Heavier munitions for Israeli air force, But what is the target?

According to IHS Janes,  The US State Department has approved the sale to Israel of over 20,000 guided bomb kits and 8,650 associated warheads, including additional 5,000 lb 'bunker busters', the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) announced on 19 May

.

Reportedly, the Israeli air force would also get 250 AIM-120C Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAMs) and 3,000 AGM-114K/R Hellfire missiles. Total cost of the deal is USD1.9 billion.

The details of this deal is rather interesting. Though the deal also includes 4,100 GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs (SDB), which is a 250 lb-class GPS-guided weapon with flip-out wings to increase its range. But it is the numbers of heavier air launched munitions which made this entire deal very intriguing. According to DSCA notification, Israeli Air Force would get 10,000 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) GPS guidance kits for 2,000 lb (907 kg) MK 84 general purpose bombs, 500 JDAM kits for 1,000 lb MK 83 bombs, and 4,000 JDAM kits for 500 lb MK 82 bombs.

The most interesting item in this Israeli wishlist is a request for 500 DSU-38A/B kits that can be used to upgrade JDAMs so they can be guided to their target using a laser designator as well as GPS, making them more flexible and accurate weapons that can be used against moving targets if needed.

The notification listed 1,500 Paveway laser guidance kits for MK 83s and another 500 for 2,000 lb BLU-109 penetrator warheads, which are used against bunkers.

In terms of warheads, the notification said Israel had requested 4,500 MK 83s and 3,500 MK 82s, but no additional MK-84s or BLU-109s.

And most notably, Israel has requested 50 BLU-113 warheads. The BLU-113 is a 5,000 lb penetrator used with the GBU-28 laser-guided bomb that is designed to destroy deeply buried and heavily fortified targets.

ANALYSIS:

Every weapon acquisition is done after carefully analyzing the potential target of new weapons. By looking at the elements of this deal, it would be prudent to assume that Israeli air force's plans to bomb Iranian nuclear infrastructure has been moved in advanced stage. The request for DSU-38 A/B kits and BLU-113 warheads is particularly important in this regard. In 1982, Israeli air force destroyed an under construction  Iraqi nuclear reactor, near Baghdad, using laser guided bombs and new deal also include large number of 2000 and 5000 pounds laser guided weapons.  

Such an acquisitions by Israel explains why despite a very stressed economy, Iran acquired, S-300 SAM system from Russia.

This deal also raise many questions about the future of the Obama's Middle East policy which excludes any military option against Iran's nuclear facility and is looking forward to resolve the issue related to Iran's nuclear program through negotiations. A deal in this regard is expected next month. Israeli opposition to this US strategy is not a secret and this current deal items also indicates that strategic thinking of Tel Aviv. 

Middle East, Geopolitics and the US-Israel Relations

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

It is obvious that President Obama wants to keep the Iranian nuclear program in check through international monitoring by IAEA and multilateral agreements with Tehran (with 5+1 group) whereas Israeli PM is seeking a direct approach from the US to address the 'problem' like US did take on Iraq during the Bush era over WMDs. But the aftermath of second and protracted Gulf-war has forced the US to avoid any new high intensity clash in the region. Israelis will always analyze the regional geopolitics from their security point of view whereas the White House is to bound to contemplate every possible global and regional contingency as a potential outcome of the US policy decisions. This difference in approach is once again visible over Iranian nuclear program. Both allies have wide difference of opinion and strategy.

But during the Netanyahu's regime, this difference of strategy and opinion is not limited to Iran, there are host of other issues where both the countries differ sharply on strategy. Now even Israeli support lobbying groups want cancellation of a planned speech in the US congress by Israeli PM. The speech will be made in the first week of March when Israeli Prime Minster would be visiting the US. The US based Israeli policy experts and lobbyists consider the planned speech of Israel premier as 'disrespect to the US president' and are demanding a cancellation.

“The only thing that Netanyahu should have done was to create a strong, intimate, holy alliance with the person who actually decides, the US president. But Netanyahu has both failed to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear and has also destroyed the alliance with America. Not a bad output for a term and a half”, wrote Ben Caspit, a commentator, in Ma’ariv, a newspaper while terming the US-Israel relationship “more important than Dimona”, pointing towards Israel’s unannounced nuclear capabilities.

