President Obama's new leadership picks and the Middle East

President Barack Obama has made three controversial selections to be part of his leadership team as we begin the last four years of the Obama presidency. These are arguably three of the most important positions in the government and will play a key role in our policies and operations in the Middle East.

The selections are former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry as Secretary of State, and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism John Brennan as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. I will start with Kerry's nomination, then Hagel's and wrap up with Brennan's, in order of severity of the choice.

John Kerry - Secretary of State
Nominally, the Secretary of State is the senior cabinet official and is considered a key player in the formulation of foreign policy. In this Administration, as we have seen with current Secretary Hillary Clinton, the policy is made at the White House and simply executed by the State Department. That must be the explanation for the abysmal state of relations with virtually every nation in the Middle East, be they Arab, Israeli, Iranian and possibly even Turkish.

From the moment the Obama Administration took office in January 2009, our policies in the Middle East have done nothing but make a bad situation worse. It began with the disastrous "reset" button embarrassing misstep with the Russian Foreign Minister and went downhill from there.

Although there are many in the media who believe John Kerry has vast foreign policy experience, he is generally regarded as a lightweight by both American and foreign policy analysts. That said, it really will make no difference. President Obama will continue his flawed policies in the region; John Kerry will merely be the well-dressed and polished mouthpiece.

For my assessment of President Obama's Middle East policies during his first four years, see my earlier article, Obama and the Middle East - the first four years.

Chuck Hagel - Secretary of Defense
The nomination of Chuck Hagel to be the Secretary of Defense is more problematic; the Defense Secretary is in the chain of command for the execution of military operations. Many people are not aware of the chain of command - it runs from the President as Commander in Chief to the Secretary of Defense, to the combatant commander, which in the case of the Middle East, is commander of the U.S. Central Command, currently U.S. Marine Corps General General James Mattis. Note the absence of the Vice President and the Joint Chiefs of Staff from the chain of command.

Many are touting Hagel's selection as a reach across the aisle, choosing a Republican to serve a Democratic president. Given Hagel's voting record, his consistent endorsement of Democratic candidates, a weak record of support for Israel and lack of resolve on Iran, he is hardly an across-the-aisle pick. Hagel's support of downsizing what he calls a "bloated" Department of Defense is troubling as threats in the region are increasing, not decreasing. Hagel may be a smart guy, but he is a neophyte - just like his future boss - in the Middle East.

That said, orders for military operations originate at the White House, for better or worse. It is no secret that I think this Administration is clueless on effective military operations. Again, see the article I mentioned above.

I assume that the Senate will not violate the professional courtesy afforded to fellow Senators and that both Hagel and Kerry will be confirmed. Again, they will only carry out the ill-advised policies of the President.

John Brennan - Director of the Central Intelligence Agency
Here is where I have a real problem with these selections. The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, while nominally subordinate to the Director of National Intelligence, is the President's spymaster and covert operations chief. The Director can cause real damage and should possess mature judgement. Thus far, I have not seen that from John Brennan - in fact, I think the opposite is true.

Supporters will claim that Brennan's years as an analyst and one tour as a chief of station in a declared position - meaning he was known to the host country as a CIA officer - qualify him for the position. Normally, that would be a positive, but Brennan's public faux pas make me think twice.

There has been a lot of media research into some of Brennan's nonsensical positions. I myself wrote an article in May 2010, Brennan wants to "build up moderate elements" of Hizballah? Some excerpted points I made then:

John Brennan proposes that the United States "build up moderate elements" within Hizballah. Yes, Hizballah, the same Iranian-created and backed Lebanese jihadist militia designated by the U.S. State Department as a foreign terrorist organization, the same Hizballah responsible for the murders of 241 U.S. Marines in Beriut in 1983. The list of Hizballah attacks is long and lethal. Yet, Brennan hopes to "diminish the influence of hard-liners" in the organization. John - they're all hardliners - that's why they are members of Hizballah.

Why does this guy still have a job? This proposal comes on the heels of Brennan's ridiculous media appearance in which he described our counterterrorism efforts as "we're not lucky, we're good" in the aftermath of the failure of a bomb to detonate in New York City's Times Square. A terrorist who was trained in Pakistan constructed a car bomb here, drove it to Times Square and tried to detonate it - the only reason there are not hundreds of dead and maimed Americans is that the bomb failed to properly explode - it has nothing to do with our obviously flawed homeland security system. More on that at Holder and Brennan - the "no-clue two".

Brennan's other misfires are quite well known in intelligence circles. Here are some examples:

- April, 2008: Brennan tells the New York Times that a government official must stop "Iran-bashing." If confirmed as the CIA Director, Iran will be one of the top targets for both espionage and covert action. The Iranians are bent on acquiring a nuclear weapons capability and are the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. Don't want to speak ill of the one of the most dangerous regime's on the planet, John?

