Portal

Lithuania has announced that it will impose restrictions on rail between Kaliningrad and Russia for goods affected by EU sanctions (Reuters story).

Russia is clearly angered by this action.

We have discussed Kaliningrad as a potential issue on several Academy Geopolitical calls. It has always been an outlier as there is no land route to Kaliningrad. Anything to Russia can either go through Latvia/Lithuania (both NATO members) or Belarus (acted as a Russian puppet during the build-up to the attack on Ukraine and remains staunchly on Russia’s side).

• From an economic perspective, Kaliningrad is an important Baltic Sea port as it has better and easier access than St. Petersburg.
• From a military perspective, Russia has maintained a nuclear presence here. Russia (according to Academy’s Geopolitical Intelligence Group) has made the base strategically important, possibly to use as a pretext for some action in the future.

While not privy to the inner workings of the EU, it is unclear what has prompted this action.

Russia is bogged down in the war with Ukraine. All indications point to low morale within their military and a campaign that was initially meant to bring glory to Russia has now deteriorated into a slog (with the slow destruction of the Donbass region). That will hamper Russia’s ability to react to this action, but Russia will view it as an aggressive move (like Canada banning transport from Alaska to the rest of the U.S.)

Article 5 risks escalate on this, as not only are Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania all NATO members, but Kaliningrad borders Poland, which is also a NATO member.

We will get more color from our team, but this seems to potentially raise the stakes in the region (higher than they already were). Not that the current “status quo” of a bogged down/protracted fight in Eastern Ukraine is good, but it had settled into a routine that seemed to reduce the risk of a broader conflict – which in the case of Russia, brings up fears of escalation to tactical nukes (discussed in last week’s podcast).

We will keep you updated as the situation evolves.

 What has Happened:

• Progress has been made on a tentative 15-point plan to end the war in Ukraine which would include a ceasefire and a withdrawal of Russian forces if Ukraine would agree to a limit on its armed forces and declares neutrality (similar to Austria or Sweden).
• This plan would require Ukraine to agree not to join NATO and provide a guarantee that it would not allow foreign militaries to establish bases on Ukrainian soil or accept foreign weapons into the country.
• However, Ukraine would be able to continue to maintain its own military.
• In exchange, Ukraine would accept protection from allies such as the U.S., the UK, and Turkey.
• The real questions include what the security guarantees would look like (and if Russia would accept this type of agreement) and how effective it would be as there was an agreement established in 1994 and that did not deter Russia from invading last month.
• Whether these talks result in a ceasefire or a more formal agreement remains to be seen and the threat still exists that Russia is using these discussions as a front to regroup and continue their offensive.
• While Russian forces have been bogged down and the invasion is behind schedule, the shelling of Kyiv continues, and Ukraine is in the process of launching a counter offensive.
• President Zelensky addressed the U.S. Congress earlier today in a plea to ask for more assistance, including the implementation of a no-fly zone.

Why it Matters:

“Any negotiated settlement requires an immediate third party (think UN sanctioned) observer force to keep the peace as specified in a ceasefire agreement. Longer-term neutrality and security guarantees are still problematic. Agreements must be enforced. If Russia’s aggression resumed post the security agreements, it still would place NATO in a potential shooting war with Russia. A security guarantee could be interpreted as tantamount to NATO membership.” – General James “Spider” Marks

What has Happened:

Ahead of next week’s monthly Around the World piece, our team is providing some quick insights into the geopolitical events that are top of mind for our clients. Below, Generals Kearney, Walsh, and Chinn discuss the Russian naval exercises conducted a few hundred miles off the coast of Hawaii this week as well as the recent elections in Iran and Israel and how they may impact U.S. interests.