Evidently, the complexities of Middle Eastern geopolitics are changing the strategic mindset both in Washington and Jerusalem. The US has suffered more in political and economic sense as result of two long wars after 9/11 whereas Israel as emerged stronger and more aggressive in the region after chaos in Iraq and Syria. After recent incident of burning a Jordanian pilot alive in Syria and Jordanian reaction over the incident, Israel finds the environment conducive to adopt a more aggressive approach in Syria against Iran and Hezbollah while the US understands that if Iran also becomes a war zone the battlefield for their forces will stretch from Hindukush in Afghanistan to Western border of Iraq with a possibility of it further expanding till Syrian coast of Latakia and this is something the US would always like to avoid due to obvious unbearable economic and political cost of such a war.

Irrespective to what we see in mainstream media about US-Israel strategic alliance, the latest developments in these bilateral relations show that diplomacy and geopolitics are extremely delicate statecraft and things are not the same as they meet the eye. But considering history of US-Israel relations, this would not be the first time when both have difference over Middle Eastern geopolitics.

Though this acute ebb in bilateral ties is nothing new. Various contentious issues in the region affected the ties but this time there are many factors of regional politics which are not being fully controlled by either of these countries and this is why the US is insisting upon more cautious approach while the Israelis remain stubborn like always. In 1970s, Israeli policies forced the US administration of that time to put the bilateral relations in reassess and halted the military support as well. 
Now when Syrian government has offered negotiations to Israel and a debate is going on within Israeli government, it would be interesting to see what Israeli prim minster has to say to the US Congress on his upcoming visit. And even more intriguing would be the reaction by Obama administration. 

Snapshot of Interim Deal Signed between Iran and the US

Is a new war in making in Middle East over Iranian nuclear program?

The deadline, given by the US, for conclusion of talks over Tehran's nuclear program has passed. Though it is expected that this deadline would be extended. Many around the world wonder why after signing an interim deal, which was suppose to provide the basis for this final deal, things have become so tense between the two camps. The extract from Daily Telegraph's report answers this question.

"When John Kerry, the US Secretary of State, secured an interim agreement in Geneva last November, his only aim was to limit Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Now Mr Kerry is no longer interested in freezing Iran’s progress; he is after “rollback”. Put bluntly, he wants Iran to start dismantling key elements of its nuclear programme, particularly its capacity to enrich uranium."

This is a clear negation of interim deal and also answers our main question about the potential threat of another war in Middle East. It seems that 5+1 states have changed their stance from what they agreed in interim deal earlier this year and Iran has left with no choice but to take a strong stance. These developments not only have stalled the progress in talks but has brought the region on the blink of another conflict.

Editor's Note:

There was no mention of rolling back Iran’s nuclear program at the time when this interim deal was signed earlier this year. 5+1 nations agreed and accepted Iranian right to continue Uranium enrichment activities for civilian usage. The focus was on keeping Iranian Uranium enrichment below the level of weapon grade. But now, in November 2014, it looks like the US wants a complete rollback of Iranian program and this has become a new bone of contention between both parties. This snapshot of interim deal –highlighting the important points agreed by both sides at that time –reveal the present change of stance by 5+1 nations. This new demand of complete rollback of Iranian nuclear program can derail the entire negotiations.  

The snapshot PDF can be accessed from link given below:

Obama’s anti-ISIS policy: Through Geopolitical Lens!

Shahzad Masood Roomi

President Obama has recently announced a new strategy to fight the ISIS in Iraq and Syria. US House of Representative has approved the policy as well. Before analyzing this strategy, let's quickly skim through the main vertexes of "new" American strategy to "degrade" and "defeat" ISIS.

1. Significant expansion of the aerial bombing campaign in Iraq
2. Training and equipping of the Iraqi army and the Kurdish Peshmerga.
3. Bombing in Syria
4. Supporting, arming and training moderate rebels against Syrian government of Bashr al Asad.
5. Getting a coalition of European and regional allies on board in the fight against IS.
6. No boots on ground.

Would this policy yield anything positive for regional peace? Very unlikely! The fundamental flaw with Obama's entire anti-ISIS strategy stems from the failure of previous attempts to eradicate terror groups through air power campaigns and policy of using non-state actors as has been rightly identified by analyst Tim Fernholz in following words:

"The legal justification the Obama administration relies upon for its war powers is the same one that justifies air strikes against extremist groups in Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan—failed or failing states where US counter-terror policy relies on dubious local allies and drone strikes to manage extremist groups. That may well be the future in Iraq and Syria".

