Tag: Israel
It wasn’t Colonel Mustard in the study
The New York Times reports that “Israeli operatives” killed Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah (aka Abu Muhammad al-Masri) three months ago in Tehran. He was supposedly Al Qaeda’s second in command (and its number one is rumored to be dead as well).
The killing occurred in such a netherworld of geopolitical intrigue and counterterrorism spycraft that Mr. al-Masri’s death had been rumored but never confirmed until now. For reasons that are still obscure, Al Qaeda has not announced the death of one of its top leaders, Iranian officials covered it up, and no country has publicly claimed responsibility for it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/13/world/middleeast/al-masri-abdullah-qaeda-dead.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
There are other mysteries as well: why didn’t the Israelis or the Americans claim credit? President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu would have had an interest in doing so. How do Israelis or someone in their employ kill people on the streets of Tehran? Why was an Al Qaeda commander doing in living in Tehran? And who is the source of this story now and what are their motives?
Starting with this last question, the Times article refers to intelligence officials without identifying their nationality. Best bet is that they are Israeli, but they could also be American, Gulf Arab, or even Iranian. Each might have an interest in either committing the murder or letting it be known, especially in the transition period to the Biden Administration. There are few better ways to curry favor with the Americans than to kill an Al Qaeda commander. Someone might even hope for indirect credit for killing an Al Qaeda commander by revealing it publicly.
The Times suggests al-Masri had been in Tehran for a decade or more, hosted there either because Al Qaeda conducts operations against American interests that Iran likes or as a hostage to guarantee Al Qaeda would not attack Iranian interests. Both could simultaneously be true.
Murders of this sort in Tehran have happened repeatedly. The victims are often Iranian nuclear scientists whom the Israelis want eliminated. It might be Israelis of Iranian origin doing the killing, though it is hard to imagine that the Islamic Republic doesn’t know when they come to visit. Nor would Jewish Iranians still resident in the country be outside the purview of Iranian intelligence. Could it be the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK)? I am told that is one reason why some Americans are soft on them. They however would also be closely watched if they dared to return to Iran. Or it could be some other “resistance” organization. Of course it is also possible that the Islamic Republic itself decided al-Masri’s time was up.
The impact on Al Qaeda is far from clear, even though months have supposedly elapsed. I suppose with Zawahiri on his deathbed Al Qaeda didn’t think it wise to announce that his heir apparent was dead. Decapitation of this sort has an uncertain impact on terrorist organizations. But Al Qaeda has survived decapitation before and it may well again.
Of course we may never know all the answers to all the questions about this assassination. But now we have precious few. All we really know is that it wasn’t Colonel Mustard with the candlestick in the study.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, November 14
At US request, Israeli agents killed al Qaeda leader in Tehran.
China reacts to Pompeo statements on Taiwan.
Pew has more analysis of what went wrong with polls.
Defense One has a chapter from Tom Ricks’ new book about the ideas of the Founders.
As a Coloradan who could see Pike’s Peak in the distance when I was growing up, I’ve always had a fondness for “America the Beautiful,” written by Katharine Lee Bates after a visit there. Historian Jill Lepore has the story.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, October 12
I love well-argued cases that challenge the conventional wisdom, even if I don’t end up persuaded. So I like this WOTR piece “Defund Centcom”.
And Slate interviewed an author who says Columbus was motivated by Islamophobia.
Fred Kaplan says Michigan terrorist militia wasn’t particularly pro-Trump.
WSJ warns that both Georgia Senate contests may go to Jan 5 runoffs — depriving McConnell of 2 likely GOP votes as Senate organizes and counts ballots.
CFR has bipartisan report on how to deal with the next pandemic.
Jackson DIehl says Trump is destroying VOA.
Israel opposes any F35 sales to Qatar.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The emerging tetrapolar mad world
Pantelis Ikonomou, former nuclear IAEA inspector, writes:
Nuclear weapons are a vital but latent dimension of the growing geopolitical competition. Nuclear capabilities continue to constitute a prime source of power in shaping global power relations amid dangerous non-nuclear conflicts and military confrontations. New power balances are forming.
The main emerging poles are two well-established ones, the United States and Russia, and two emerging ones, China and Europe (led by France as the EU’s last remaining nuclear power post-Brexit). The US and Russia have failed in efforts to engage China in new nuclear and ballistic missile agreements. France is trying to exercise leadership in Europe and the Mediterranean. French President Emmanuel Macron has offered to open a “strategic dialogue” with willing European states prepared to accept the central role of France. He pointed out that “Europe should reinforce its strategic autonomy in the face of growing global threats and stop relying solely on the United States and the Transtlantic Alliance for its defense”
Any excited system will sooner or later reach a state of equilibrium. A tetrapolar structure is emerging around the leading nuclear weapon states: the US, Russia, China and France. These four nuclear powers are flanked by others based on criteria of pragmatism and strategic necessity. The whole process is guided more by bilateral agreements than existing treaties and international institutions. The new tetrapolar world order appears as follows:
- Around the US superpower stand nuclear UK as well as Israel, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Canada, and several European NATO states. The connecting force within this pole is American geopolitical primacy and its ambition to strategically control East and South Asia.
