic warfighting”, swarm attacks and cyber warfare. America’s enemies are coming up with “new asymmetric advantages”, with electronic warfare at the forefront. National borders will mean little as it will be difficult to ascertain origins of these attacks—for espionage, to cripple our commercial networks, or to neutralize our ISR systems, Winnefeld pointed out.

No more population-centric counter insurgencies. However, military force will still be a core aspect of the new mode of conflict. Special Forces type units and stand-off systems such as drones will be increasingly employed (Biden strategy for Afghanistan wins?), as will very mobile strike forces. The center of the force of the future will very much be air and naval as embodied in the emerging “AirSea Battle” doctrine.

China the Obvious Focus

While it is not explicitly stated, the obvious target of U.S. maneuvering and strategic realigning is what is perceived as the growing threat represented by increasing Chinese assertiveness and power. Indeed, “China bashing” seems to be widespread. Not that the PRC’s actions are without legitimate concern. China is involved heavily in cyber-espionage directed at American security interests and intellectual property theft aimed at U.S. financial institutions. It manipulates its currency to assure that Beijing maintains a healthy balance of trade advantage, human rights violations are omnipresent, the vast use of coal is contributing to global environmental damage, and the country is guilty of “orbital littering”.

However, the primary concern is in the security realm. China has close relationships with nations that export terror or weapons to insurgent groups, particularly Iran and North Korea. The PRC has expanded its military capabilities, to include the development of a (primitive) aircraft carrier, anti-ship missiles, and a modernized submarine fleet. Beijing has been very vociferous in maintaining that it has the right to control much of the South China Sea, a policy line that has been somewhat muted this year but has sounded alarm bells in neighboring countries. In response, East Asian and Pacific Rim nations have been more critical about Chinese power and intentions in the region.

This was made quite explicit in the most recent report by U.S. counter-intelligence experts calling China out for being the world’s “most persistent and active perpetrator of economic espionage”. One Senator (Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse) calls this the “biggest transfer of wealth through theft and piracy in the history of mankind”. A Congressional task force, the China Economic and Security Review Commission, has cited increased Chinese aggressiveness against Japan on the high seas, PRC attempts to hack into U.S. satellites, disputes with the Philippines and Viet-Nam over territorial rights, and threats over American arms transfers to Taiwan.

The Launch of the AirSea Battle Concept and the Emergence of a China Containment Policy

The Air Force and the Navy are developing a new warfighting strategy called the “AirSea Battle”. While China is never explicitly mentioned, there is no doubt that the strategy is aimed at the conduct of a major conflict with the PRC. The U.S. has been seeking closer ties with China’s traditional and new adversaries, most importantly Viet-Nam, the Philippines, and now, even India and Burma! Yes, Burma—that nation moving toward reform and now being welcomed back into the club of nations.

The Pentagon has indicated that the emerging operational philosophy was aimed at the threat of “anti-intervention and regional obstruction”, which China is developing, including long-range precision strike ballistic missiles, advanced anti-air missile defense systems, advanced electronic warfare capabilities, and modernized submarines. The U.S. is rapidly developing better anti-submarine techniques to counter the growing Chinese capability, and new U.S. “allies” Viet Nam and Malaysia are ordering, in turn, new submarines from Western defense firms.

The implementation of “AirSea Battle” will rely on closer ties with regional powers. The U.S. Navy is making more port visits to China’s neighbors, most strikingly to our former adversary, Viet Nam, with whom we are developing strong defense ties. Ah, the irony of it all! The Pentagon announced that a Marine Expeditionary Force will be based in Darwin on the north coast of Australia. Not that anyone thinks a MEF would be all that effective against a conventional Chinese threat, but it serves both as a “trip wire” and as a base for possible rapid reinforcement for the Navy.

Most importantly, in President Obama’s recent trip to Asia that included two Summits and several key bilateral discussions, the thrust was clearly focused on “containing China”. Philippine President Ricky Carandang exclaimed at the recent Asian Summit in Bali that the “enhanced U.S. presence bolsters our ability to assert our sovereignty over certain areas”. This year Viet Nam signed its first defense cooperation agreement with the U.S. and the two navies have conducted joint exercises. India and Viet Nam have expressed a desire to discuss trilateral cooperation in the South China Sea area, interesting given its distance from the subcontinent.