- February, 2010: Brennan defends the Obama Administration's decision to treat the so-called "underwear bomber" 'Umar Faruq 'Abd al-Mutalab as a criminal rather than a terrorist. This guy should be in an orange jumpsuit at Guantanamo, not lawyered up in a federal jail. He went so far as to accuse critics of the decision as "serving the goals of al-Qa'idah." John, that's almost as preposterous as it is insulting.

- September, 2010: a known Hamas operative was given an escorted tour of the National Counterterrorism Center. This could not have happened without Brennan's approval. I am sure all of you know that Hamas is a terrorist organization, but the proposed Director of the CIA does not care?

- May, 2012: After the U.S. and allied intelligence services penetrate an al-Qa'idah cell and disrupt an attack on the United States, Brennan is responsible for a leak about the operation that basically sells out an intelligence asset and ends our access to critical intelligence, all for some good publicity for the Obama White House. This sets a bad precedent for protecting our intelligence sources in any case, but from the future director of the CIA?

There's more. He supports trying Guantanamo detainees in federal court, and had a role in the release of Pan Am 103 killer 'Abd al-Basit al-Maghrahi, to name a few.

We've had some lousy CIA directors in the past, but confirming John Brennan to the post would cross new thresholds of irresponsibility.

My bottom line: I am not happy about any of these nominations. I can live with Kerry and Hagel because they are merely executing (bad) policies from the White House. I fear for our intelligence community if John Brennan is allowed to do even more damage that he already has.

Obama and the Middle East - the first four years

The "fiscal cliff" debate is now behind us ( الحمد لله ) and we are about to begin the second term of the Obama Presidency. Looking at the various crises in the Middle East, it would appear that the President has inherited a mess. Unfortunately, most of it is a mess of his own making - the days of blaming the previous president are over.

Let's take a look at how the Administration has done in the past four years. I have omitted Israel from this article - that deserves a separate accounting. If you are looking for good news, there is little to be had here.

President-Elect Obama began the transition to his Administration with the commitment to close the detention facility at Guantanamo, Cuba, to end the war in Iraq and begin the "responsible" end to the war in Afghanistan. So let's start with these three promises.

Guantanamo
The detention facility is still open with no foreseeable end to its operation. If you believe the Administration's rhetoric, the mere existence of the facility generates anti-American hatred in the Middle East and is a recruiting tool for Islamist groups.

The President would prefer to transfer the prisoners to federal facilities and try them in federal court. Obama wrote that the "prosecution of terrorists in Federal court is a powerful tool in our efforts to protect the nation and must be among the options available to us." I doubt most rational people believe that any potential terrorists are deterred by the threat of having a court-appointed lawyer make a circus of the American justice system while he enjoys much better treatment than he would get at Guantanamo.

That said, if the President is correct, he has failed in one of his key promises. I'll score that an F.

Iraq
The President vowed to end the war. What he really meant was he vowed to end the American commitment to the Iraqis. He quit, he walked away, despite a provision in the status of forces agreement to keep American forces there if the security situation warranted. No analyst (except any who are fans of the Obama kool-aid) was of the opinion that conditions in the country pointed to a stable future without an American troop presence.

Soon after all American forces were withdrawn in 2011, violence exploded and thousands of Iraqis were killed as the various sects and tribes rekindle old animosities. The Shi'a-dominated government of pro-Iranian prime minister Nuri al-Maliki seemed to start take its marching orders from Tehran. The Iraqis began allowing Iranian aircraft to overfly Iraq in an effort to resupply Syrian dictator Bashar al-Asad.

Walking away - that gets him an F from me, but probably an A- from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Afghanistan
Announcing a withdrawal schedule is a recipe for disaster. You have told the enemy how long they have to wait before they will have the opportunity to operate without the threat of American military might being brought to bear.

Combine that with low-balling your commanders' requests for resources while opening secret talks with the Taliban - this is not leadership worthy of an American president. Mr. Obama is turning Afghanistan into another Iraqi "solution." We're quitting and going home, saying to President Karzai (arguably one of the most corrupt leaders on the planet), "You're on your own, Hamid."

I'll score that a D- for now, but suspect that in the end, it will be an F.

Having failed on all three of his campaign commitments, how did the President do in some of the other trouble spots in the region?

Iran
I have been fairly vocal about my thoughts on President Obama's policy on Iran. After four years, the President has been able to secure an Iranian commitment to agree to talk about having talks about its nuclear program. During this four years, the President has made repeated attempts to open a dialogue with people who have repeatedly demonstrated that they do not wish to talk to him.

