Capture of Anas al-Liby/Navy SEAL strike against al-Shabab

The near-simultaneous capture of Anas al-Liby, a longtime Al Qa'ida planning and logistics officer (and a suspected plotter for the 1998 US Embassy bombings), represents an important counter-terrorism success for the United States. His detention will also allow for some relief at GMP, New Scotland Yard and Thames House - embarrassingly, al-Liby was granted asylum in the UK until 2000 and then escaped the country before a belated raid by UK authorities. One positive - he left behind AQ's operational handbook aka the 'Manchester Manual'. That intelligence coup afforded western intelligence services a crucial insight into AQ's operational methodology. Anyway, these two actions illustrate the US counter-terrorism apparatus at its best - patient, resourceful and decisive.

(Updated 01:20 EST Sunday): Early Saturday, a force of DEVGRU SEALs attacked an al-Shabab compound on the Somali coast. The New York Times reports a US Government source as stating that the attack took place after a period of 7-10 days of planning. This suggests that the US had high confidence intelligence that their intended target would be at the location. Nevertheless, the BBC is reporting that the assault failed to capture or kill the target. We'll have to wait for a few more hours for confirmation on that. Regardless, it does appear that the SEALs encountered heavier than expected resistance and were forced to withdraw.
          Two weeks ago, I suggested that this specific type of military operation would likely form an increasingly important element of the US response to the Westgate atrocity. Though US counter-terrorism operations in Somalia are far from a new development, I'm glad that President Obama appears to have ordered an increasingly aggressive US posture against al-Shabab.

Like the global Salafi-Jihadist movement it supports, al-Shabab must be confronted.

Finally, it's worth remembering that we're lucky to have such skillful special forces units at our disposal. Their capabilities are hard won.

Related thoughts - under 'Other' section.

Al Qa'ida threat - Sources, Methods and... Leaks

It now appears that the ongoing US security alert was indeed precipitated by a communications intercept. Specifically, an intercepted exchange between the leader of Al Qa'ida core - Ayman al-Zawahiri and the leader of Al Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula - Nasir al-Wuhayshi. Yesterday, before this confirmation arrived, I noted that an Intelligence leak of this magnitude would be highly significant.

Let's be clear, this leak represents an inexcusable failure of operational security - probably by someone on Capitol Hill. As I argued during my BBC discussion, it greatly complicates the necessary efforts of Intelligence officers. The protection (secrecy) of sources and methods provides the aorta of the Intelligence cycle. Without that protection, Intelligence efforts are doomed. In the US, there's a reason this information is classified Top Secret - Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI). Again, it's truly pathetic that Congress happily condemns leakers whilst simultaneously hemorrhaging classified material. Put simply, it's the summit of hypocrisy.

So, where does this leave us?

In an absurd situation. Two of the world's most dangerous terrorists are now aware that the US has been monitoring their communications. They're aware because we told them. It's utterly ridiculous. As they alter their methods of communication and take greater steps to evade future surveillance, innocent lives will be placed in jeopardy. 

One ego has levied a high cost.

7 Thoughts on the US Diplomatic Threat

For a number of diplomatic facilities, the US Government has extended the shutdown until Friday. I have a number of thoughts here.

1) The US Intelligence Community appears seriously concerned by the present terrorist threat environment. Media reports suggest that this alert was precipitated by intelligence 'chatter' of a significant nature. To me, this indicates that the target/s of the intercepts (IE - the individual/s being surveilled) are regarded as serious players. Or, in other words, they're not viewed as average dickheads - wannabe Jihadis with a loud mouth. To precipitate such a wide shutdown, the intelligence source would have to be of significant reputability in terms of an existing threat picture (IE - someone who has been linked to verified terrorist plots). Which leads me to point (2)...

