Pentagon Scrambling to Know What U.S. Secrets Iraq Tells Russia

Why is it a surprise for nations to break from the U.S. after it has overturned half the Middle East, abandoned its allies and embraced its enemies within the region under the Obama administration? The point is, is that it’s not a surprise. America is reaping what its first anti-American President has sowed.

 

Iraq’s move to share more intelligence with Russia has Pentagon and lawmakers concerned.

Pentagon officials do not know what secrets the Iraqi government may be telling Moscow, after Iraqi leaders unexpectedly entered into an intelligence-sharing agreement with Russia this weekend.

The Defense Department’s second-in-command told the Senate on Tuesday the agreement came as a surprise to military intelligence and Pentagon teams are scrambling to make sure classified intelligence from the U.S. does not make its way into the hands of Russian, Syrian or Iranian authorities.

China getting military intelligence from US e-waste: report

The United States has been unwittingly providing China with military intelligence and buying back its own waste by selling discarded electronics to companies that ship the materials to China for “recycling,” according to a report from the US-based military affairs website Strategy Page.

Cairo bids for brand-new Russian SS-25 ballistic missiles in major arms transaction with Moscow

Lt. Gen. Vyacheslav Kondrashov, Russian Deputy chief of staff and head of GRU military intelligence, spent the first day of his visit to Cairo, Tuesday, Oct. 29, with Egyptian military chiefs, going through the list of Russian military hardware items they want to buy in their first major arms transaction with Moscow in more than three decades, debkafile’s military sources report. The Egyptians asked Moscow to supply the sort of advanced weapons withheld by the United States, and topped their shopping list with medium-range intercontinental ballistic missiles that cover Iran and most of the Middle East.

They told the Russian general that Moscow’s good faith in seeking to build a new military relationship between the two governments would be tested by its willingness to meet this Egyptian requirement.

Authenticating China’s Strategy: Letter to a friend

From time to time, Global Geopolitics will post an article in its entirety. This serves to be a case in point. From geopolitical expert, JR Nyquist’s August/September, 2012 column on his website, validating China’s true intention is the topic at hand. It’s highly recommended that visitors also pursue his weekly columns for in-depth knowledge and additional insight on all things geopolitical.

The following commentary should be appended to a discussion of the alleged speech of General Chi Haotian about destroying and invading the United States: In this regard you suggest (1) that the speech is a hoax. This is entirely possible, although close analysis tends in another direction. Strategy is my subject and my life-longstudy. Believe it or not, it is possible in strategy to know certain things indirectly, by inference and analysis. After careful consideration, with regard to the speeches attributed to General Chi, I think it is unwise to say “we don’t know” and “it doesn’t matter.” In fact, it’s not impossible to analyze a documentto determine its authenticity. Here is a task entirely within the reach of a strategic analyst. Furthermore, if the document is authentic then it matters agreat deal; for the enemy’s intentions are laid bare, with countless implications (and potential war-winning insights). When we first encounter an unfamiliar text, we don’t know how to judge it. We are completely lost, and this is normal. Those who claim to understand something on first contact are deceiving themselves. Nothing worth knowing is understood immediately. When I first read the two speeches attributed to General Chi Haotian my reaction was to dismiss them as you did. When I read the first paragraph of the second speech, I rolled my eyes and laughed at what seemed to be an obvious fraud. At first reading they were not credible. (This is the same reaction I had to Golitsyn in 1984). Two years elapsed and, as chance would have it, I was doing some research on Mao Zedong’s strategic ideas. In the midst of this research I was stunned by Mao’s determination to build a fleet and invade North America. I was also struck by the brutality and cynicism of his statements. I went back and started re-reading SunTzu and the commentaries on Sun Tzu. My mind suddenly drifted back to the two speeches attributed to General Chi Haotian.

