nytimes:After Struggle on Detainees, Obama Signs Defense Bill

After Struggle on Detainees, Obama Signs Defense Bill

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/us/politics/obama-signs-military-spending-bill.html

HONOLULU — President Obama, after objecting to provisions of a military spending bill that would have forced him to try terrorism suspects in military courts and impose strict sanctions on Iran’s oil exports, signed the bill on Saturday.

He said that although he did not support all of it, changes made by Congress after negotiations with the White House had satisfied most of his concerns and had given him enough latitude to manage counterterrorism and foreign policy in keeping with administration principles.

“The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it,” Mr. Obama said in a statement issued in Hawaii, where he is on vacation. “I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.”

The bill authorizes $662 billion in military spending through 2012. It is a smaller amount than the Pentagon had asked for, but it does not impose the radical cuts that the military faces in coming years.

The White House had said that the legislation could lead to an improper military role in overseeing detention and court proceedings and could infringe on the president’s authority in dealing with terrorism suspects. But it said that Mr. Obama could interpret the statute in a way that would preserve his authority.

The president, for example, said that he would never authorize the indefinite military detention of American citizens, because “doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation.” He also said he would reject a “rigid across-the-board requirement” that suspects be tried in military courts rather than civilian courts.

Congress dropped a provision in the House version of the bill that would have banned using civilian courts to prosecute those suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda. It also dropped a new authorization to use military force against Al Qaeda and its allies.

Civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, still oppose the law, in part because of its authorization of military detention camps overseas. But Mr. Obama’s signature is likely to settle, at least for now, the battle between the White House and Congress over executive authority in the treatment of detainees.

The White House also wrestled with Congress over requirements that the United States punish foreign financial firms that purchase Iranian oil, including through Iran’s central bank. Such a step would greatly increase the pressure on Iran over its nuclear program.

But the administration feared that if the measures were imposed too hastily, they could disrupt the oil market, driving up prices and alienating countries, including close allies, that the United States is seeking to enlist in its pressure campaign against Iran.

Under the terms of the bill, Mr. Obama can delay sanctions by six months to assess their impact on oil prices. The president can also apply to Congress for a waiver exempting a country’s financial firms from sanctions, if he determines that the country significantly reduced its purchases of Iranian oil in the preceding 180 days. Or he can apply for a waiver exempting a country on national security grounds.

Senate Republicans, who pushed for the tougher sanctions, said it would be difficult for Mr. Obama to invoke a waiver, since it could make him look weak on Iran in an election year. But the administration said it was committed to imposing the sanctions.

“We have to do it in a timely way and phased way to avoid repercussions to the oil market, and make sure the revenues to Iran are reduced,” said an administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “But we believe we can do that.”

huffpost:Not a Terrorist (Nor a Reporter) Was Stirring

Not a Terrorist (Nor a Reporter) Was Stirring

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/len-levitt/not-a-terrorist-nor-a-rep_b_1174620.html

'Twas the night before Christmas and all through Police Plaza very important people were scampering to Commissioner Kelly's secret bunker that Kelly had secretly constructed in a sub-sub-basement of police headquarters.

Kelly had summoned these very important people for a secret meeting on terrorism.

"We must make sure to keep the media in the dark so that they report only our version of terrorist arrests," he had written in a secret memo.

Kelly's secret bunker had been constructed with bullet and bomb-resistant walls, an independent and secure air and water supply and the ability to withstand 200 mph winds.
To avoid detection, the bunker had been financed by the department's secret non-profit organization, the NYPD Counter-Terrorism Foundation.

The foundation's treasurer was Kelly's Chief of Staff, Joe Wuensch. Its president was the department's former head of Legal Affairs, Stephen Hammerman. The foundation was so secret that Wuensch said nobody ever told him he was the treasurer.

The bunker consisted of only two rooms. The first was a secret gym. The gym was so secret that whenever Kelly worked out, everyone had to leave so that no one saw how many push-ups he did or whether he could still touch his toes.