The upshot of this activity will be (1) American military strategy will be rapidly shifting away from the stress on COIN; (2) U.S. naval and air capabilities will get new emphasis for future defense acquisition programs; (3) The key role the Army has played in defense policy implementation will fade; (4) The U.S. will develop closer military ties with China’s neighbors, perhaps not formal alliances, but enhanced military cooperation; (5) The AirSea Battle doctrine and American diplomacy will be increasingly oriented on “Containing China”.

Tyrus W. Cobb
Minister of Enlightenment, the NSF

Posted in Newsletter | Comments Off

Commentary on Iran and Syria

Posted on November 23, 2011 by Maria

Colleagues: Two posts today, dealing first with our options with respect to Iran, and secondly, an insightful commentary on the situation in Syria.

My article in yesterday’s RGJ argues that while Iran and the Iranian nuclear weapons program are anathema to us and do not bode well for future events in the Mid-East, we–and Israel–realistically have few options. The “military strike” to take out the Iranian program does not stand up to scrutiny.

I asked Dr. John Jandali, himself a Syrian-born Sunni, to comment on the events in Syria and the likely direction the revolution will take. Some of you may have seen John’s comments, but I wanted to make them available to a wider audience. Very insightful and worth a close read. Ty

Reno Gazette-Journal
Nov. 22, 2011
ONE VIEW Tyrus W. Cobb

Iran will get the bomb, so what do we do now?

Recent intelligence estimates indicate that Iran will soon have the technology and materials to build a nuclear bomb. It has been developing the various key components, including neutron initiators and complex explosives needed to build a warhead small enough to place on top of a ballistic missile.

Tehran has steadily increased its stockpile of low-enriched uranium, which could be further refined to weapons grade.

Most observers believe that an Iran with nuclear weapons would represent a major security challenge to Israel, the United States and many Mideast countries. A nuclear Iran could be the catalyst for additional proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East and beyond.

Would Iran’s rivals for regional dominance — such as Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia — seek their own nuclear weapons to counterbalance Tehran?

For years, the U.S. and its allies have relied on a combination of sanctions and isolation to thwart Iranian ambitions. To no avail, and the closer Iran gets to acquiring nuclear weapons, the fewer options that will be available to stop its progress.

Imposing more stringent sanctions is unlikely. China and Russia will certainly veto any significant acceleration of economic and diplomatic penalties.

In light of this, the option of a U.S. or Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear weapons complex is being discussed more seriously. Indeed, Israel’s recent test launch of a long-range missile and Prime Minister Netanyahu’s assertions that Iran’s nuclear program posed “a direct and heavy threat” only increased such speculation.

The U.S. and Israel have correctly refused to take the “military option” off the table in responding to the Iranian challenge.

For Israel, these recent developments have likely lead it to believe that it has only a short period in which it could launch a nuclear attack that would devastate Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

The problem with a military strike is that the downsides are great. A “surgical strike” would likely be ineffective against Iran’s multi-layered and entrenched facilities. Its infrastructure is robust, well-protected, redundant and often underground.

Many sites are located close to heavily populated areas. Even a massive air operation would likely only halt the program for a few months. Further, any strike would likely drive the restless populace into the arms of the hardliners and enhance the unpopular regime’s status.

In response, Tehran might seek to close the Straits of Hormuz, through which much of the world’s oil passes. This would lead to a sharp rise in the price of oil, as much as $250 a barrel, and the damage to the global economy would be great. Most likely Iran would also launch retaliatory missile attacks against Israel and unleash its proxies in Gaza (Hamas) and Lebanon (Hezbollah).

No one likes the prospect of having to accommodate to the reality of a nuclear-armed Iran, but it is unlikely that any effort to punish Iran would be very effective. While we should employ extensive economic sanctions and covert programs (such as cyber-intrusion), an Iranian nuclear capability may not be preventable.

But adopting a policy of preventive war because all other options appear ineffective would be reckless.