On my second reading I realized these speeches are only incredible from a Western point of view. From a Chinese strategist’s point of view, these speeches are consistent with 2,500 years of Chinese history and thought. There is nothing inauthentic in these two speeches. If they are a hoax, then a genius produced them. More than that, this aforesaid genius possesses authentic tidbits of military intelligence that are not known by the general public — but were revealed to me by a high-ranking Russian military defector with more than three years experience in China. Mao once said that the first Chin emperor was nothing compared with himself. The first Chin emperor only killed a thousand Confucian scholars. Mao had killed hundreds of thousands of Confucian scholars. This was Mao’s boast. Such boasting is unknown to Western history, except to figures who are dismissed as madmen. One is reminded of the Chinese warlord whose father was taken prisoner and held hostage by a rival. In this instance, the rival threatened to boil the old man alive. The war lord sent his reply: “Save me some of the soup.” One has to dig through the Dark Ages of Western history to find anything like it. Or else it is something from the history of Caligula or Nero or Eliagabulus, who were considered dreadful failures and misfits. In China such behavior on the part of leaders has long been normalized. The Western ethic, which followed from the hero-worship of the ancient Greeks and Romans, places nobility as the true standard of greatness.

Chinese civilization places a high premium on realistic thinking, brutality and success. This is greatness in the Chinese context. How does this point argue the authenticity of the alleged speeches of General Chi? A person who disagrees with the strategic culture of China, favoring freedom and humane government, doesn’t possess the mentality needed to reproduce such abrilliant piece of mimicry. One would have to be a student of Sun Tzu and the Chin emperor and Mao Zedong, not a student of Thomas Jefferson or Lincoln. Such astudent would not value freedom, having absorbed a philosophy entirely at odds with Western culture. More than that, it is a culture that believes in the West’s weakness and inevitable fall. If you were going to advance a fraudulent speech by a Chinese communist leader, would you dare put into his mouth the statement that Nazi Germany was “too soft”? Would you dare open your first paragraph with the assertion that you are pleased that 80 percent of Chinese polled would approve killing women and children in a war? Anyone with the sophistication to produce this document would have avoided going so far, fearing that the reader would laugh out loud at such an obvious propaganda fraud. Only a simple person would start Chi’s second speech with that kind of paragraph, and a simple person did not compose this speech!

To make a credible fraud, you have to downplay the wickedness of the Communists. You must be subtle in your presentation so that the fraud has a chance to sound credible. But the Chi speech is not subtle as a fraudulent presentation would have to be. Instead, it is deep and profound and brilliant in its totalitarian perspective. The compassion for the American victims comes late in the second speech, long after the skeptics would’ve stopped reading it. I do not know if the speech is genuine. But if I had to lay a bet, then I’d wager on its authenticity. That is to say, I suspect it is authentic. And the way to test its authenticity is to see if Chinese actions are consistent with its program. There is something more, as well. I know from my discussions with a Russian defector that Russia and China agreed to split North America between them as follows: Russia would get Alaska and parts of Canada, while China would get the lower 48 states (which contains the best land). The agreement on this was affirmed by the Russian General Staff in early 1992. This joint agreement on a future wa ragainst America is the basis for the Sino-Russian alliance. And if you read General Chi’s speech carefully, you will see that he brilliantly lays out the logic of the Chinese offensive and their means of advancing. He does not mention Russia’s role because Party cadres don’t need to know about Russia’s military contribution. They only need the most general strategic outline and why the war is necessary. You must read this speech several times in order to understand its profound science. If this speech is counterfeit, the counterfeiter spent many years devising it. In fact, a hoax of this type could only be produced, as I noted before, by a genuis. If General Chi was not the author, then the author should be a general — and ought to have General Chi’s job.

In point (2) you mention 9/11. Chi’s speech explains why a false flag terror attack is necessary in advance of a biological warfare offensive against the United States. As would be proper, General Chi gives nothing away. He merely implies that the Americans will not know who is really attacking them. This is intrinsic to his speech, even though he doesn’t spare words explaining why. In point (3) you ask if this is good propaganda material against communism. Since our goal is to understand the enemy, the propaganda value is of secondary importance. importance. If these speeches are authentic, our activism must counter the Chinese.