While spurning his advances, the Iranians have unceasingly carried on its aggressive uranium enrichment program and what many of the world's analysts believe is a nuclear weapons program (again, except those intelligence analysts who favor the Obama kool-aid).

However, you say, we have imposed the strictest sanctions on Iran ever. True, all over the objections of the President. For his inability to recognize Iran's successful efforts to play him for time, he gets an F here as well.

Libya
Where do I start? Libya is the birthplace of the Obama "leading from behind" strategy." In all of my years in the military, I never once heard of this strategy. I never heard of it because there is no such thing. There was so much that could have been gained by engaging the Libyan opposition early on, giving us a position from which we might have been able to influence future events in the country. If we had been able to temper the rise of Islamism in the eastern part of the country, the debacle of Benghazi may not have happened. Benghazi and the loss of four talented Americans should haunt this administration for years. D-

Syria
The Obama Administration's lackluster support for the Syrian opposition will result in another potential Islamist-dominated state in which we have no influence. There will be change in Syria - do we want to stand by and watch as the Islamists gain the upper hand? Or do we want to engage the opposition leadership and attempt to mitigate the role of the Islamists? I suspect what we are seeing is either more "leadership from behind" or even worse, the head-in-the-sand strategy. D-

Yemen
I will have to give the President good marks here. As we saw the shift of al-Qa'idah operations out of Iraq and Saudi Arabia and into Yemen, the Obama Administration quickly deployed military and CIA assets to the region and began supporting the Yemeni government and armed forces in their operations against al-Qa'idah. This has included missile strikes from drones and other launch platforms. As I have always said, the way to deal with these committed true believers is to hunt them down and kill them. It appears we are doing just that. I give this performance a solid A.

Egypt
I was tempted to give the Administration a pass on Egypt. It happened fairly quickly and the outcome was not clear. Most of us are unhappy that the Egyptian electorate - those that voted - elected a Muslim Brotherhood-dominated government, but the situation is far from resolved. That said, we need to hold President Mursi's feet to fire - demand protection for minorities, especially the Coptic Christians, better protection for women, and adherence to international treaties and obligations.

Key to our continued support to the Egyptian armed forces should be predicated on the new leadership's behavior. As I said, I was willing to give the President a pass on Egypt - then I learned that President Obama plans to send 20 F-16 fighter jets tot he country, paid for by American taxpayers with no requirements placed on Mursi to act responsibly. It send the wrong message. Here, I have to go with D-.

Overall, I will give the President and his Administration a solid D-.

This isn't Chicago - this is the big leagues. While you might be the master of the leftist elite, in the Middle East you are regarded as weak and ineffective. If you'd like to turn it around, call my office - I'm easy to find.

Syrian Air Force losses in 2012

Syrian Air Force Mi-17 shot down over northern Syria

According to Syrian opposition sources with a generally reliable record, the Syrian Air Force suffered 144 aircraft losses in 2012. Here is the breakdown of the numbers:

Total:  144

Helicopters:  83
Combat aircraft: 63

Shot down:  106
Destroyed on the ground:  38

By governorate:
Idlib:  46
Damascus:  32
Aleppo: 27
Dayr al-Zawr:  24
Hamah:  6
Homs:  5
Dara':  2
Latakia:  1
Al-Raqqah:  1

By month:
March:  1
June:  3
July:  8
August:  30
September: 15
October:  16
November:  30
December:  41

My comments:

The primary anti-aircraft weapons available to the Free Syrian Army (FSA) are anti-aircraft guns that they have captured from the Syrian military, primarily the 12.7mm and 14.5mm AAA guns, but also 23mm and 57mm guns. Lately, they have acquired shoulder launched surface-to-air missiles (SA-7/18/24) that have been used effectively.

Soon after the initial losses, there was an immediate change in Syrian Air Force tactics. The pilots began flying higher, faster and using decoy flares to protect against the heat-seeking missiles.

The "combat aircraft" figure includes fighters and the L-39ZA trainer/light attack aircraft. The losses among the L-39 have been high, and the FSA has been able to down several MiG-23 fighters.

I believe all of the helicopters shot down or destroyed were Mi-8/17 (HIP) general purpose helicopters, many used as assault platforms mounted with S-5 55mm and S-8 80mm rocket launchers, machine guns, and as a platform to drop the homemade "barrel bomb" that terrifies the population. (See my article, The Syrian "barrel bomb" - a terror weapon.)

Although the Syrian Air Force has operated the Mi-25 (HIND) gunship, there have been no documented losses in the civil war. If publicly available estimates are correct that the Syrian Air Force possessed about 100 operational Mi-8/17 helicopters, and 83 have been destroyed, that is a major loss.