2) The available evidence suggests that AQAP is responsible for this latest plot. For a start, ABC News has reported that at least some of the motivating intelligence has been sourced from AQAP's leader, Nasir al-Wuhayshi* (which would gel with my (1) thoughts). In addition, note the specific decision by the UK, France and Germany to close their embassies in Yemen (At least in part, this decision will have been driven by US intelligence sharing + Yemen is AQAP HQ). Regardless, as I've argued before, AQAP has shown an impressive ability to plan, fund and pursue significant terrorist plots. Further, in the context of recent Al Qa'ida linked prison breaks in Iraq and elsewhere (albeit not in traditional AQAP areas of operation), we know that there are a significant number of skilled and ideologically committed terrorists on the loose. In short, this is not an ideal situation.

3) The terrorist cell responsible appears to be active. The extension of the Embassy shutdown provides the best evidence for this supposition. In addition, the absence of announced detentions (if they had occurred the information would have probably leaked by now) suggests that the US also lacks a complete understanding of the cell/s formation - identities, strength, locations.

4) Linking to (3), the unprecedented diplomatic shutdown suggests that the US picked up the plot late on. Had the threat been identified earlier, it's likely we would have seen a more organized and less overtly dramatic increase in security.

5) It's very likely that the ongoing political fallout from Benghazi (please see my thoughts earlier this week) is motivating part of the security response. The Obama Administration is desperate to avoid allegations of a cavalier attitude towards terrorism. At the same time, post-Benghazi, an abundance of caution makes physical sense as well as political.

6) It's also probable that the excited Congressional reaction to this plot has a sizable measure of political motivation. As evidenced by the House's upholding of the NSA's data intercept program, most members of Congress remain committed to providing robust counter-terrorism capabilities to the IC. Yet, these officials are also keenly aware of growing concern among Americans over the civil liberty implications of those same programs. In this sense, by pointing to the apparent seriousness of this latest threat and by suggesting that the plot was discovered by signal intercepts (hint hint... NSA), politicians are trying to defend their continued support for the NSA.

7) Although the diplomatic shutdown was necessary, it nonetheless created another problem- signalling to the cell/s that they have, at least to some degree, been detected. In that sense, the US will worry that those terrorists may re-orientate onto another target before they can be detained or confronted. This concern is at the core of why counter-terrorist agencies are traditionally highly reluctant to publicize warnings on suspected threats.

* - Assuming it's true, I would like to know how ABC News (see video below) found out that al-Wuhayshi was the subject of a communications intercept. If it is true, it represents another massive leak. Unfortunately, it wouldn't be the first time that some attention seeker has leaked highly classified AQAP related intelligence. Let's be clear, when it comes to the callous and unlawful provision of secret information to outside parties, the consequences are often profoundly negative.

Link page for some of my other MENA security focus pieces.

CIA cover-up in Benghazi?

Benghazi. The story that keeps on running.

CNN's Jake Tapper is reporting that around 35 CIA officers were present in Benghazi during the consulate attack last September. Tapper also claims that the CIA is exerting significant pressure on those officers to remain quiet about their presence in Libya. Interestingly, Tapper's piece specifically reports that the officers in question have been subjected to unusually frequent polygraph tests in order to determine whether they've been talking to the press. 

Safe to say, this is interesting news. 

So... what were the CIA doing and why are they apparently so desperate to prevent their activities from becoming public?

Off the top of my head, I can think of four reasons.

1) As CNN notes, suspicion is growing on Capitol Hill that the CIA were using Benghazi as an operations facility for the provision of weaponry to Syrian rebels. Here, it seems understandable that the US Government would want to prevent this information from becoming common knowledge. Because of the sensitivity of covert operations towards Syria and the potential stakes for US interests in Libya were that information to become known, the need for secrecy would be obvious. Ironically, if this is the case, Benghazi was probably picked as a location for its prospective ability to offer both secrecy and some form of operational security against Assad affiliated retaliation.

2) Another possibility is that the CIA was using Benghazi as a jump-off point for Special Activities Division (SAD) operations inside Syria. Flying from Benghazi into a forward staging position in Turkey would require a relatively short hop across the Mediterranean. Therefore, from a geo-strategic point of view (and in the context of the operational security concern), it would make a near-ideal staging post for covert deployments. Reliable reporting (see Ambinder and Grady's The Deep State) indicates that the US Government has deployed covert military/intelligence teams inside Iran on a number of occasions over the past few years. In addition, prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, we know that the US deployed small groups of personnel deep inside Iraq in order to gather targeting intelligence. So, if this possibility is the case, it wouldn't be something new. In addition, it would make at least some sense. The Obama Administration only announced that they would provide weapons to select Syrian rebels in mid-June. It's therefore very possible (and quite likely) that CIA officers were on the ground in Syria before that date - gathering intelligence on the best rebel forces to support and developing foundations for the future establishment of a weapons logistical train.

