Month: January 2020

What has Happened:

For nearly a year, intense fighting for control of Tripoli, the capital of Libya, has killed hundreds and displaced thousands. One of the leaders vying for control of this failed state is former Libyan military general, Khalifa Haftar. Haftar is fighting militias loyal to the UN-recognized Government of National Accord (“GNA”) led by Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj. Amid the chaos, Russia, Egypt, and the UAE have sided with General Haftar, while Turkey is supporting the UN backed government. Despite the brutal leadership of General Haftar, many militias and elements fighting in Libya remain independent of Haftar’s influence. Militias and proxies are ideologically at opposite ends of the spectrum and it is unlikely they will reach an agreement.

Recently, leaders or senior representatives from countries including Germany, Russia, China, Turkey, France, Egypt, the U.S. and the UK met in Berlin to discuss ending foreign intervention in the civil war. Angela Merkel of Germany stated that there is no military solution to this conflict, only a political one. The call for a cease fire was made in the effort to prevent the proxy battles from turning Libya into the next Syria, which would further destabilize North Africa and the region. While the two rival Libyan leaders were present in Berlin, they did not meet face to face and there is concern that the temporary truce will not last. As the conference took place, General Haftar’s forces continued a blockade of Libyan oilfields crippling the country’s oil production capabilities.

Why it Matters:

Egypt has an obvious geographic connection and currently sides with Haftar, but it is hard to know if this is pro-Haftar or anti-UN government motivated. Ultimately, Egypt is looking for a leader that best aligns with their local/regional policies, i.e. someone they are comfortable working with as a neighbor. Russia will likely side with anyone that allows them to gain regional or economic advantage, especially if it negatively impacts NATO, the EU, and the United States. Turkey would definitely be influenced by the Islamic bond, but is more likely to be motivated by previous relationships with Libyan national personalities or economic reasons. Turkey has expanded its influence in the region, including a partnership with Somalia allowing Turkey to explore for oil off the coast of Somalia, and energy exploration is the main reason that they are involving themselves directly in the conflict in Libya. In late 2019, Turkey’s President Erdogan met with the leader of Libya’s GNA and agreed to provide military support in return for permission to look for natural gas and oil in Libyan waters.

While the U.S. has a presence in Libya, it is not enough to influence the outcome. The U.S has been trying to reduce its footprint in Africa and might be intent on letting things settle out a bit before committing to a course of action, particularly since neither side seems like the perfect solution. General Haftar has dual U.S./Libyan citizenship and lived in the U.S. for 20 years. He returned to Libya in 2011 to participate in the NATO supported civil war that culminated in the death of Muammar Gaddafi. General Haftar has been successful in combatting radical Islamic militias and has vowed to rid the country of terrorist groups. Meanwhile, the refugee flow from Libya into southern Europe continues to create major economic issues for the receiving Mediterranean nations (and the EU at large) and is having an indirect impact on NATO. The situation in Libya is extremely complicated with several nations jockeying for position. However, for a lasting solution to be put in place, a permanent ceasefire needs to be reached, foreign nations must respect the arms embargo and the UN must reengage on a political solution.

 

Original Post 01/24/2020

Academy Securities Geopolitical Intelligence Group Update:

A Game Changer with Iran – Next steps

Update Purpose:

Of the 13 Admirals and Generals at Academy, there are various opinions regarding the motivation and timing of the U.S. strike against Soleimani. What is disconcerting, and where there is consensus among our Geopolitical Strategy team, is that Iran seems very likely to respond aggressively, leading to just the type of escalation we certainly want to avoid. Below is a snapshot of a discussion thread from our Geopolitical Intelligence Group on next steps and U.S. strategy in the region.

What has Happened:

A U.S. airstrike in Iraq killed Qassem Soleimani, leader of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The Pentagon confirmed that President Trump authorized the strike based on the imminent threat faced by U.S forces and diplomats in the region. Pro-Iranian Iraqi paramilitary commander, Abu Mahdi al Mohandes, was also killed when their convoy was struck outside the Baghdad International Airport.

Why it Matters:

“U.S. maximum pressure is working. The only option left for Iran is to strike (militarily / terrorism) because their influence otherwise is negated. The U.S. must figure out what the “release valve” is or something worse could occur (nukes). Obligation is ours to figure out the strategy – strangling Iran is not a strategy. An effective strategy creates conditions where Iran is not a threat regionally or globally. Ends, ways, and means must be delineated.

Regime change in Iran not likely. Ali Khamenei will be gone in a couple years. His son is the successor and he’s in his 40’s. With his succession we could have a century long vitriolic and isolationist relationship with Iran going forward. There is too much at risk that must be fixed.” – General Spider Marks

“It is hard to believe Soleimani was moving so openly in Iraq given the large U.S. presence and an Iraqi government that is divided on whether to side with the Americans or the Iranians. It had to be assumed by all, let alone Iran’s senior intelligence officer, that someone would leak his movements to the Americans with the current ongoing chain of events.

This was a tactical action with strategic effects. What is our new strategy? It’s difficult to see where this will take us and what our senior leaders see as an end state.