Why it Matters:

Russian Naval Exercises

“This is very much like the Cold War incidents often done with submarine exercises. Given U.S. carriers are symbols of U.S. global power and reach, it is not surprising to see this exercise. Because it was close enough to Hawaii to be observed, this would indicate intentionality. If the U.S. were to demonstrate a capability like this, it would be characterized as a flexible deterrent operation to send a message. Given the timing of the Putin-Biden meeting and this event, there could be a message of strength being sent. Lastly, these exercises also test the timing of U.S. reactions and our response capabilities. From my view, this is old school Soviet Union Cold War tactics.” – General Frank Kearney

“The recent Russian military’s sea and air exercises near Hawaii were designed to send multiple messages to the U.S., its allies and partners, and the world audience. Putin is a master at messaging and keeping Russia and his name at the forefront of global power discussions. The movement of these large Russian sea and air task forces far out into the Pacific and near the U.S. military’s headquarters in Hawaii is unseen since the competition with the Soviet Union during the Cold War and sends a clear message to all that Russia remains a global power. The timing of the exercises (as the G-7 and NATO conferences were taking place) was Putin-esque. He wanted all to know that he is still a key player on the global stage and in the Pacific while both groups met to shift some of their traditional focus away from Russia and towards China. Finally, the Russian exercises signaled to all that Russia has an ability to attack U.S. aircraft carriers (our Navy’s crown jewels) and the U.S. Navy’s global power projection capabilities. The demonstration and messaging put into question whether the U.S. Navy is thinking behind the times with its emphasis and plans on large aircraft carrier battle groups while Russia and China develop and field long-range anti-aircraft carrier missiles.” – General Robert Walsh

“I concur with Frank and Bob and would offer the following. This is tied to Putin’s desire that Russia be viewed as a global power and is flexing its military and informational capabilities to demonstrate to the world their continued great power influence. This was a planned exercise by Russia that INDO-PACOM was aware of and in this scenario, the U.S. was the aggressor and Russia was the defender. This messages well with the Russian people and their partners that the U.S. is a threat. Russia can spin the message (like they did with the Cuban Missile Crisis) as a huge victory for Russia over the U.S. as they stood up to the U.S. and forced us to remove all the missiles in Turkey aimed at Russian cities. This Russian military exercise was not a crisis but provides an example as to how the Russian people receive information and are influenced by State media and in turn, how we are also influenced in what we believe by our media/senior leadership as we claimed the Cuban Missile Crisis was a huge victory for us. Nothing to be concerned about right now, but I see this as great power messaging by Russia.” – General KK Chinn

Iran and Israel Elections:

“The recent election of Ebrahim Raisi as Prime Minister of Iran will have a far greater impact on Iran and the U.S. returning to the JCPOA than the election of Israel’s new Prime Minister Naftali Bennett. Raisi ran on the position approved by the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that Iran would honor its JCPOA commitment. However, Raisi is the hardest of Iran’s hardliners and is far more extreme in his views than previous Prime Minister Rouhani’s more moderate positions. He has also been discussed as a possible successor to Khamenei. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan have both said that they would like a “longer and stronger” JCPOA deal than the previous one. Raisi immediately pushed back saying that he would not negotiate Iran’s ballistic missile program or stop support of Iran’s regional militias. Even with this strong language, we can expect Raisi to come back to the table just so he can ease the pain of U.S. sanctions that are having a crippling impact on Iran’s economy and its ability to fund terrorism. Israel’s Bennett said that Raisi’s election is a wakeup call to those who want to return to the JCPOA negotiating table. He went further saying “these guys are murderers, mass murderers.” Biden is walking diplomatic and political tight ropes in how he handles both Iran and Israel with all eyes watching.” – General Robert Walsh

Original Post 06/25/2021

What has Happened:

• Late on Friday evening, Colonial Pipeline announced more than 5,000 miles of its pipeline would be shut down to contain a ransomware breach.
  • The pipeline carries 45 percent of the East Coast’s fuel supplies.
• On Saturday, the Biden administration provided further details of the attack identifying the likely attackers to be a criminal group.
  • Cyber criminals often conduct attacks in cooperation with nation states.

Below, General Robert Walsh and General Frank Kearney of Academy’s Geopolitical Intelligence Group discuss the significance of this cyber-attack, the vulnerabilities to U.S. critical infrastructure, and the possible next steps around cyber focused policy.