Kelly cautioned Wuensch that he could not allow such information to fall into the wrong hands.
The bunker's second room had four gigantic television screens, playing CNN, Fox News, the BBC and Al Jazeera -- in Arabic - 24 hours a day. Although Kelly did not understand Arabic, he was said to especially enjoy Al Jazeera because it showed daily bombings in Baghdad and Damascus.

"It pumps him up for his fight against terrorism," wrote Judith Miller, the former New York Times reporter who had so pumped up the Iraq war that the Times ultimately fired her.

Since then, the irrepressible Miller had developed sources at the highest levels of the NYPD. She was said to be especially close to Deputy Commissioner for Intelligence, David Cohen and to Cohen's former right hand, CIA man, Larry Sanchez.

Indeed, Ms. Miller was so close to her sources that she had been summoned to the bunker, along with Cohen and such other brilliant minds as Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, Congressman Peter King; former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey; and perhaps the brightest mind of all, the City Council's Public Safety Committee Chairman, Peter Vallone.

A cynic might describe all these people as Kelly stooges.

As Vallone put it: "Commissioner Kelly has prevented no fewer than 13 planned attacks on New York. The fact that no one has set off a dirty bomb is what I call proof of Kelly's success. One can't argue with results."

Significantly, not one NYPD chief had been summoned to the secret bunker. Ever since former mayor Rudy Giuliani fired Kelly in 1994 and no chief resigned in protest, Kelly trusted none of them.

"I've called you all here tonight, because the situation is grave," Kelly began. There was a hush in the bunker. The only sound was the whoosh of the independent and secure air supply.
Everyone in the bunker knew the importance of the word of "grave." When Kelly used it, it was even more grave.

"The FBI has been whispering to reporters," Kelly continued. "They have questioned our last two 'lone wolf' arrests. Reporters are asking too many questions. They are even questioning my 13 plots."

This was indeed grave. Deputy Commissioner for Intelligence Cohen felt a chill, apparently from the independent and secure air supply. Ditto Congressman King. Without those plots, there was no reason for their jobs.

Vallone was also concerned. Without a dirty bomb plot, he sounded like an idiot.

"Take the recent arrest of Jose Pimentel," Kelly said. "The FBI whispered to reporters that Pimentel was broke and had mental problems and that its agents didn't trust our informant. Well, just because our informant was smoking marijuana with Pimentel and helped him construct his bomb doesn't mean Pimentel isn't a terrorist."

Kelly then turned to his closest aide, Deputy Commissioner for Public Information Paul Browne. Browne pulled at his formerly red beard, which had turned grey from fears about terrorism.
"Editors can be manipulated," Browne mused. "Most reporters are lazy." He sounded like the Delphic Oracle.

Turning to Ms. Miller, Browne added, "Of course, I didn't mean you, Judy."

"But we still have assets on the ground," Browne continued. "Did you see the Daily News editorial last week?"

He was referring to the paper's editorial of Dec. 21, lambasting the FBI, which, the editorial said, continued to whisper negative words about the NYPD's arrest of Pimentel. The editorial offered no evidence or facts to support the supposed whispering. It also quoted no one.

Instead, the editorial said only, "Authorities have picked up evidence that G-men are again planting whispers."

In what might be construed as a non sequitur, it concluded: "Those who might be spreading this poison should get their facts straight."

"The Daily News wrote that?" Congressman King said to Browne.

Browne looked like the cat that had swallowed the canary. "Go figure," he said.

Kelly then discussed the recent Associated Press articles about the NYPD's possibly unlawful spying on the city's Muslims, in particular Moroccans.

"Thank you, thank you," Kelly said to Mukasey. Mukasey had defended the NYPD against the AP in an op-ed piece in -- where else? -- the Daily News.