- Around Russia will stand India, several former Soviet states, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, and sometimes Turkey and Egypt. This pole’s source of cohesion is nuclear deterrence against the Chinese threat, as well as geopolitical influence in the Middle East region.
- Around China are Pakistan, North Korea and the majority of the developing countries in the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). In this nuclear pole the predominant parameter is China’s nuclear deterrence of its US, Russian, and Indian adversaries as well as Chinese economic, military and political assistance.
- France would be flanked by several southern European, Middle East and African states (and occasionally by Israel). The prevailing link in this alliance, besides historical and cultural references, is strategic influence on the wider region and security against a rising adversary, Islamic extremism.
Once a stable equilibrium is achieved, this new tetrapolar nuclear world order might allow the leading nuclear powers to realize the vast global threat they pose to humankind through their bilateral standoffs. Nuclear disarmament as requested by the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT, Art. VI) and emphatically repeated by the international community in the Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty of July 2017 should be a top priority. De-escalation of the current nuclear race and terminating weapons “modernization” ought to be the initial objectives of the world powers aiming eventually to complete and irreversible global nuclear disarmament.
The current nuclear threat to humanity arises from the suicidal so-called MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) nuclear strategy, It ought to be abolished. The threat of a nuclear apocalypse, whether by intent, accident, or miscalculation, will be at its highest level ever so long as MAD prevails in this tetrapolar world.
* This article draws on the author’s book “Global Nuclear Developments – Insights of a former IAEA nuclear inspector,” Springer, May 2020.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, September 19
The death of Justice Ginsburg will confront the Senate with the task of choosing a successor. While the end to possible filibusters of such nominations makes it likely that Leader McConnell will be able to get approval of the president’s nominee before Thanksgiving, you can expect contentious debate, clashing Constitutional arguments, and parliamentary maneuvers. This CRS report has good background on the process. But note this historical point: Before 1916, the Judiciary Committee considered Supreme Court nominations behind closed doors. Thus, until that year, there are no entries in the “Public hearing date(s)” column. Rather, committee sessions on Court nominations typically were limited to committee members discussing and voting on a nominee in executive session, without hearing testimony from outside witnesses. In 1916, for the first time, the committee held open confirmation hearings on a Supreme Court nomination—that of Louis D. Brandeis to be an Associate Justice—at which outside witnesses (but not the nominee) testified. More days of public hearings (19) were held on the Brandeis nomination than on any Supreme Court nomination since. The Brandeis hearings, however, did not set immediately into place a new policy of open confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominations, since each of the next six nominations (during the years 1916 to 1923) was either considered directly by the Senate, without referral to the Judiciary Committee, or was acted on by the committee without the holding of confirmation hearings.
From 1925 to 1946, public confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominations became the more common, if not invariable, practice of the Judiciary Committee. In 1925, Harlan F. Stone became the first Supreme Court nominee to appear in person and testify at his confirmation hearings. During the next two decades, the Stone nomination was one of 11 Court nominations that received public confirmation hearings before either the full Judiciary Committee or a Judiciary subcommittee, while five other nominations did not receive public hearings. One of the five nominees not receiving a public confirmation hearing was Senator James F. Byrnes, whose nomination in 1941, as noted earlier, was considered directly by the Senate without referral to the Judiciary Committee. From the first Supreme Court appointments in 1789 to 2017, Presidents have made 162 nominations to the Court. Table 1 shows, in the “Final action by Senate or President” column, that the Senate confirmed 125 of these nominations, or roughly three-fourths. Of the 37 nominations that were not confirmed, 11 were rejected by the Senate (all in roll-call votes), 11 were withdrawn by the President, and 15 lapsed at the end of a session of Congress without a Senate vote cast on whether to confirm. The 37 nominations not confirmed by the Senate represented 32 individuals, some of whom were nominated more than once. Six individuals whose initial nominations were not confirmed were later renominated and confirmed for positions on the Court.
WSJ says the Saudi Royal Family is divided over policy toward Israel.
The other day I sent a story about how rich the Taliban is. WSJ today says ISIS is also flush with cash.
A think tank study says the Intelligence Community doesn’t really know what its customers want.
A Columbia law prof uses the occasion of the dedication of the memorial to Dwight Eisenhower on the National Mall to reflect on Ike’s view of war powers.
I think Eisenhower should be praised for insisting on congressional approval of major military actions.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, September 16
Pew survey finds falling world views of US
Jeffrey Goldberg lists winners and losers in new Israel-UAE-Bahrain agreements.
Here’s another F-35 to UAE report.
WSJ says US is using Magnitsky Act to impose sanctions on Chinese companies helping to build overseas bases.
Politico sees a toxic feud between DNI & intelligence committees.
As you know, I worked for Joe Biden many years ago [1981-5]. FP’s James Traub has a very good analysis of how Biden thinks about foreign policy.
Just before the Jewish High Holy Days, there’s a discouraging report on the levels of ignorance about the Holocaust among younger Americans.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
RSS - Posts