Tyrus W. Cobb of Reno served as special assistant to President Ronald Reagan for national security affairs 1983-89.
////////////

A question I posed to Dr. Jandali: John, more reports on the growing violence in your home country of Syria. Many questions–any chance the Alawite/Baathist regime can be overthrown? If so, what does that mean for Iran? Israel? (doubtful a Sunni government would be any more disposed toward Israel), the US? Any recommendations what the US ought to do? Ty

Ty,

Two critical factors could impact the future of the Alawite/Baathist regime in Syria, one is internal and the other external. And the two forces are not mutually exclusive, and, if combined, could facilitate the overthrow of the regime.

The first factor is already unfolding, and it relates to the defections of military personnel and their joining the “Liberation Army”, fighting the regime. We need to keep in mind that even though the Assad/Alawite elite has filled the top leadership positions in the armed forces with Alawite officers, the rank and file soldiers had to be recruited from the Sunni majority sect in the country. My sources in Syria tell me that more and more of those soldiers are defecting, almost daily, as they witness the regime issuing orders to butcher their own people and destroy their cities and villages.

However, As of today, the regime is still able to maintain control of the armed forces and continue its oppressive response to the opposition. But, in spite of that, I would not rule out the possibility of a “bloodless coup d’état”, which could alter the balance of power, open genuine negotiations with the opposition groups, and reach accommodation, leading to some type of representative and inclusive government power sharing. Such a coup could be structured by an ambitious Alawite officer, or group of officers, who aspire to grab power and put an end to the Assad Dynasty.

The second factor relates to policies and actions of outside powers and their impact on the outcome of this continuing crisis. Clearly, the US and other European allies have no appetite for a Libyan type military action in Syria. Instead, they opted to apply some economic and financial sanctions and pursued diplomatic pressures designed to weaken and isolate the regime. Most of these measures have not been successful in altering the government’s brutal crackdown and killing of civilians. The Arab League has also tried to convince the Assad regime to modify its behavior and open negotiations with the opposition groups, and when these efforts were ignored the Leagues expelled Syria from membership .

Turkey, more than any other outside power, has had significant influence on the political and military developments surrounding the Syrian revolution. From the very beginning of this crisis, Turkey has strongly condemned the use of force against innocent civilians, and has exhausted all diplomatic efforts at pushing the Assad Regime to change course and reach a peaceful solution to the problems at hand. And when these efforts failed, Turkey opened its doors to members of the opposition movement seeking refuge away from the pursuit of the killing machines, and erected camps for thousands of Syrian dissidents, and allowed the opposition leaders to plan and organize on Turkish soil. The Turkish government has given up on the Assad regime, and has openly called for Bashar Al Assad to step down. And, with the increased defection of elements of the Syrian armed forces, the opposition movement becomes more and more “militarized” and in need of military and logistical assistance, Turkey seems to be the logical avenue for such aid to flow in. Some sources indicate that Saudi Arabia has already begun, with Turkish cooperation, to provide the Army of Liberation with military and logistical assistance. If this continues, it could have significant ramifications on the nature of the conflict, and will most likely widen the scope of the military confrontation, and could lead to a sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Alawites.

Many Arab observers suggest that time is running out on the Assad regime, and that with the increased deterioration of the economy and dissatisfaction of the merchant class in the major cities, the opposition movement is likely to grow in number and force as to eventually affect a change in the direction of the country.

What will happen after the Assad regime collapses is anyone’s guess. The opposition groups lack cohesion and unity, and include a mix of political , ideological, and religious tendencies The role of the military in a post Assad regime remains another big question. And, certainly Egypt’s recent events do not provide a workable model for the Syrians to emulate.

Finally, a comment or two regarding Iran and Israel. Iran will be reluctant to get involved in any internal change of government, realizing that doing so would threaten a much wider regional confrontation that may involve other major players. And there is no reason to suggest that Syria’s delicate relations with Israel would undergo any change, regardless of the change in government style. With the superior military power of Israel, and especially its superior air power, it would be foolish for the Syrians to contemplate any adventure that may lead to confrontation with Israel.

Posted in Newsletter | Comments Off