3) Though less likely than the other possibilities, I also wouldn't rule out the notion that the CIA was using Benghazi as a jump off point for operations inside Iran. As pressure escalates with regards to Iran's nuclear program, the possibility of an Israeli or US strike against that country is also growing. CIA disruption operations against Iran are already well known (see Olympic Games). But the conduct of major covert actions requires a base. Perhaps that base was in Benghazi.

4) Alternatively, it's very possible that the CIA was using Benghazi as a base of operations for action against AQIM/AQIM aligned actors. Because of the politically volatile nature of a US security presence in Africa, it would make sense for the CIA to want to keep their activities quiet. This being said, in all intelligence operations rule #1 is secrecy.

CONCLUSION - Ultimately, we don't yet know what the CIA was doing. As I've stated, all of the above is, at best, an educated guess. However, assuming the CIA was engaged in action that reached beyond Libyan borders, that activity would have required a Presidential finding. Therefore, it would also have required a briefing for the gang of 8. So... whatever the CIA was up to (if anything at all significant), a small number of significant people on the Hill are likely to know something about it.

If interested, some of my related thoughts on Benghazi.

Selected writings on Middle East and related/unrelated security issues (Ignore date tag)

This page is regularly updated (please ignore the May 5th date tag).  Most recent writings tend to be at the top of each header section. Writings on other issues related to security/intelligence/counter-terrorism/AQ Core etc. are listed in the OTHER section towards the end of this post.

Relevant academic background - I hold a BA in War Studies from King's College London and a Masters degree in Middle East Politics from The School of Oriental and African Studies, London.

IRAN

Iran Deal: Just a piece of paper. For now. (Christian Science Monitor)

Iran Nuclear Program - Discussion and Analysis (TV - Global Voice Hall)

5 Benefits of US-Israel Negotiating Discord - How it makes a good nuclear deal more likely (National Review Online)

Flow Chart - Predicting the ramifications of an Israeli military operation against Iran (Blog)

Flow Chart - Predicting the regional ramifications of a nuclear armed Iran (Blog)

US Navy deployments... Iran? (Blog)

How Obama can achieve a good nuclear deal with Iran (The Guardian)

How to manage a nuclear theocracy (Blog)

2 Presidents and 3 diplomatic delusions regarding Iran (Blog)

4 Takeaways from the Filkins study of Qassem Suleimani (Blog)

Iran, the US and the UN - A skeptical take (Blog) 

Iran plans retaliation if US strikes Assad (Blog)

President Rouhani and the continuing risk of conflict (Blog)

The geo-strategic impact of Iran attaining a nuclear weapons capability (The Commentator)

How domestic politics influences Iranian, US and Israeli foreign policy (Blog)

How Iran will use brinkmanship to protect its nuclear program (The Guardian)

Israel could attack Iran without causing a major war in the region (The Guardian)

Iran and Diplomacy (Blog)

Strategic interplay in the Near/Middle East (The Daily Caller)

Netanyahu at the UN (Blog)

Netanyahu's strategy on Iran (The Daily Caller)

Iran plots against US and How US should have responded (Blog)

SYRIA/LEBANESE HIZBALLAH/LEBANON/ (together due to overlap in the pieces)

Putin's deal is a catastrophe for Syria and the US (The Guardian)

A key difference between Bush and Obama (Blog)

Thoughts on Geneva (Radio 660 AM The Answer) 

Putin's letter - Analysis (Blog)

The American Retreat (Blog)

Syria WMD deal? The ultimate political Ponzi scheme (Blog)

The American Choice in International Affairs (National Review Online)

Syria - a pivotal week for America (Blog)