"The AP articles," wrote Mukasey, had "apparently no interest in or even awareness of the disproportionate involvement of Moroccans in terrorist activity within that country and outside it, notably in connection with the Madrid train bombing in 2004."

Mukasey's article also cited "census data" that the Intelligence Division had used "to map New York's ethnic neighborhoods to figure out where someone from a location known to have generated highly disproportionate numbers of terrorists," such as Tetouan in Morocco, might go if he came to New York.

Kelly then called upon Mitchell Silber, director of the NYPD's Analytic Unit. The unit uses academics and recent Ivy League graduates to find patterns of terrorism that ordinary detectives can't detect. (They have too much common sense.)

Silber's predecessor, Samuel Rascoff, had once told the New York Times that the analytical unit brings "the culturally exotic world of the ivory tower to bear on the gritty problems of counter-terrorism as experienced by beat cops and seasoned detectives."

Silber was believed to have discovered a secret terror link between the Madrid train bombing; the city of Zarqa, Jordan; and the Afghanistan-born, Colorado-based would-be subway bomber Najibullah Zazi.

A mathematician from MIT, with whom Silber had consulted, had calculated the odds of finding such a link as 850,000 to 1.

In a secret briefing at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, in 2009, the mathematician described Silber's discovery as "brilliant" and "imaginative." He cautioned that Silber's only drawback was "his inability to separate fact from fiction."

In the same Times article, Silber had described the Zazi case as the largest terrorist surveillance investigation the Police Department had ever mounted. He added that the Analytic Unit had worked at a secret location around the clock, debriefing detectives as they came in off the street, then analyzed and shared their information about Zazi with the next shift before it went out into the field.

Of course, there was only one problem. Zazi almost escaped because Deputy Commissioner of Intelligence Cohen decided to make an end run around the FBI.

He ordered a detective to show Zazi's picture to an NYPD informant. The informant then tipped off Zazi's father. Zazi aborted his subway plan, forcing the FBI to arrest him prematurely before he could get away.

"We blow the most important terrorist case since 9/11, and President Obama calls to congratulate us," said Kelly, shaking his head. "Go figure."

Kelly then asked for ideas about keeping the media further in the dark.

Cohen, Silber and Browne huddled. Mukasey, King and Vallone watched. Kelly supervised. Miller took notes.

"I've got it," shouted Silber. "First, we hire another mathematician. I've spoken to a physicist at Cal Tech about a terror link I recently discovered between Zazi; Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who was killed in a U.S. air raid in Iraq in 2006; and Abdeladdin el-Kebir, a Moroccan national arrested in Germany and indicted in Brooklyn federal court for agreeing to provide material support to al Qaeda.

"My Cal Tech guy," said Silber, "puts the odds on my having discovered that link at 975,000 to 1."

"I'll go to the Daily News with that," said Browne. "How's this sound for another editorial? 'Authorities have picked up evidence that G-men are taking credit for a terrorism link that was recently discovered by the NYPD. Those who might be spreading this poison should get their facts straight.'"

CNN:2011: A wild ride for the CIA

2011: A wild ride for the CIA

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/30/2011-a-wild-ride-for-the-cia/

The year has been a rollercoaster ride for the CIA–incredible highs coupled with significant lows. But those dramatic ups and downs also underscored how intelligence is evolving and the agency is changing to keep pace. Keeping secrets is becoming more difficult and what the agency now does is sometimes more visible. And– the enemy is getting better.

On the critical counterterrorism front, 2011 was a momentous year. The crowning moment–maybe of even the last decade–was the CIA finally pinning down the location of enemy number one, Osama bin Laden, and then overseeing the raid by Navy special forces on a safehouse in Pakistan which led to his death, bringing an end to the nearly ten year pursuit of America's most wanted terrorist.

The raid is a prime example of the new warfare the CIA is engaged in. The counterterrorism battle is frequently being waged by CIA officers and Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) forces working side by side. Former CIA Director Mike Hayden said "it's clear the Agency and JSOC are now in a privileged position in terms of how we want to fight this war." The retired Air Force general referred to the CIA today as looking more like the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the World War two-era intelligence service that had a more operational, paramilitary role.