The Syrian Air Force's complete domination of the skies is one of the major advantages enjoyed by the regime. In almost every instance where senior FSA commanders are interviewed, they state that the major obstacle they face is devastating airpower. If they are not able to mitigate regime airpower, they may not be able to win the fight.

General Norman Schwarzkopf (1934-2012)

General Norman Schwarzkopf and Major Rick Francona - Riyadh, Saudi Arabia , 1991

I received word yesterday that one of the military heroes of our time, and my one-time boss, General Norman Schwarzkopf, had died. I served as his personal Arabic interpreter during Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq. He was 78 years old.

I first met General Schwarzkopf at the Pentagon as he was on his way to his new position as the commander of the United States Central Command (CENTCOM), headquartered at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida. I was assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), serving as the Assistant Defense Intelligence Officer for the Middle East.

As part of his orientation to his new command, my boss and I briefed the general on our recent support to Saddam Husayn and the Iraqi military in their eight year war with Iran. As part of that effort, I spent much of 1988 in Baghdad as a liaison officer to the Iraqi armed forces Directorate of Military Intelligence. It was though our provision of intelligence that Saddam's forces were able to defeat the Iranians on the battlefield.

When the Iraqis invaded Kuwait in August 1990, President George H.W. Bush declared that the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait "will not stand." A few days later, the President ordered General Schwarzkopf to begin the deployment of American combat forces to Saudi Arabia to defend the kingdom against a possible Iraqi attack. Almost immediately, the general himself moved to a forward headquarters in Saudi Arabia.

General Schwarzkopf was in need of an Arabic interpreter to help him deal with his Arabic-speaking allies as well as his Arabic-speaking enemies. I received a call at home from a senior officer (and friend) at the Central Command headquarters, asking me if I was interested in being General Schwarzkopf's personal Arabic interpreter - I jumped at the chance, but was concerned that DIA might object. I was wrong - DIA was happy to provide my expertise, or as they put it, "supporting the warfighter." I also learned later that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Colin Powell had put out the word: "when CENTCOM calls for support, the answer is yes." I was on the ground at CENTCOM Forward in Saudi Arabia in two days.

General Schwarzkopf was interested not only in my Arabic language skills, but my previous experience in Iraq with the Iraqi army and air force. While in Baghdad in 1988, I had worked with several of the same officers that were now facing us in Kuwait and southern Iraq. One of these officers was Major General Wafiq al-Samarra'i, the Director of Military Intelligence (DMI) for the Iraqi armed forces.

In 1988, Wafiq (then a brigadier and deputy DMI) was the officer I worked with in providing intelligence information on Iranian targets. By virtue of the information we had provided, he had gleaned some insight to our intelligence capabilities, and would be using this information in his assessments and analysis for Saddam Husayn. Likewise, I had gained an appreciation for Iraqi intelligence and military capabilities through not only working with intelligence officers in Baghdad, but by traveling to the battlefields and observing the Iraqi army and air force in their operations.

Soon after I began my duties at CENTCOM, I was called to meet with the general. He asked me if I could teach him to speak Arabic. I replied - with all due respect - that I could teach him some basic conversational things, but learning Arabic is not a part-time endeavor. After I tried to get him through some basic greetings, the press of preparing to invade Kuwait and Iraq ended, thankfully, the language training.

I felt privileged to sit in on what I knew was going to be history. I, too, was a Vietnam veteran (I was previously a Vietnamese linguist) and was a small part of the rebuilding of the American armed forces into the most lethal and effective killing machine in history. The Iraqis may have been able to defeat the Iranians (with our intelligence assistance), but they were not going to be a match for the best-trained and best-equipped military in the world. The result was a foregone conclusion - the only question was how much American blood it would cost.

It was easily one of the highlights of my career. I wrote a book about my experiences in Iraq in 1988 and my later service as General Schwarzkopf's interpreter and advisor. The book can be found in libraries or online.

Years later, I was hired by NBC News to appear on their family of networks as a military analyst providing my insights into the 2003 American invasion of Iraq. One of my fellow military analysts was none other than retired General Norman Schwarzkopf. We appeared on camera together a few times. I will always remember his kind words, "As you well remember, Rick, when we took on Saddam...."

Right, general. You and me.

It was an honor and privilege to have served as his interpreter. It has, at times to my dismay, defined my military career. No matter what I did before or after that - and I like to think I have made some real contributions - I am best remembered as "Rick Francona, he was General Schwarzkopf's interpreter."

Syrian prisoners confirm Scud use

Four Syrian army soldiers captured by the opposition Free Syrian Army (FSA) confirm that the Syrians have launched Scud missiles at opposition targets in the country. This video was posted on YouTube by the Free Syrian Army unit calling itself the al-Qalamun Volcano (burkan al-qalamun) Brigade.