Why it Matters:

“The ransomware cyber- attack is another embarrassing example of the cyber vulnerabilities in our public and private sectors.  Some of these attacks have been by criminal hackers while other have been tied to nation states such as China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran.  The attack on the Colonial Pipeline shows the close ties between large private companies and our national security through economic effects.  The U.S. is a democratic country that prides itself in both free speech and open business competition.  The nature of our openness presents risks from criminals, adversaries, and enemies that seek to exploit our openness.

The Biden administration is developing an Executive Order after the recent Russian and Chinese attacks that highlights the vulnerabilities on networks that the public and private sectors rely upon. The Department of Defense has gone to great lengths to increase cyber security. The DoD has the capability to secure networks and prevent intrusions. This places increased cyber security certification challenges on many smaller companies that do business with the DoD.  Replicating these standards throughout the private sector is a challenge to our democracy and the networked information sharing and openness we have embraced.  It’s a challenge that the Biden administration and Congress have accepted.” – General Robert Walsh

“This continuing string of attacks against infrastructure targets remains troubling.  First, the resistance to immediately admit an attack is in progress and seek assistance weakens the ability to respond and exploit the attack by competent agencies.  Second, there is little resilience built into the systems and thus vulnerability is increased.  Legislation is probably needed to require redundancy.  Critical Infrastructure is also ill-defined as the network of interdependent government and commercial entities are not evenly reviewed and protected.  Lastly, and most dangerous, is the volume of hackers.  Whether state sponsored, organized crime, or hacking groups, all share knowledge while governments and commercial entities do so less quickly and less efficiently.  

This topic is rich for the discussions of economic warfare (or the ability to attack economic targets), informational targets, and military targets – simultaneously creating overwhelming decision points for the U.S. government.  Total warfare is with us and this is one line of attack where we are very vulnerable.”

 – General Frank Kearney

Original Post 05/10/2021

What has Happened:

Over the last several weeks, Russia has moved 40,000+ troops to Ukraine’s eastern border and an additional 40,000+ troops in Crimea, the largest troop movement since Putin annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. The U.S. reaction from Secretary of State Blinken is that, “President Biden’s been very clear about this: if Russia acts recklessly or aggressively, there will be costs, there will be consequences.” European responses have been of a similar tone, threatening additional sanctions if the situation escalates. Meanwhile, Moscow has reiterated that these troop movements are just part of military exercises. Of note, in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region, where fighting has claimed over 13,000 lives over the last seven years, Putin recently accused Ukraine of “dangerous provocative actions.”

Why it Matters:

There is much speculation as to why this is happening now. As we have addressed in our Around the World reports and in the April 13^th T-Report, Putin will continue to do everything in his power to divert the Russian peoples’ attention from what is actually going on in Russia. The Russian economy, which was in decline before COVID, has continued to slide and unemployment is high. A few months ago, millions took to the streets to protest the detention and sentencing of Alexei Navalny (and there will likely be more protests in the spring in Russia and in neighboring Belarus). Russia has parliamentary elections in the fall of this year and the possibility exists that Putin is looking for a “nationalistic” event to allow him to “come to the defense” of embattled Russians in the Ukraine.

Putin is walking a very fine line here. While Ukraine is not in NATO, the U.S. has supported President Zelensky with weapons sales including Javelin anti-tank missiles (these weapons were designed to be a deterrent to Russia). With respect to Putin’s strategy, while the element of surprise was lost with the massive troop movements, a large invasion force was always considered unlikely as Russia used a more covert strategy in the 2014 annexation of Crimea. What is the end game here for Russia? Is this just a way to test the resolve of the U.S. at a time when Putin perceives there is some discord in the U.S and within NATO? Time will tell, but our Geopolitical Intelligence Group will be monitoring the situation very closely.

We start off with General (ret.) Marks, who believes that Putin is testing the Biden administration.