That type of warfare is heavily dependent on the use of unmanned, armed aircraft.

Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born propagandist and operator for al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, was blown apart by a CIA operated drone attack while driving in a remote area of Yemen. Al Awlaki had been tied to the attempt by Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab, the so called underwear bomber, who unsuccessfully tried to blow up a passenger airliner on its way to Detroit on Christmas day two years ago. And alleged Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Hasan had been in communication with al Awlaki before his shooting spree that left 13 dead at the Texas U.S. Army post.

U.S. intelligence officials have said hundreds of other extremists have been taken off the battlefield through CIA operations in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere.

Shortly after leaving his job as CIA director, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said in July that the U.S. is now "within reach of strategically defeating al Qaeda."

His deputy for intelligence issues, Michael Vickers, even put a timeframe on al Qaeda's ability to carry out terrorist operations saying that "within 18 to 24 months, core al Qaeda's cohesion and operational capabilities could be degraded to the point that group could fragment and exist mostly as a propaganda arm."

A senior U.S. official said documents seized from the bin Laden compound "showed both he and his lieutenants were complaining that they were losing the intelligence war."

The use of the drones to eliminate suspected terrorists has been problematic for the CIA. The recent crash of an agency-operated unmanned spy plane in Iran was a stark reminder of the aircraft's vulnerability. Although the Iranians bragged that they had brought the plane down, possibly by means of a cyber attack, the U.S. insisted the crash had nothing to do with outside intervention. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers emphatically said "there was a technical problem that was our problem, nobody else's problem."

Rogers added these types of planes have gone down in a number of different places. "These things are not infallible. Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong in these environments," he said.

There are also claims by Pakistan’s government that hundreds of civilians have been killed in Pakistan by missiles launched from CIA drones. U.S. officials have insisted the drone strikes have become far more precise, with few civilian casualties this year, but it is one of the risks of the program.

No one wants to talk publicly about the secret drone program even though its one of the few more visible operations run by the usually opaque CIA. Panetta would not specifically discuss the drone programs run by both the military and the CIA, but did recently say "there are technologies that are extremely important in developing the kind of intelligence and information we need in order to be able to defend the security of our country...we are going to continue to use them in the defense of US security."

Another low point this year for the CIA was the exposure by the terrorist organization Hezbollah of CIA informants in Lebanon followed by the outing of several CIA officers working in the country. Hezbollah was apparently able to track the cell phones conversations of the parties.

The careers of those covert officers are likely hampered now that they have been identified. Former CIA officer Robert Baer said "they've been burned." Hezbollah is often seen as a group of "bearded primitive bomb throwing terrorists," said Baer, but in reality, it is a formidable adversary. "They're into police files. They're into military intelligence files. They can get on any skype message. They tap telephones, get into phone databases. You name it, they can do it and they're very good at it." Baer maintained it is the US that needs to catch up to Hezballah. "We're so used to fighting the Taliban and these tribal groups in Afghanistan that we're really falling behind on what's called spycraft or tradecraft," he said.

But Congressman Mike Rogers said human intelligence, often referred to as HUMINT, is one of the toughest aspects of spying. "Anytime you have HUMINT activity around the world, somebody is going to get caught. That's the unfortunate part of this business. So I don't want people to be led to believe there has been a collapse in tradecraft at the CIA. I don't believe that to be true." But Rogers acknowledges the CIA will have to make adjustments in Lebanon, a likely reference to having to pull out the compromised officers and bring in new ones.

Ronald Kessler, the author of "CIA at War" said considering the risky work undertaken by officers trying to gather intelligence in restricted locations or enemy territory, "it's no wonder there aren't more roll-ups of CIA officers and CIA assets."