The FSA captured these four soldiers of the Syrian army 51st [Missile] Battalion of the 155th [Missile] Brigade. The 155th Brigade is headquartered near the city of al-Quyafah, located at 33°44'23"N 36°35'53"E. There are large missile garrison areas just southwest of the city.

The soldiers gave their names when asked. When the interviewer asks who is responsible for missile operations, the prisoner second from the left provides the information. He responds with the name Staff Colonel 'Ali Yusif Hamudi, commander of the 51st Battalion, and brigade commander Ahmad Ghanam. When asked who else, the prisoner responded with the name Staff Colonel Dhahir Hadad, commander of the 78th [Missile] Battalion.

At time code 1:01, the prisoner said that they had fired seven missiles, five during the day and two at night. He confirmed that he had witnessed the launches, and that they were launched at Darat 'Azah (36°16'47"N 36°51'36"E) in the Aleppo Governorate.

Comment: Darat 'Azah has been the scene of intense fighting over the last week. It is adjacent to the garrison of the Syrian army's 111th Regiment at 36°15'35"N 36°53'38"E that was seized by elements of the FSA last week.

ADDENDUM - Syria about to use chemical weapons on its own people?

This is an addendum to my earlier article, Syria about to use chemical weapons on its own people?

This Syrian opposition video shows chemical warfare protective equipment seized following a battle between the opposition and the Syrian army on the road between Damascus and the Damascus International Airport. That area has seen some of the heaviest fighting and regime air strikes over the last month. During the past few days, the opposition has surrounded the airport in hopes of shutting it down. Several airlines have canceled flights to Damascus.

According to new reports citing "U.S. officials" as the source, the Syrians have prepared some of their chemical weapons for use. It is one thing to prepare the weapons, but there is another, equally important factor in the employment of chemical weapons - you must protect your own troops who have to operate in the chemical environment. In the intelligence business, the deployment of chemical warfare protective gear is a key indicator of potential chemical warfare use.

This video indicates that the Syrian army is issuing protective gear to its combat units.



I have gisted the Arabic narration on the video, keyed to the time code.

0:01-1:10. This materiel was seized by the Free Syrian Army (FSA) during a battle with regime forces on the [Damascus International] airport road. It consists of chemical warfare protective equipment carried in ZIL-131 vehicles. There are suits, coveralls, overshoes, filters, boxes of combat chemical protective suits.

1:10-1:33. This is decontamination equipment found in the ZIL-131 trucks. You can see the hoses, brushes, decontamination fluid and other materials.

1:34-1:50. This is poisonous material to be used by the regime in air attacks.*

1:50-2:00. These are Russian chemical warfare protective filters.

2:05-2:40. This is how the suits are worn. This gear is now in the hands of the FSA, and will be used to protect ourselves in case of a chemical attack by the regime.
_______________
* I am not sure this is accurate. Since all of the other gear appears to be defensive, I suspect it is more decontamination fluid.

Pretty sobering. If the Syrians are not planning to use chemical weapons, there is no need to issue this protective gear.

Syria about to use chemical weapons on its own people?

Halabjah, Iraq - 1988

Is Syrian President Bashar al-Asad about to order his armed forces to use chemical weapons on their own people? According to media outlets citing "U.S. officials," the Syrian military has mixed the chemical components that make up the nerve agent Sarin (GB). Sarin has been used in the past in neighboring Iraq - in 1988, Iraqi Air Force fighters dropped Sarin-filled bombs on the Kurdish town of Halabjah in northern Iraq, killing over 5,000 people. Later that year, Iraqi forces used chemical weapons against Iranian troops during four major battles, making Iraq the only country to have used nerve agents on a battlefield.

Syria's chemical weapons are no secret. The Director of National Intelligence, in an unclassified report to Congress in 2006, provided this assessment of Syria's chemical and biological weapons, and the ballistic missiles that can be used to deliver them. It does not address Syrian air force fighter-bombers that can also carry chemical weapons. (See my earlier article, Syria's chemical weapons and the uprising.)
_________
Unclassified Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Munitions, 1 January to 31 December 2006. (Read the entire report).

UNCLASSIFIED
Chemical and Biological. Syria continued to seek dual-use technology from foreign sources during the reporting period. Syria has had a chemical weapons program for many years and already has a stockpile of the nerve agent sarin, which can be delivered by aircraft or ballistic missile. In addition, Syria is developing the more toxic and persistent nerve agent VX. We assess that Syria remains dependent on foreign sources for key elements of its CW program, including precursor chemicals.

Syria's biotechnical infrastructure is capable of supporting limited biological agent development. We do not assess the Syrians have achieved a capability to put biological agents into effective weapons, however.