How the Bin Laden raid can guide US intervention in Syria (Blog)

Syria - 4 myths infecting the intervention debate (Blog)

Talking Syria/Congress (TV - Al Jazeera America)

Syria - US policy challenges (Radio - 660 AM The Answer)

Obama goes to Congress on Syria: Big mistake (The Week)

Kerry press conference (Blog)

Why the British Government vetoed intervention in Syria (Blog)

Syria and US Foreign Policy - Values and Outcomes (Blog)

Syria Update... (Blog)

Why the US should intervene against Assad (Monocle 24 Radio)

Obama fails to lead on Syria (The Guardian)

5 proposals for American intervention in Syria (Blog)

Actors in the Syrian Civil War - Flow Chart (Blog)

The suffering of Syria, the shame of America (Blog)

It's time to arm the Syrian rebels (The Week) 

On the EU's Hizballah delusion (Blog)

How the US should deal with Assad's chemical weapons threat (Huffington Post)

Hizballah's Identity Problem (Blog)

5 ways Obama should get tough on Hizballah (The Week)

Oct 2012 Beirut Bombing (Blog)

Why Hizballah will desert Assad before the end (The Guardian) (I still support the essence of my argument here, but in hindsight, it's also clear that I placed too much emphasis on Hizballah's concerns over domestic/regional political perception.)

IRAQ

Iraq and the challenge of sectarian terrorism (Blog)

Why Iraq is on the precipice of a civil war (The Atlantic)

In Defense of the Iraq War (The Week)

AL QA'IDA in the ARABIAN PENINSULA

7 Thoughts on the August 2013 AQAP threat (Blog)

BBC World Service discussion on August 2013 AQAP threat (BBC)

AQAP Intelligence Leaks (Blog)

On the Foiled 2012 AQAP plot (Blog)

EGYPT 

Five observations about Egypt chaos (Fox News)

Egypt and the failure of US policy (Blog)

Why the Egyptian Army Issued Morsi a Deadline (Blog)

Why Egypt Needs Democracy (Blog)

SOMALIA/AL-SHABAB

Tripoli/Baraawe - Special Forces Methodology (Blog)

Capture of Anas al-Liby/Strike Against al-Shabab (Blog) 

The Evil of Global Jihad (National Review Online)

How the US must respond to the Westgate Mall attack (Blog)

Massacre in Nairobi (Blog)

ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT

Why the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks are worthwhile (Blog)

American conservatives should support the peace process (Blog)

Why America is right to support Israel (Blog)

LIBYA

Capture of Anas al-Liby/Strike against al-Shabab (Blog)

Obama's subversion of war powers (The Guardian)

Assessing allegations of a CIA cover-up in Benghazi (Blog) 

Benghazi and why truth makes a difference (Blog)

OTHER - (Somewhat relevant here: In 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2012, I was the Deputy Lead Player Escort (#2 rank), G4S – Wimbledon Tennis Championships. This role involved ensuring player/VIP security during the tournament and required extensive liaison with the UK's Metropolitan Police Service and other parties.

Why Islamic extremists don't appreciate satire (Blog)

Notes on Sayyid Qutb (Blog) 

British Jihadists in Syria (Blog)

The Evil of Global Jihad (National Review Online)

Debate - Is America right to spy on Europe? (BBC)

Why America should spy on Europe (National Review Online)

US Intelligence Operations in Europe (Al Jazeera America)

Merkel and the NSA - Analysis (Blog)

A delicate dance - France and the NSA (Blog)

In Defense of Drones (National Review Online)

UK Intelligence Chiefs - Analysis of Testimony (Blog)

London Counter-Terrorism arrests, Snowden and UK Intelligence (Blog)

Oct 2013 London Counter-Terrorism arrests (Blog) 

Zawahiri and AQ Core's evolving strategy (Blog)

Brazil, the NSA and a Snowdened state visit (Blog)

The protection of President Obama's family shouldn't be political football (The Guardian)

On the challenge of terrorism and nuclear proliferation (Blog)

On the US-UK intelligence relationship (Blog)

A new kind of terror comes to London and the world (Fox News)

On the drone debate (Blog)