President Trump was very vocal in his confidence in using economic sanctions to isolate and strangle Iran, forcing them to give up their development of nuclear weapons. Killing a U.S. contractor and wounding our troops obviously crossed a red line with him. That started an unsustainable chain of events that must be broken, somehow. Iran must respond.

Iraq is in a very difficult position and will have to walk a tightrope on this one. They have been masters at keeping the U.S. in play while Iran gains more and more influence.” – General Robert Walsh

“In my view, this is an appropriate action given Iranian transgressions. A President that holds to red lines sends a strong message. We can sustain this indefinitely just as we kept pressure on Russia to end the Cold War and as long as we have vital interests in the region (U.S. people, property, and oil for the world economy). However, Iran cannot sustain a high level of conflict. Iraq has a clear decision whether to support the U.S. or risk our withdrawal and leave them having to learn Farsi. The Trump administration’s calculated use of our elements of national power (DIME- Diplomatic, Information, Military, Economic) is confronting the Iranian drive for hegemony in the region. The strategy is clear: protect U.S. vital interests and avoid ground war.” – General Anthony Tata

“I agree with everyone’s comments…this is a big deal that escalates Iran’s response options and certainly puts Iraq at a political point of decision (choose sides or split further). Iran will certainly respond, and it will not be good. There are good indicators to support the idea of Iran planning a coup in Iraq, and Soleimani’s presence was bold if not brazen. The bigger questions now is whether the current political leadership in Iraq (that has been open to U.S. engagement) will be strong enough to survive / unify Iraq in the aftermath…and whether the U.S. / World Coalition is strong and united enough to save Iraq from becoming an Iranian puppet.” – General Mastin Robeson

“We are certainly living in an interesting time. We will see in the coming days who our allies and partners are as Nations either support / condemn or remain silent as more comes out on the killing of the Quds Force Commander, a U.S. designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). We will learn again why relationships and trust are so important as no nation can go at it alone. China is and has been learning this, but they are on their 100-year glide path towards being the world leader in 2049.

Iran has been trying to bait the West into a full-scale conflict as the sanctions are crushing them. Iran needed something to galvanize and mobilize the population to better support the regime, so we will see if this event is a decisive turning point. It is going to be an interesting couple of days / weeks as Iran decides on how to respond and how we work to counter / deny the response.” – Genera K.K. Chinn

“Great comments. There is no obvious strategy visible and that is dangerous. How do we want the region to look and while there is some evidence of the use of DIME as individual levers, I don’t see a coherent path to desired outcomes. This will not bring about change in Iranian behavior in our election year. This will continue to burn until the U.S. elections are over. Iranians have the ability to attack across the region and likely will. A target for them is to get Trump out, that, in their view, is a path to sanctions relief.

I believe Iranian reactions will be designed with President Trump and Secretary Pompeo not being in the White House and DOS next January. I believe they will act across the spectrum, beginning with targeting embassies, U.S. and Israeli forces, and utilizing cyber warfare. Israel and the U.S. are currently in political leadership struggles and these two opponents of the JCPOA are potentially vulnerable. The Saudis are not likely a political change target, merely a military target to affect change in Yemen against the Houthis. Attacking all three nations might drive a coherent response which would not be in Iran’s interest. To affect U.S. political change, Iran has to escalate and get more U.S. troops in the region; meaning more U.S. targets within their operational and tactical reach. They don’t have great power projection outside of the region. I would expect cyber as the tool outside of the region as it can also have political effects. I am sure the Russians will be willing to help the Iranians with their cyber efforts as Russia seeks U.S. political friction.” – General Frank Kearney

“This issue of a regional strategy (ends, ways, means) would be a great topic for us to explore. Let me offer the following:

1. No tear shed for Soleimani’s death – For 30 or so years he has been killing Americans. However, targeted assassination, and I use those words intentionally, does not constitute a strategy. It may be an element of the strategy, if it directly impacts the desired end state.

2. Neither of the last two administrations have had a coherent strategy for the region – unless we consider leaving the region as the strategy. “What do we want the region to look like” in 25-30 years? It can’t simply be defeat ISIS, change a regime with no follow-on Marshall Plan, or deaths of high value targets.

3. Redlines are tactical reactions to events unfolding on the ground.

4. Iran regime change will happen; the revolution is 40 years old now. What role should we play in pushing regime change and how does that fit in our desired end state for the region? We should not be delusional in advocating regime change – someone must pay the butcher’s bill and it will require a 30-year plan.

5. Our success in winning the cold war was based on a coherent, bi-partisan strategy that included key roles played by our allies. Do we have allies with shared interest and values around which we could build a strategy for the region?

6. Senator McCain offered that our “For America, our interests are our values, and our values are our interests.” Do we have any idea of what our real interests in the region are? Is it still about oil?

7. Who are our strategic partners around which we build a strategy? Turkey, Saudi Arabia, a future Iran, Egypt, Israel, Iraq? See shared interest/values.

8. Regional strategy must be integrated into a grand strategy to account for “Great Power” competition – see China’s one belt one road strategy. – General Vincent Stewart

 

Original Post 01/03/2020