Ballistic Missile. Syria's ballistic missile program is a key component to its strategy to deter external threats and is a priority in defense planning and spending. Syria possesses one of the largest ballistic missile forces in the Middle East—composed of Scud-class liquid propellant short-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs), including Soviet—and North Korean—origin Scud missiles. Additionally, Syria fields the SS-21 Mod 2 SRBM. We judge that Syria's operational missile force can employ chemical as well as conventional warheads. Syria is developing a version of its Scud-D missile with greater accuracy and that is more difficult to intercept.
__________

The Obama Administration has reacted with its usual vapid rhetoric.

"Today I want to make it absolutely clear to Asad and those under his command: The world is watching. The use of chemical weapons is and would be totally unacceptable. If you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there will be consequences and you will be held accountable."

If Bashar al-Asad thought there would really be serious consequences, he would not have given the order to his armed forces to ready the chemical weapons. Just like al-Asad's primary sponsor and supporter - Iran - the Syrian president does not take American threats seriously.

I hope Bashar is making a serious miscalculation. I hope that I have underestimated Barack Obama's understanding of the situation in the Middle East. I have been to Halabjah - I have seen the results of nerve gas attacks on defenseless civilians. I have been to the Iraqi battlefields in 1988 - I have seen the results of nerve gas attacks on Iranian troops.

Perhaps this is a gamble on al-Asad's part - "Someone grant me asylum or I'll go out with a bang."

If Bashar al-Asad descends to the level of Saddam Husayn and does use chemical weaspons, he needs to suffer the same fate as his Ba'thi cousin - delivered by either the Syrian people or an American missile. Unfortunately, our record of holding people "accountable" is pretty weak.

Obama Administration opposes tougher Iran sanctions?

The Obama Administration's rhetoric, usually delivered by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, maintains that the United States will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, and that this Administration has imposed crippling sanctions on Iran. Despite that, the President has threatened to veto a bill imposing even tougher sanctions on the Islamic Republic. That does not seem consistent.

For those of you who do not follow the Middle East sections of the media, here's what is happening. In an unusual bipartisan move, the U.S. Senate voted 94 to zero to amend the defense authorization bill with sanctions further restricting trade with Iran. The new sanctions would apply to precious metals, graphite, aluminum and steel, metallurgical coal and software used for integrating industrial processes. These are the types of materials that can be used in a nuclear weapons program. This amendment ups the ante in American efforts to cripple those sectors in Iran - this will get the attention of the decision makers in Tehran and not just an impose further economic hardships on the Iranian people.

So why does the Obama Administration oppose this step, a step that might actually have an impact on the recalcitrant regime in Tehran? You would think the President would welcome sanctions that would help him achieve his commitment to prevent the fundamentalist Shi'a regime from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. Despite the Administration's previous efforts - these "crippling sanctions" Mrs. Clinton keeps touting (mostly forced on it by the legislative branch), the Iranian nuclear program continues virtually unhindered.

According to chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Yukiya Amano, the current international sanctions protocols have not had any effect on Iran's nuclear activities - the Islamic Republic continues to enrich uranium at a steady pace, and shows no signs of changing their policy. Sanctions have had an effect on the Iranian economy - inflation is rampant and the value of the Iranian rial has virtually collapsed. While that has hurt the average Iranian, it has done nothing to hinder progress towards the development of nuclear weapon.

There is another policy that has not hindered Iran's nuclear program. It is the Obama Administration's repeated efforts to negotiate a resolution to this crisis - efforts which began as soon as Barack Obama took office in 2009 and have periodically resurfaced each time the Iranians offer to talk yet again. The Iranians, much more skilled in Middle East bargaining than the seemingly naive Barack Obama, have never agreed to anything except to meet again for more talks.

There has been no positive result whatsoever from the Obama policy of "engagement." While the Iranians agree to talk about talks, the centrifuges at multiple facilities continue to enrich uranium. The only chance of a peaceful resolution to this crisis is to force the Iranians to negotiate. Thus far, the sanctions and offers of "engagement" have only worked to Tehran's advantage. Unless the United States, the United Nations or the rest of the world can impose truly draconian sanctions that get the attention of the regime, negotiations will fail.

If negotiations fail, there will be one of two outcomes. Either the Iranians will be successful in acquiring nuclear weapons, or the Israelis will assess that the Iranians are close to such capability and mount an attack on the facilities. Either outcome is problematic, to say the least.

That said, if sanctions are going to be effective, they have to be strong. The Senate amendment is a start. The President needs to accept the fact - quietly so that he does not have to admit failure - that the Iranians are not going to fall victim to his wit and charm. Go for the sanctions.