Why I support the CIA's UCAV (drone) program (Blog)

Obama must not undo success of surge in Afghanistan (The Guardian)

The role of religion, the definition of terrorism - beware the original thinkers (Blog)

Why the Tsarnaevs turned to terrorism (Blog)

Why Guantanamo Bay should remain open (The Daily Caller)

BBC World Service debate on Guantanamo Bay (Radio) (BBC)

BBC World News debate on Guantanamo Bay (TV) (BBC)

Why Muslims must confront Islamic extremism (Blog)

In Defense of Lawful Secrecy (The Week)

Analysis of Washington Post Intelligence Community reporting (Blog)

The Challenge of Hostage Rescue Operations (Blog)

The War on Terror isn't over. Here's how the US can win it (The Week)

Republicans must speak out against attacks on our Muslim fellow citizens (The Daily Caller)

Conservatives and Counter-Terrorism (The Week)

On the new axis of evil (synergy between terrorists and state actors) (Blog)

On the weakness of EU counter-terrorism efforts (Blog)

US Spying on EU (Blog)

(All pretty serious topics, so here's some pleasant music...) 

 

Abu Ghaith capture

The US Government has captured Osama bin Laden's son-in-law and will put him on trial. In a civilian court. A few observations here. 

1) The suggestion that Abu Ghaith had been detained in Iran should surprise nobody. The Iranians and Al Qa'ida hate each other and like to kill each other. However, they do have two shared affinities - killing civilians and an embedded sympathy for brutal theological authoritarianism.

2) Although the news reports are currently lacking in detail, it seems apparent that Abu Ghaith was the subject of a rendition operation. As the Washington Post put it- Sulaiman Abu Ghaith was initially detained in Turkey but was taken into U.S. custody in Jordan while he was in the process of being deported to Kuwait, according to U.S. officials. Rep. Peter King's congratulatory message to the CIA would seemingly give weight to this theory. If true, I have no problem with this action. In fact, it would be good news. It would indicate that President Obama has retained rendition as a crucial tool of US counter-terrorism efforts (see my piece from yesterday on CIA-Brennan-Rand).

3) Unfortunately, this story isn't entirely positive. If, as reports indicate, the Obama Administration is intending to try Abu Ghaith in New York, they're making a serious mistake. Abu Ghaith is an obvious member of Al Qa'ida core. Under the post 9/11 Congressional AUMF, Al Qa'ida members are recognized as military adversaries of the United States - illegitimate adversaries but also non-civilian. As such, under Federal law they should be tried under military authority. For all it's previous negative PR, Guantanamo Bay should remain open and men (or women) like Abu Ghaith should be tried under US military jurisdiction. By prosecuting Abu Ghaith in civilian court, the President would entertain the false delusion that terrorism is a form of criminality. It isn't. In it's character of action and it's corollary strategic aims, Al Qa'ida's terrorism is a true manifestation of Clausewitz's abiding definition of war - 'the continuation of politics by other means'. A civilian trial would also conflict with the President's March 2011 decision to re-activate the military court system.

On August 7th 1998, Al Qa'ida declared war on the United States. The laws of war and American strategic interest both demand that Al Qa'ida face the consequences of their chosen course.

Of Drones and Men - Rand Paul Filibuster

Senator Rand Paul has strong legs. 12 hours of Filibuster and counting. Senator Paul's concern? The Obama Administration's unwillingness to provide him with clarification over the use of UCAVs (Unmanned Aerial Combat Vehicles) on American soil. I respect Rand Paul's passion. He's taking a stand (quite literally) for a cause that is obviously crucial - there are very few issues as important as the civil liberty of the American people. He's also helping the GOP move to a more intellectual position on national security- a realm of complexity demanding of independent thought. And while I'm personally not terribly concerned that the US Government will be unleashing Hellfires on American civilians any time soon, I'm also cognizant of the need to draw scrutiny to the President's aggressive Executive. The President must understand that democracy does not equal blind acquiescence to his will.

On the flip side, I also have a few concerns here.