Supporting non-state actors and bombing unconfirmed "terrorist targets" will never bring peace in any restive state. The failure of CIA's ever expanding drone wars provide an irrefutable testimony of this assertion. But a careful analysis of the US/West's anti-ISIS strategy leaves very little doubt that bringing peace in Syria is not among the real objectives of this wired "peace" strategy.

Apart from raising questions on overall strategy, one must be intrigued to investigate the criteria Washington is using to profile the Syrian rebels as "moderates" and "hardcore". We have been listening about moderate Muslim, moderate rebels and even moderate Islam. But no one in Washington or in the entire western media and intellectual circle shed any light on the definition of these "moderate rebels". As there is no clear definition or criteria exists to profile any group's tendency to do violence and terrorism it becomes an impossible task to identify such groups unless they have been identified already; an a possibility which hitherto cannot be confirmed.

How to distinguish between hardcore and Moderate rebels? Major policy flaw in Obama Strategy

Plans to arm and train such non-state actors in Syria leaves very little doubt in assertion that Obama's anti-ISIS plan is actually a recipe of complete security disaster which eventually would become a device to alter the map of Middle East once again after 100 years of World War I.

These concerns over Obama's policy and persistent fervor of White House to pursue this policy despite the above mentioned concerns demand to investigate this crisis and its response strategy through the lens of geopolitical developments taking place in the region as global powers compete to protect their strategic interests in the region.

China and Russia opposed American plans of removing Bashr Al Asad regime through a military intervention. US/NATO had to postpone their plans after Russia announced to send her naval fleet in the region. Ironically, ISIS has provided the US with a narrative which would not only enable Washington to prevent any diplomatic pressure from Russia and Iran against the planned invasion in Syria but would also create a conducive environment for regime change operation in Syria as well. This regime change operation is critical in the grand scheme of things and is part of new strategic US plan for the region. After 9/11, the US planned to launch a massive regime change campaign in seven Middle East states including Syria. This revelation was first made public by the former NATO commander General Wesley Clark in 2007. This assertion is further supported by the fact that now many experts within the US intellectual circles believe that it was Obama administration which made ISIS such a dangerous threat not only for the region but also the US interests as well. Albeit, their definition of the US interests in the region mainly revolves only around the lives of the US citizens.

Former NATO Commander - General Wesley Clark 

There is a third and more ominous view point as well in this regard. Many experts believe that the US policy is leading the entire region towards a new and more intensified conflict. This argument has its own merit and seems to be based on more realistic assessment. Syrian regime is an old Soviet/ Russian ally and this is why the US wants to through it out as revealed by General Clark as well. Russians on their part, would certainly respond to any such attempt by the US and for Iran and China it would be impossible to remain isolated in this entire conflict. In her initial response to Obama’s new Syrian strategy, Russia has warned that US air strikes against militants in Syria would be a "gross violation" of international law. Russia has asked the US to seek mandate of UN Security Council for any such attack something the US will never consider considering possible Russian veto to any such coalition. Iran, another Russian ally in the region, has already termed this anti-ISIS coalition as failure without its inclusion in it. This involves Saudi Arabia and other Sunni gulf states in this conflict as well.

In this geopolitical backdrop, the most fundamental question which still remains unanswered in the entire US Syrian policy is how today’s moderate rebel would not become a threat to regional stability and Syrian integrity tomorrow even if this policy pays off and root out ISIS successfully, regardless from the future of Bash Al Asad regime? Obama has not answered it neither those in Gulf States who thinks that ISIS would be eliminated and peace would be restored in the region. Ground reality, on the other hand is starkly obvious. Obama’s new policy may end one monster but it certainly would create another! This is exactly what transpired in Iraq after Saddam.

This time, Gaza fighting is 'proxy war' for entire Mideast

Josh Levs, CNN

"This is unprecedented in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict," says CNN's Ali Younes, an analyst who has covered the region for decades. "Most Arab states are actively supporting Israel against the Palestinians -- and not even shy about it or doing it discreetly."

It's a "joint Arab-Israeli war consisting of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia against other Arabs -- the Palestinians as represented by Hamas."

As the New York Times put it, "Arab leaders, viewing Hamas as worse than Israel, stay silent."

One of the outcomes of the fighting will likely be "the end of the old Arab alliance system that has, even nominally, supported the Palestinians and their goal of establishing a Palestinian state," Younes says.

"The Israel-Hamas conflict has laid bare the new divides of the Middle East," says Danielle Pletka, vice president of foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. "It's no longer the Muslims against the Jews. Now it's the extremists -- the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, and their backers Iran, Qatar and Turkey -- against Israel and the more moderate Muslims including Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia."