Quoted in an article - Syrian helicopter deliveries

Over the past few weeks, I have been assisting ProPublica in its reporting of Syrian transport aircraft activity. I was quoted in their latest article - here it is in its entirety, my comment in bold.

To Retrieve Attack Helicopters from Russia, Syria Asks Iraq for Help, Documents Show

Syrian attack helicopters (SANA, via Agence France-Presse, Getty Images)

by Michael Grabell, Dafna Linzer, and Jeff Larson, Nov. 29, 2012, 5:17 p.m.

In late October, Syria asked Iraqi authorities to grant air access for a cargo plane transporting refurbished attack helicopters from Russia, according to flight records obtained by ProPublica. With Turkish and European airspace off limits to Syrian arms shipments, the regime of Bashar al-Assad needs Iraq’s air corridor to get the helicopters home, where the government is struggling to suppress an uprising.

Iraq regained control of its airspace from the U.S. military just a year ago and has been under intense diplomatic pressure from the United States to isolate the Syrian regime. Turkey says it has closed its airspace to Syrian flights, and if Iraq did so, Syria would be virtually cut off from transporting military equipment by plane. European Union sanctions have already constricted arms transport by sea and air.

But it is unclear whether Iraq permitted the fly-overs described in the documents. The Syrian cargo plane scheduled to pick up the helicopters did not land or take off from Moscow at the appointed times this month, suggesting that those flights did not happen.

Some of the flight request documents have been posted by hackers associated with the online collective Anonymous and formed the basis of a Time story Thursday. Other documents were obtained separately by ProPublica, which reported Monday that Syria appears to have flown 240 tons of bank notes from Moscow this summer. The authenticity of the documents in either cache could not be independently verified.

But taken together, the documents appear to contain new information. They show that Baghdad has requested several times to inspect other Syrian flights that were going to pass over Iraq from Iran and Russia, something that U.S. officials confirmed to ProPublica.

According to a cargo manifest dated Oct. 30, the helicopter the Syrians were going to pick up is an Mi-25, a Russian-made gunship that experts liken to a cross between an Apache and a Black Hawk helicopter because it can fire from the air and transport troops.

“Mi-25s are very important to the Syrian Air Force effort against the rebels,” said Jeffrey White, former chief of the Middle East intelligence division for the Defense Intelligence Agency and now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “It’s a heavily armored military helicopter, which makes it very difficult for the rebels to shoot down.”

Videos have been posted online that appear to show Syrian Mi-25s attacking rebels, and Syria has reportedly been struggling to maintain the helicopters.
Still, the documents leave many questions unanswered. Crucially, it is not known whether the overflights actually happened.

A U.S. diplomatic official told ProPublica that the United States has been working with the Iraqi government to stop such flights. “We have urged them directly to insist that the inspection of those flights occur or deny overflight rights,” the official said. “We have raised this concern and they have taken a couple steps in the right direction — either denying overflight rights if they believe arms are being shipped to Syria or insisting on an inspection.”

But, State Department and Pentagon officials have not provided information on the particular request made in the documents. Iraqi and Russian officials did not respond to questions.

The first two flights were scheduled for Nov. 21 and Nov. 28, but a photographer hired by ProPublica did not observe the cargo plane at the Moscow airport where it was supposed to land and then take off just three hours later. Nor could the flights be confirmed with international tracking services that have recorded the plane’s movements in the past.

Two more flights are scheduled for Dec. 3 and Dec. 6 , according to the records.

The Assad regime has been trying to suppress a popular uprising for almost two years. Tens of thousands of people have reportedly died in the fighting. On Thursday, dispatches described intense clashes on the main road to the Damascus International Airport, and at least one airline was reported to have canceled flights. Most of the Internet in the country was shut down as well.

Russia’s prime minister, Dmitri Medvedev, said this week in an interview with the French newspaper Le Figaro that arms shipments are part of a longstanding contract with the Syrian military to repair equipment for “defense against an external aggression.”

“We must fulfill the obligations connected to our contracts,” Medvedev said, noting that Russia has faced a legal conflict after suspending some arms deliveries to Iran.

Syria has found it increasingly difficult to transport helicopters. In June, a ship carrying three Mi-25 helicopters from Russia to Syria was forced to turn back after the ship’s insurer withdrew coverage in response to sanctions. A month later, a second attempt to deliver the helicopters by sea was aborted.

The newly obtained flight documents show that Syria planned to use its Ilyushin IL-76 cargo plan to pick up helicopters at Ramenskoye Airport, also known as Zhukovsky Airport, near Moscow. The manifest describes the cargo as an “old helicopter after overhaulling [sic].” A second document, sent to the Syrian embassy in Baghdad, identifies the helicopters as Mi-25s.