First, the FOREIGN deployment of UCAVs provides a critical tool for US counter-terrorism efforts. In the absence of boots on the ground (which nowadays has a distinctly weak political constituency) and in the context of a strategic environment in which our foreign partners do not want an overt US footprint in their territory, UCAVs are a major asset. They enable the United States to identify, monitor and defeat our foreign adversaries. They have allowed us to impose devastating physical and psychological losses on Al Qa'ida and its affiliates. In this regard, we should make distinction between using drones abroad and using them at home.

Second, I genuinely believe that John Brennan would make a strong DCI. He's intelligent, well respected by international intelligence agencies and has an extremely strong resume. For a start, Brennan is fluent in Arabic, an expert on the Middle East and is a former Riyadh station chief. He knows how to fight Al Qa'ida. Yes, he's not perfect. His backtracking on the CIA's interrogation program reeks of supplication to Congressional Democrats- who are desperate to ignore history. But the truth is that the CIA has much important work to do. Whether in facing down AQAP, or restraining AQIM, or continuing to exert pressure on terrorists in Pakistan, or providing accurate assessments on China and Russia, or in addressing the multitude of other concerns that we face, the CIA desperately needs strong leadership and a respected voice in the White House. Compared to Hagel at DoD, Brennan is a good choice.

Finally, I worry about how the White House will try to slander Paul and by association the GOP. If they're able to paint Paul's filibuster as an example of unrepentant GOP intransigence, then the Republican position re-the 2014 midterms will be weakened. Such a portrayal would be unfair - thus far, Obama has lacked a serious willingness to compromise. Sadly however, politics is just as much about perception as it is about reality. To avoid this spin from the White House, GOP Senators must engage Democrats to get behind Paul.
 

In the end, my position is pretty basic. I hope the President will answer Senator Paul's concerns. But I also hope that Paul recognizes the need for a functioning, well lead Central Intelligence Agency. If the President is willing to get his act together, then over the next four years, America can achieve much around the world. That opportunity is positive. But we also need to recognize the negative - America faces serious threats. Those dangers must be confronted and each day we're absent a CIA Director, our task is made more difficult. President Obama has the ball, he should meet Senator Paul's reasonable requests and then Paul should end his filibuster.

Syria, Debt Negotiations, Hezbollah, Russia, Piers Morgan

1) Syria

The defection by the head of Syria's Military Police to the rebels represents another step towards Assad's collapse. As I predicted a few weeks ago (I speak at - 10.32, 15.23, 22.25), defections will increase as momentum continues to root more firmly with the rebels.  While because of the sectarian make up of Assad's power base, certain elite units are unlikely to withdraw their support for the dictator, Assad's days are nonetheless numbered. He simply has insufficient financial, military and popular power to sustain against the rebel onslaught. The United States must exert increased pressure on Russia to end their support for his regime. We want to ensure that he departs Syria as quickly and bloodlessly as possible.

2) Debt Negotiations

President Obama's return to Washington is as much a political stunt as it is a gesture towards resolving the debt impasse. He should never have gone to Hawaii amidst such a serious financial crisis. Unless Obama is willing to offer Boehner serious entitlement reforms and unless Boehner offers Obama increased tax revenues, there will be no deal. Hopefully we can get some kind of short term deal to avoid the sequester cuts. With regards to defense, I have argued that these cuts would be catastrophic. A short term deal is far from ideal. However, perhaps the new Congress can act more seriously than its predecessor?

3) Hezbollah Christmas Message

Hezbollah's greeting to Christians illustrates the importance that the group places on the maintenance of a cross-sectarian support base. The organization seeks to maintain an image of a Shia liberator allied to the ambitions of ''the oppressed" across the Middle East - not just for Shia, but for all. The problem for Hezbollah is that by supporting Assad's continuing murder in Syria they have undercut this narrative. Ultimately, I still believe that Hezbollah will abandon Assad before the end. The truth is that Hezbollah is an extremist terrorist group dedicated to the assertion of an authoritarian and fundamentalist Shia theology. They might have a better PR strategy than Al Qa'ida, but their pretense of affinity for democracy is not real.

4) Russia

Putin's Russia offers the US no meaningful relationship. We must be much tougher on Putin. I will have an opinion piece on this issue in the coming days.