“Russia’s adventure to reach deeper into Ukraine is not unexpected. The Minsk peace deal agreed to in 2015 following Russia’s annexation of Crimea the previous year has not been enforced. Independent elections have not occurred, the required security zone has not been established, and an “inclusive national dialogue” between Russia and Ukraine is silent. Russia views its military actions in the Donbas region of Ukraine as a legal extension of the Minsk protocol to establish the security zone. To Moscow, Russian forces are acting in their national interest. Finally, Putin is testing the Biden administration and its declared strategy of multilateralism in global affairs. Just last month, President Biden called Putin a “killer” which gives Putin a ton of maneuvering room. Remember, Ukraine is not a member of NATO. NATO did not act in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea. It will not act now. The only thing restraining Putin is Putin.” General Spider Marks

General (Ret.) Walsh believes that this is a show of force to demonstrate strength, but this threat must be taken seriously.

“The Russian military buildup on the Ukrainian border is Vladimir Putin demonstrating his strength and power in the face of President Biden’s tough talk on Russia and Ukrainian President Zelensky’s outreach to NATO to become a member. The ongoing conflict makes joining NATO more difficult and is one of the reasons Putin has massed troops and equipment on the border. He is challenging Biden and Europe on who is tougher. Additionally, Putin wants the U.S. and the European Union sanctions on Russia removed. He cannot reciprocate in kind economically (like China) due to the weakness of the Russian economy. He can only use his military power to influence others and that is what he is doing.

Putin is a master of grey zone conflict. His tactics include spreading a disinformation campaign that causes fear, intimidation, frenzy, and chaos within the Ukrainian government and its citizens. His military force build up is threatening and destabilizing and is occurring at the very time the U.S. is reaching out to lead and strengthen the NATO alliance. Both Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin are visiting NATO this week. This is the perfect time for Putin to gamble with his mischief. He is using a tactic once used by Hitler in massing troops on the border of another country and stating that they may go into eastern Ukraine to prevent a “human catastrophe.” Putin issued Russian passports to Russian speaking Ukrainians as part of his “grey zone” plan.

Both Ukraine and NATO must take Putin’s threats as legitimate. It is the largest force build up since 2014 when Russian forces annexed parts of eastern Ukraine. That move came after similar annexations in Georgia and Crimea.” General Robert Walsh

Bottom Line:

What is clear is that Putin feels that this is a good time to try to test the resolve of the U.S., NATO, and Zelensky as a show of strength. As General Stewart from our GIG has said, “Recidivist Russia” desires to be viewed as a global superpower once again and will continue to take steps to achieve this goal. However, the U.S. is standing firm in support of Ukraine as demonstrated by the fact that a recent phone call between President Biden and President Zelensky, “affirmed the United States’ unwavering support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of Russia’s ongoing aggression in the Donbas and Crimea.” The U.S. is also deploying warships to the Black Sea as a further show of support. Putin’s goals (and strategy) here will soon be evident, but in the meantime, tensions will continue to rise.

Original Post 04/13/2021

CONFLICT BETWEEN AZERBAIJAN AND ARMENIA

What has Happened:

For two weeks, tensions and violence between Armenia and Azerbaijan have been on the rise as the international community tries to mediate and simultaneously vie for influence. Azerbaijan and Armenia, both former Soviet republics, began fighting for control of Nagorno-Karabakh in 1988. This conflict resulted in a full-scale war from 1992 until a ceasefire was agreed to in 1994. This fighting cost more than 30,000 lives. Today, the region is populated and controlled by ethnic Armenians, but it is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. Complicating the decades-long conflict is the influence and support exerted by Turkey for Azerbaijan, while Russia has supported the Armenians. The U.S., France, and Russia are attempting to broker a peace deal, but progress has been limited and faces further challenges given the proxy conflict between Turkey and Russia in other areas such as Syria and Libya.

Why it Matters:

“The conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region continues to grow and is now taking a much more regional focus with the increasing amount of Turkish military support being provided to Azerbaijan in an effort to tip the balance of power. Turkey is the current key international player and is encouraging Azerbaijan’s aggression because others are reluctant to become involved. The current trend by Turkish President Erdogan has been to cause problems for NATO, the EU, the U.S., and Russia by acting in his own interests in every situation. While the U.S., the EU, and Russia are calling for a ceasefire, Turkey is providing increased military support to Azerbaijan including drones and loitering munitions. These are capabilities that Turkey has developed over many years and are some of the best in the world. They are capabilities that can change the balance of power in this type of conflict.