Officials at Russian Helicopters, which makes the Mi-25, and Ilyushin, which makes the IL-76, said one Mi-25 with its blades removed would fit into an IL-76. Such helicopters have been shipped this way all over the world, they said.

Rick Francona, who was the U.S. air attaché in Damascus in the 1990s, said that using a cargo plane instead of a ship suggested the Assad regime was getting desperate.

“If they’re willing to use an IL-76 to bring one or two helicopters back, that tells me they need these right now,” he said. “Rather than getting it there in 10 days, it gets there in five hours. You can pull it out, reattach the blades and have in the air the next day.”

U.S. officials have expressed particular frustration with Russia over the Syrian conflict, which began in March 2011.

“I think we’ve been very clear, both publicly and privately, how we feel about any country, Russia included, supporting the Assad regime in any way,” State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said Wednesday. “And it doesn’t simply go to the question of military support; it also goes for any kind of economic or political support.”

In June, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Russian aid with Syria’s attack helicopters would escalate the civil war “quite dramatically.” But a week later, a Pentagon spokesman declined to answer whether the Defense Department would try to stop future helicopter shipments.

The records obtained by ProPublica list the Russian 150 Aircraft Repair Plant as the charterer of the flights to pick up the helicopters. The documents show the firm was operating under a contract dated Nov. 27, 2005. The address listed for the charterer is in Kaliningrad, a Russian territory between Poland and Lithuania that contains large Russian military installations.

As with the currency shipments, the flight records show the Syrian cargo plane would take a circuitous route back from Moscow, flying over Azerbaijan and Iran before crossing Iraq.

Iraqi airspace has largely been controlled by the U.S. Air Force since the American-led invasion in 2003. Indeed, the overflight request form used by Syria for the helicopters was created by the U.S. Air Force and still bears the old contact information for the regional air command, which is no longer in charge.

Last year, the United States began transferring air traffic control responsibilities to the Iraq Civil Aviation Authority. The Iraqis assumed control of the last sector, over Baghdad, in October 2011.

Syrian opposition ups the ante with SAMs

The Free Syrian Army (FSA) has demonstrated the capability to take air defense to more than just the artillery level. There are videos showing FSA fighters holding the SA-7, captured stocks of SA-16 and SA-24 missiles, but this is the first recorded success against a Syrian Air Force aircraft using a missile.

Thus far in the almost two-year long civil war, the FSA has been able to down over 100 aircraft - about half of them helicopters - using anti-aircraft artillery, especially the ZPU-1 14.5mm gun. The ability to extend their range to over 10,000 feet complicates the regime's air strategy.

I am surprised that this pilot was operating within the envelope of the Sa-7/16/24 - the Syrian Air Force fixed wing (MiG-23, Su-22, Su-24, L-39) pilots have been popping flares, and flying at the outside edge of the shoulder-fired weapons' employment envelopes at high altitudes. They know the FSA has these missiles at their disposal.

One can only hope that the western intelligence services - the American CIA, British SIS and French DGSE are supplying and/or training the FSA on the use of these weapons. I hearken back to an earlier day in my career and the use of the Stinger missile in Afghanistan.

Video of a surface-to-air missile hitting a Syrian Air Force Mi-8 (HIP) helicopter about 12 miles west of Aleppo, November 27, 2012. On the audio track at 0:03, someone says, "Missile, missile." At 0:08, after the cheers, we hear, "It hit a military aircraft." In the background, another says, "It's catching on fire." At 0:22, the photographer says, "Helicopter [down] in the west Aleppo suburbs."

A still taken from the above video of as the heat-seeking missile homes in on the engine exhaust. Note the corkscrew smoke pattern typical of Russian-made shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles.

This still shows the detonation of the missile warhead. The warheads of these portable air defense weapons is relatively small, about 2.5 pounds of high explosive material. While it appears to be a catastrophic hit, the pilot was able to maintain flight for a few seconds as he attempted to get to the ground safely. I am not sure if that was a survivable landing, but it did exhibit good airmanship. Whether you agree with the pilot's politics, you have to recognize his piloting skills.

The regime's most potent weapon against the opposition - the FSA - is air power. Unless the opposition can neutralize the Syrian Air Force's total domination of the air space over the battlefield, at some point they will not be able to continue the fight. When the FSA leadership is asked about their main concern, it is the Syrian Air Force.

Despite the Syrian Air Force's limited capabilities - almost half of its pilots are grounded for political security reasons - it still remains as the key threat to the success of the revolution. Note the single-ship attacks, the limited use of advance aircraft - this is by no means a reliable asset of the government. More shoot downs like today will only undermine that capability.

Just like in Afghanistan in the 1980's, it's about air power, and the ability to deny it to the enemy.