5) Piers Morgan

The deportation petition against Piers Morgan is stupid. He is lawfully present in the United States and he has the right to freedom of speech. True freedom of speech doesn't exist in the UK. We must ensure it continues to exist here.

Don't toss this coin - the terrible two sided face of nuclear proliferation in the Islamic world

Concerning the challenges to international security posed by nuclear proliferation, much greater attention must be given to the relationships between different Islamic extremist organizations.

Consider Hezbollah's attitude towards Al Qa'ida. If Iran attains a nuclear weapon, Hezbollah's peripheral access presents many problems. Such a capability (whether perceived or real) would enable Hezbollah to pursue nuclear blackmail against Israel and the United States, but also against Al Qa'ida. Rooted in a history of conflict and accentuated by years of recent and brutal Shia-Sunni sectarian bloodletting in Iraq, Hezbollah despises Al Qa'ida and its allies. Where the groups do sometimes co-operate, this co-operation is vested in shared short term interests. Hezbollah ultimately opposes Al Qa'ida's objectives, because Al Qa'ida seeks to destroy Hezbollah's on-going pursuit of greater Shia theological power in political Islam (see below). For Hezbollah, weakening Al Qa'ida isn't just a defensive objective, it's a means to pursue the precedence of Shia theology at the forefront of Islamic 'traditionalist' discourse. And in obvious terms, a nuclear weapon is a powerful tool for that agenda.

Next let's consider the Al Qa'ida perspective. Yesterday's news from Pakistan indicates that whether involving subscribers to Salafist (Al Qai'da) or fundamentalist Deobandi (Pakistani Taliban) theology, an embedded hatred underpins the outlook of many Sunni extremists when it comes to Shia Muslims. Anyone who doubts the strategic importance of this hatred should read Al Zarqawi's 2004/05 letters from Iraq. Should these individuals gain access to nuclear weapons, the outcome would be rather unpleasant. In such a scenario, while India, the US and Israel would certainly be in the crosshairs, major Shia Islamist groups like Hezbollah would also face a major threat. Thus is the understated point - Al Qa'ida would believe that they finally had the means to 'purify' Islam.

In essence, while nuclear proliferation in the Middle East obviously presents a profound challenge for international state security dynamics, it also portends a second, equally dangerous face. A security environment where non-state groups which idolize counter-intuitive notions of existential value, are armed with nuclear weapons and propelled by hatred, mistrust and irreconcilable ideologies. This would be a security dilemma on steroids- unrestrained, uncontrollable and a whisper away from nuclear war.

Post-update - See my related analysis on why Muslims must confront Islamic extremism

For my further thoughts on Iran- links here.

Debate 3# - Analysis

I believe that Mitt Romney won last night's debate.

 I make this assessment on the basis of what each candidate had set out to achieve before the debate began and the manner by which Romney successfully pursued his particular objectives. For Romney, the objectives were clear. 1) Increase his likeability numbers with the American people. 2) Increase the comfort level that American voters have with him re-foreign policy (can he take the 3AM call etc.) but also re-domestic policy 3) Provide a final attack on the President's record over the past four years. 

         On each of these counts, Romney succeeded. Where the President appeared angry and at times highly condescending, Romney appeared composed and at times even complementary. On the big issues - China, Iran, Russia and terrorism, Romney came across as assured of what he would do as President. Romney ended the debate on an especially strong note, issuing a stinging rebuke of the President's first term and then following that rebuke by delivering a warm, confident closing appeal to American voters.

I felt that the President came across as far too angry and condescending. He made some especially idiotic remarks with reference to the US Military. For example when he responded to Romney's Navy ship numbers comment by saying that the US also doesn't use 'horses' and that 'we have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines'. Obama obviously forgot about the use of horses as an instrumental tool for our Special Forces during the opening stages of operations in Afghanistan. I also thought the President was out of line when he said that he was happy Romney viewed Al Qa'ida as a threat. These were silly statements.