The U.S. is not expected to play a lead role since this conflict is not viewed as a strategic problem. The Trump administration is reluctant to become involved across the globe as the “world’s policeman” unless it impacts U.S. strategic interests (such as in places like the South China Sea). Secretary of State Pompeo went further this week in saying that the situation should not be “internationalized” and others should “stay out”. This is a signal to both Turkey and Russia. The European Union, NATO, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (Minsk Group) will have little impact on the conflict without U.S. leadership.

Russia has been reluctant to choose sides since it sells arms to both countries and trades oil with Azerbaijan. They are more closely aligned with Armenia from a cultural standpoint and can be expected to take a greater role if Turkey continues their escalation efforts. This could result in Russia providing military support to Armenia while Turkey supports Azerbaijan. We also see the two on opposite sides in both Syria and Libya. There are other conflicts like Bosnia and Herzegovina that took UN intervention and Northern Ireland that required U.S. diplomatic involvement to stop the fighting and reach a solution. Without a U.S. led international peace effort, we can expect Russia to play the largest role by attempting to prevent Turkey from influencing the situation against Armenian and Russian interests.” – General Robert Walsh

Original Post 10/09/2020

Please see below link for our September 23rd geopolitical roundtable featuring Academy Securities Advisory Board members Lieutenant General (Ret.) Robert S. Walsh and Major General (Ret.) James “Spider” Marks as well as Peter Tchir, our Head of Macro Strategy for a discussion around Geostrategic Threats and Opportunities as the U.S. Election Looms.

What has Happened:

On Wednesday, multiple Chinese fighter jets entered Taiwanese airspace. This provocative action was described as destabilizing and a threat to regional peace by Taiwan’s Defense Ministry. It comes one day after Taiwan’s president called for a “coalition of democracies” to defend freedom and counter aggressive regional actions by China. On August 10^th, Chinese jets also crossed the median line over the Taiwan Strait, briefly entering Taiwanese airspace, during the visit to Taiwan by HHS Secretary Azar. While China claims Taiwan as its territory and consistently conducts naval and air patrols, current tensions raise concern about the risk for military advancement or miscalculation. China’s militarization of the South China Sea, the new national security law in Hong Kong, and the ongoing trade war keep China top of mind for Academy’s geopolitical and macro teams. Academy strives to provide insights into future risks posed by geopolitical events and tensions. With that in mind, our Geopolitical Intelligence Group presents the following analysis on the risks faced by Taiwan at this time.

Why it Matters:

“I believe that Hong Kong and Taiwan are apples and oranges. We have never been “the force” behind Hong Kong but have always been the force behind Taiwan. I think that the U.S. remains very active and visible in support of Taiwan. I also think that China has many significant potential economic issues that could reduce the probability of taking on such a large military engagement at this time. Over the past years, Taiwan has enhanced its ability to defend against a forced military takeover, including its ability to present such a takeover as a much more complex challenge. I tend to think a cross-strait attack by China is not the most likely option. Add to the equation that a takeover of Taiwan on the heels of Hong Kong would likely solidify Pacific Rim and international disapproval/push back, resulting in increased economic challenges. All of this leads me to believe that the risk of military, cross-strait escalation has not increased.” General Mastin Robeson

“I agree with Mastin’s points. China still believes that their strategic plan of becoming a global power is executing toward their goals and they do not want to jeopardize this over Taiwan. It would be difficult to disagree that they are on track given where they are today using all elements of national power as assessment tools. It is far easier for China to restrict Hong Kong than it is Taiwan. We will see increased pressure by Beijing on Taiwan but we don’t expect a military invasion of Taiwan so long as Taiwan does not stray too far from China achieving their “One China Policy.” We can expect more overt military intimidation with China’s increased military prowess, but we don’t expect an invasion because of the resulting diplomatic and economic fallout. Eventually this could happen, but not today with things continuing to work in China’s favor. The Trump administration’s recent overt efforts to support Taiwan are somewhat of an anomaly in comparison to past administrations that adhered more closely to the Taiwan Relations Act and its Six Assurances. We can expect Beijing to follow the U.S. election results closely in hopes of diminishing support for Taiwan in a new administration. We don’t expect any actions by Taiwan and the U.S. that enable claims by Beijing to justify an invasion.” General Robert Walsh