A senior U.S. official would not discuss the specifics of some of the claims made concerning CIA operations, but the official did say "It seems to me that if Iran, Hezbollah, Pakistan, and al Qaeda are feeling compelled to wage propaganda operations against the Agency, then the CIA must be doing something right. And let's remember that any intelligence organization that takes risks will win some and lose some–the Agency is winning way more than its losing."

Some members of Congress criticized the CIA for not predicting the extent of the Arab uprising.

When Tunisia's democracy movement ignited a year ago and soon spread to Egypt and other nations, questions were raised about whether the intelligence community failed to predict things were about to boil over.

Some Senators wanted to know whether the intelligence community failed to realize tens of thousands of Egyptians would take to the street after years of massive unemployment and dissatisfaction with the authoritarian regime. Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein said, "I've looked at some intelligence in this area which indicates some lacking."

Adm. Mike Mullen, America's top military officer at the time, told the Daily Show in February, "To a great degree I think the timing of it certainly caught us as it moved from Tunisia and sort of across to the really difficult challenge that sits there right now in Egypt."

Intelligence expert Kessler said people often have unrealistic expectations of the intelligence community and expect the CIA to have a crystal ball. He said the Arab spring is a perfect example. "When people said the CIA should have known this individual in Tunisia was going to set himself on fire and that was going to ignite the Arab spring, that's just foolish," said Kessler.

An incident with a CIA contractor operating in Pakistan continued the downward spiral of US relations with a critical counterterrorism partner. Security contractor Raymond Davis was jailed after he killed two armed Pakistani men who threatened him. Davis was eventually released by the Pakistanis after the victims families were paid off, but it once again raised the question of the U.S. government's dependence on contractors.

The United States was unaware of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il's death until its announcement on North Korean TV two days after the fact. Could that be considered an intelligence failure? The experts we spoke to agreed that you can't expect the CIA to know exactly when the leader of a police state has died if that country wanted to keep it secret which was the case here.

A U.S. official who spoke on the condition of anonymity said, "The key point in a situation like this is not marking the exact second the dictator dies-while clearly that would be great to know-but having a solid framework to assess what might come next. Experts have spent a lot of time developing and updating assessments of things to watch for, to help policymakers understand which direction the transition is going."

But Kim's death led to the inevitable discussion about the command and control of North Korea's nuclear program. And some experts maintain the U.S. just doesn't know enough. Paul Stares, a senior fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations said, "It's a black hole. I don't think we even know whether they have a deployed capacity. The devices they tested, it's unclear whether they were truly weaponized devices. There's some speculation about having some bomb designs for that purpose."

Former CIA Director Hayden said North Korea, Hezballah and Iran are the most challenging adversaries. "They have been the three toughest target areas we had.. the Iranians were very good, North Korea was a closed society and we all considered Hezballah to be the A team, a very sophisticated adversary," said Hayden. He called Hezbollah a disciplined, high-tech terrorist organization whose intelligence capacities rival that of governments.

Intelligence Committee Chairman Rogers agreed that the enemy is getting better. "Our counterintelligence threat is more significant than it has been in the past. These intelligence services are getting much, much better. I can't say they are on par with the United States but some are darn close," Rogers said.

There are other factors impacting the intelligence community, namely the digital revolution. "Remember the internet has changed a lot," said Rogers. "It has changed our counterintelligence strategy like you wouldn't believe–sometimes hard to believe– but it has changed the spy business in a way I've never really seen before."

Gen. Hayden said the intelligence business is much more difficult because of electronics and social media. "Everything is so inter-connected. Everyone's electronic signature is so much more powerful and ubiquitous that it really is more difficult to do things and remain secret for an extended period of time," Hayden said. But the enemy has the same problems. Hayden pointed to Iran's failed effort to assassinate Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the U.S. this year. "We each have our successes and failures," said Hayden.