"It's a proxy war for control or dominance in the Middle East," says CNN's Fareed Zakaria.

To understand why and what all this means, we need to begin with understanding of Hamas.

Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood

Hamas, which has controlled the Palestinian government in Gaza for years, is an extension of the Muslim Brotherhood. To many Americans, the brotherhood is familiar for its central role in the power struggle for Egypt. But it's much larger than that.

"The Muslim Brotherhood is international, with affiliated groups in more than 70 countries, including Saudi Arabia and the UAE," says Eric Trager of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

The Arab Spring showed the region that uprisings can lead to the Brotherhood gaining power. So it's a threat to the governments it opposes.

"Israel's ongoing battle against Hamas is part of a wider regional war on the Muslim Brotherhood," says the Soufan Group, which tracks global security. "Most Arab states share Israel's determination to finish the movement off once and for all, but they are unlikely to be successful."

"From the perspective of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the UAE and some other Arab states, what the Israeli Prime Minister is doing is fighting this war against Hamas on their behalf so they can finish the last stronghold of the Muslim Brotherhood," Younes says.

"Arab governments and official Arab media have all but adopted the Israeli view of who is a terrorist and who is not. Egyptian and Saudi-owned media are liberal in labeling the Muslim Brotherhood as 'terrorists' and describing Hamas as a 'terrorist organization.' It's a complete turnabout from the past, when Arab states fought Israel and the U.S. in the international organizations on the definition of terrorism, and who is a terrorist or a 'freedom fighter.'"

Egypt

Egypt's new President vowed during his campaign that he would finish off the Muslim Brotherhood. Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, the former military chief, deposed Egypt's first freely elected leader, President Mohamed Morsy of the Muslim Brotherhood, last year following mass protests against Morsy's rule.

El-Sisi was elected officially in June.

"In Egypt you have a regime that came to power by toppling a Muslim Brotherhood government," says Trager. "It's therefore in an existential conflict with the Brotherhood. So it doesn't want to see Hamas, the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood, emerge stronger in a neighboring territory."

Egypt also has another reason to stand against Hamas: rising violence and instability in Sinai, the northern part of Egypt that borders Israel and Gaza. Hamas' network of tunnels includes some in and out of Egypt used to smuggle goods include weapons for attackson Israeli civilians.

 Read the complete article

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/07/31/world/meast/israel-gaza-region/index.html 

Violations of International Law in Confronting the Production, Storage and Use of Nuclear Weapons

Shahzad Masood Roomi

Abstract: 

“In a complex geostrategic global environment issues like nuclear non-proliferation and enforcement of multiple international nuclear laws and treaties becomes even more critically important.  Nations faced with serious security challenges consider nuclear weapons an ultimate deterrence against their superior adversaries in conventional weapons. This security driven global political construct have compounded the issue of nuclear proliferation even more.

From a moral standpoint, the issue of nuclear non-proliferation and control regimes seems like a straight forward global obligation but today’s complex geopolitical realities are being dictated by the strategic goals of major power players in the world. Getting into the brass-tacks of historical perspective of nuclear proliferation in context of grand geo-strategy of major political forces in the world explains why the issue of nuclear proliferation is still endangering the global peace and why have we not been able to make the world a place without nuclear weapons despite adopting various control regimes. It is noteworthy fact that all members of P-5 club (US, UK, USSR, China and France) became nuclear states through proliferation in one form or other. This also explains why many of the nuclear control treaties have not been rectified by these major political players.   

So far, nuclear control regimes have failed to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and keeping the evolving strategic developments in Middle East, Asia Pacific and South Asia in mind, it seems that this trend would continue as long as these issues would be used not for their indenting purposes but to achieve some vested interests of international power brokers.

This paper examines how on one hand the campaign of nuclear non-proliferation was used by various nuclear states as a policy tool to further their own political and strategic agendas while on the other hand they proliferate or facilitate the proliferation of nuclear weapons to their allies (Israel, India) in order to secure their long term strategic goals. In this backdrop, the paper also examines the loopholes in existing nuclear control regimes and how these are being exploited. In the end, paper purposes various suggestions on regional, multilateral and international levels to make the world more secure place by making the existing control regimes more transparent and effective.”

Read Complete Paper at following link:

https://www.academia.edu/7658504/Violations_of_International_Law_in_Confronting_the_Production_Storage_and_Use_of_Nuclear_Weapons