“I’m very focused on Taiwan. There is no risk of a major change in policy priced in. Major changes could impact the semiconductor business and investment grade corporate bonds could be affected given the holdings of Taiwanese insurance companies.   This is not keeping me awake at night, but it’s a potential black swan that could hit markets and the economy well beyond anything we experienced with Hong Kong.”  Peter Tchir

Original Post 09/10/2020

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

Background:

Israel’s official military role in the Syrian civil war is limited, and until the last year, not formally acknowledged. In December 2017, the Israeli Air Force confirmed it attacked Syrian government arms convoys and Lebanon’s Hezbollah nearly 100 times during the more than six years of the conflict in Syria. Israel’s primary objective is to challenge and eliminate expanding Iranian influence in the region.

What has happened:

On Saturday, in its most serious engagement in neighboring Syria since the civil war began, an Israeli Apache helicopter shot down an Iranian drone that had entered Israeli airspace. Israel launched eight F-16s to strike Iranian targets deep in Syria before one of the jets was shot down by Syrian air defense.

• The Syrian military denied the drone violated Israeli airspace, stating it was on an intelligence gathering mission of Islamic State militants.
• For the first time in more than 30 years, Israel has lost a fighter aircraft.
• On Sunday, the White House called on “Iran and its allies to cease provocative actions”; supporting Israel’s right to defend itself from the Iran-backed Syrian and militia forces.
• Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is currently on a Middle East trip visiting Egypt, Kuwait, Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey.

Why it matters:

The Syrian civil war serves as a proxy war for tensions in the region and beyond.

• Iran is showing continued success in expanding its influence in the region.
• The Iranian drone was modeled after US drone technology, displaying an increased military capability and threat by Iran and its allies.
• The conflict in Syria has never been restricted to its borders and Israel has always been protective of its sovereignty. The loss of an Israeli aircraft will not alter that dynamic.
• Expect increased Israeli cross-border military operations into Syria; this is not an isolated incident.

” I was struck by the cost of the action versus a drone penetration.  Israel’s rapid punitive retaliation for an incursion of its territory reminds all that the Syrian air defenses are capable. Past Israeli successes over 35 years do not mitigate the risk of each subsequent Israeli raid into Syria. This is text book Israeli over-confidence. ” 

Lieutenant General (Ret.) Frank Kearney

Background:

Iran is a country familiar with protesting as a means of radical change. Iran’s modern government resulted from the 1979 revolution, and this current wave of unrest is the largest since 2009. The Islamic Republic has fallen out of favor with many Iranians, and Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has lost steam and relevancy among the public.

What has happened:

Five days of protests across the country; resulting in more than 20 dead and hundreds arrested.

• The protests are in response to a failing economy (youth unemployment approaching 40%), rising food and fuel prices, and widespread corruption.
• The billions of dollars returned to Iran by the Obama Administration were an economic opportunity squandered… the people know it.
• This is not merely an “intellectual middle class” annoyance; protests are widespread, diverse, and angry.
• Protests demonstrate deep resentment and the limits of President Rouhani’s influence.

Why it matters:

Can the US exploit?

• Use the JCPOA (Iran nuclear deal) inspections to reveal corruption in the regime.
• Create the narrative… “corrupt Iranian leaders break terms of the JCPOA and personally benefit from lifted sanctions.”
• This is textbook diplomacy…put Tehran on notice without firing a shot. The US provided foreign aid and only ruling elites benefit. Internal unrest challenges the existing government’s corruption and its legitimacy.

“Iran has long been isolated by its national leadership…yet amazingly aware of the progressive and changing world around it. Now, the Iranian people are calling their national leadership’s bluff…lifting sanctions has done nothing for the people. At increasing risk, Iranian leadership will continue to try and suppress the voice of the people.”

Major General (Ret.) Mastin M. Robeson