Full article: Authenticating China’s Strategy: Letter to a friend (JR Nyquist)

If Israel attacks Iran, US Mid East bases will pay dear – Nasrallah

Regardless of all the concessions and overtures coming from the Obama administration, this is still the end result. They will continue to be committed to the destruction of Israel and the United States, regardless.

Cutting through the US-Israeli debate over where to put “red lines” for Iran, Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah said Monday night, Sept. 3 that Iran would hit US bases in the Middle East in response to any Israeli strike on its nuclear facilities, even if the Americans were not involved in the attack.

Earlier Monday, the New York Times reported on the debate in the White House over whether US President Barack Obama should declare “red lines” for Iran beyond which the US would act, in response to Israel’s complaint that he has been too vague about how far Iran will be allowed to go.

But even if Obama did set a clear red line now, the NYT admits its credibility would be questionable: “The US and its allies have allowed Iran to cross seven previous red lines in 18 years.”

…

Feeling the approaching heat, Netanyahu called a special cabinet meeting for Tuesday, Sept. 4 with the participation of the heads of Israel’s clandestine services, Military Intelligence, the Mossad, the Shin Bet and the Foreign Office Research Division, to hear their annual report.

It is likely to go on all day with updates on the situation in Syria, Egypt and Jordan – all weighty topics. But the agenda will certainly be topped with a detailed rundown on the current state of Iran’s nuclear program.

After that rundown, the prime minister and defense minister will enter the final decision-making stage on war against Iran.
At this critical moment, wit calculated timing, Petraeus is due to land in Israel.

Although the opponents of Netanyahu and Barak are fond of painting them as irresponsible adventurers ready to gamble with Israeli lives, it is Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who has now raised the stakes in this game of dare and slapped down the highest cards.

…

Nasrallah’s pitch took the scenario straight into stage one of the war to come: “If Israel targets Iran, America bears responsibility,” he told the Beirut-based Al Mayadeen TV Monday night.

“A decision has been taken in Tehran to respond and the response will be very great,” he said, citing “Iranian officials.”

Nasrallah carried a triple message from Tehran to Washington and Jerusalem:

1.  Iran believes an Israeli attack will take place before the US presidential election on Nov. 6;

2.  Tehran is drawing on a powerful deterrent: Lest anyone expected a low-key Iranian response to an attack on its nuclear facilities, the Hizballah leader put them right when he said, “the response will be very great” and “America bears responsibility.”

3. By putting Nasrallah out front as a leading Iranian spokesman, Khamenei signaled that Hizballah would take an active role in the coming conflict.

Full article: If Israel attacks Iran, US Mid East bases will pay dear – Nasrallah (DEBKAfile)

Israel’s Secret Staging Ground

U.S. officials believe that the Israelis have gained access to airbases in Azerbaijan. Does this bring them one step closer to a war with Iran?

…

Why does it matter? Because Azerbaijan is strategically located on Iran’s northern border and, according to several high-level sources I’ve spoken with inside the U.S. government, Obama administration officials now believe that the “submerged” aspect of the Israeli-Azerbaijani alliance — the security cooperation between the two countries — is heightening the risks of an Israeli strike on Iran.

In particular, four senior diplomats and military intelligence officers say that the United States has concluded that Israel has recently been granted access to airbases on Iran’s northern border. To do what, exactly, is not clear. “The Israelis have bought an airfield,” a senior administration official told me in early February, “and the airfield is called Azerbaijan.”

Full article: Israel’s Secret Staging Ground (Foreign Policy)

Iran has material for 4 nuclear bombs: Israeli general

JERUSALEM — Iran has enough radioactive material to produce four nuclear bombs, Israel’s chief of military intelligence, General Aviv Kochavi, asserted at a security conference on Thursday.

“Today international intelligence agencies are in agreement with Israel that Iran has close to 100 kilograms (220 pounds) of uranium enriched to 20 percent, which is enough to produce four bombs,” he told the annual Herzliya conference.

“Iran is very actively pursuing its efforts to develop its nuclear capacities, and we have evidence that they are seeking nuclear weapons,” he said.

“We estimate they would need a year from when the order is given to produce a weapon.”

Full article: Iran has material for 4 nuclear bombs: Israeli general (AFP)