Ultimately, I believe that the opinion polls will continue to trend in Romney's favor. The former Governor showed that he has a grasp of the issues, a clear foreign policy agenda and a comfortable demeanor that will enable him to be an effective President. Once again, he asserted a positive contrast to the angry, record redundant President. The tightening polls show that voters are crying out for a change that they can believe in. 

Mitt Romney has showed and is showing that he represents that change.

PS- For a more in depth look at my reasons for supporting Romney's foreign policy, check out my latest op/ed for The Daily Caller

The weakness of European Counter-Terrorist efforts

The UK's Counter-Terrorism effort is facing an increasingly precarious future. Today, Abu Hamza and co. are holding their final appeal (supposedly final) at the High Court. As of 18.52 GMT, there is no news on the outcome. Regardless, this case should have been resolved years ago. In April it was. But of course, the European system is heavily weighted in favor of terrorist defendants. Appeal follows appeal. It is seemingly irrelevant that these appeals are consistently based on frivolous creations by defendants (Abu Hamza sleep deprived etc). The rule in EU law appears to be this- 'The only limit on appeals is the limitation of your imagination'. While I personally believe that Al Qa'ida linked suspects should face military commissions,  I accept that most Europeans may prefer a different approach. 

However, I believe their current approach is fundamentally flawed.

It's not simply the incapacity of EU Courts to resolve cases. Another problem is found in the form of the weak sentences that EU courts often hand down to those convicted of the most serious terrorist offenses. In Scotland, mass murderers are released. In England, attempted mass murderers are given the opportunity to one day be released. This is absurdity incarnate.

At the final level - the operational side of UK counter-terrorism, other problems exist. Instead of welcoming the skill and professionalism of their Intelligence services, in recent months these services have become political whipping boys- a casual target for false moral prophets and politically motivated investigations. Investigations that will chill effective intelligence collection, degrade morale and endanger lives. 

The stakes in counter-terrorism are high. Groups like Al Qa'ida are motivated by a total war doctrine that seeks to destroy democracy. Making counter-terrorism operations more difficult and judicial processes more complex is in no one's interest. Except the terrorists. 

Sadly, the dangers posed by this evolving dynamic will become even more pronounced as global WMD proliferation accelerates.

Cofer Black - 'After 9/11, the gloves come off'

Violent protests - What America should do

Sadly it appears that the 'film protests' are continuing unabated. The US Embassy in Yemen is currently under attack and protests are continuing outside our embassy in Cairo. The United States is now being directly challenged. Iran, Assad, Hizballah, Al Qa'ida and every other group that hates America are now watching to see what we do. Here's what we should do.

1) The President should order the deployment of military reinforcements to secure our diplomatic facilities in the region. He has currently sent FAST units, however, this may not be sufficient. The US has considerable military assets in the EUCOM and CENTCOM areas of operation. We should not be afraid to utilize these assets as necessary.Our response should also involve tightening security procedures at diplomatic facilities in states like Indonesia and Pakistan - which may face protests after tomorrow's Friday prayers. The key is that we ensure we are able to protect our diplomats and our facilities. Secretary of State Clinton must require that host nation security forces are provided to defend our diplomats. 

2) The President should unequivocally (and angrily) condemn the violent reaction that has followed reporting on this film. His speech yesterday was not sufficient. There is no excuse for the kind of violence that we have seen. This film was produced by a private group of individuals in the conduct of free speech. Free speech defines America. We must stand up for this right while emphasizing that the US govt. had nothing to do with the film. Where there is positive regard for the United States in the Middle East, in large part this feeling stems from a high regard for our freedoms. The President must condemn those who violently protest as morally pathetic human beings. They need to be called out for their repellent ideology.

3) The President should take substantive action to bring to justice those responsible for the Benghazi bombing. This should include the application of military force if targets can be identified (for example in the Libyan desert). The US is currently appearing impotent and weak in the Middle East. From my perspective, this is in part a result of the President's appearance of timidity on Iran. Whether this is a fair perception or not, appearance is as, if not more important than reality when it comes to Middle Eastern political dynamics.

This is somewhat personal to me, my father was a diplomat with State and my grandfather was a US Marine. We need to make sure we protect our citizens.