As successful as the CIA's counter terrorism efforts have been this year, Hayden, who was CIA chief from 2006-2009, understands the pressure the Agency is under to balance its missions. "When I was director, I had to keep reminding myself that this counterterrorism role wasn't the only thing we're doing, that we had to also remind ourselves to keep focused on our traditional espionage mission and the tradecraft required for it. It's not saying our tradecraft suffered. This is a constant risk and a constant challenge because of the roles the Agency is playing today."

Clark Ervin, a former Inspector General at the Department of Homeland Security may have summed it up best when he said, "intelligence is an art and not a science and it's tough to be right always."

The CIA would not respond to the specific issues raised in this story, but spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood offered the following written comment: "At the end of the day, I think it's clear that this has been a year of extraordinary achievement by the hardworking men and women of the Central Intelligence Agency who truly believe that what we do matters, and helps to keep America safe. At the end of the day, the President, Congress, and the American people ask us to take on the hard jobs-as our mission statement says 'we accomplish what others cannot accomplish and go where others cannot go'-and the hard jobs get done only when you take some risks."

BBC:Spy fact meets spy fiction

Spy fact meets spy fiction

The discovery of a fake rock in Moscow, allegedly a British surveillance device, seems to be the very definition of cloak and dagger. But if it feels like it should really be in a B-rate movie, that should come as no surprise. The worlds of espionage and entertainment are no strangers.

Tuesday, 24 January 2006, 11:17 GMT

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4642780.stm

Spying is fertile ground for authors, TV producers and film-makers. Eavesdropping, surveillance, disguise, deceit, danger and diplomacy all make for good plots and sub-plots - everything from Dick Tracy and Dick Barton, through Mission Impossible and George Smiley, all the way to Spooks.

Not forgetting, of course, the granddaddy of them all, James Bond.

Eyebrows have been raised as to what might be the full story of the Moscow rock. Defector Oleg Gordievsky says it is a KGB stunt, while others wonder what its purpose might have been if it was a British device. Whatever the truth, it would not have been out of place in fiction - gadgets have consistently fired the imagination. But they are not all make-believe.

Bond creator Ian Fleming's most direct lift from the real world was perhaps the human torpedo that features in the 1965 Bond film Thunderball. Fleming, who worked in naval intelligence during World War II, was said to have been inspired by an Italian plan to destroy British ships in the waters off Gibraltar.

Blend in

The Italians used torpedoes piloted by frogmen, destroying 14 merchant vessels in three years. The two-man devices could be launched from a submarine or a beach, and once the target had been reached, the frogmen would leave the detachable warheads before heading for the Spanish shore. In true Bond-style they would then peel off their wetsuits and blend in with the crowds.

The work of the Italian saboteurs was well known to David Scherr, who headed the British Security Intelligence Department during the war.

When Scherr's files were declassified last year they revealed a host of other real-life devices that appeared to owe more to the world of make-believe.

The poison needle pen in Bond's Moonraker is not all that different from a fountain pen detonator supplied to the British during WWII. A press of the pen's button would break a phial of sulphuric acid, allowing it to drip on to potassium chlorate to cause the detonation.

Dr Thomas Boghardt, a historian at the International Spy Museum in Washington DC, says the line between fact and fiction has always been blurred.

"Americans had a spoof spy show called Get Smart in the 1960s, in which the lead character Maxwell Smart uses a phone embedded in his shoe. It used to make audiences laugh.

"But now we know that during the Cold War, Western diplomats had bugs implanted in the heels of their shoes by Romanian intelligence officers.

Security check

"Don't forget, good shoes were difficult to get hold of in Eastern Bloc countries at the time, so embassy staff would have them sent from home. These were intercepted on the way, and a bug fitted in the heel, before being delivered."

In the realms of Cold War espionage even the manipulation of children was not beyond the KGB. In 1946, Soviet school children presented a two foot-wooden replica of the Great Seal of the United States to America's man in Moscow, Averell Harriman.

Mr Harriman hung the seal in his office in Spaso House, the ambassador's residence, and departed from Moscow shortly afterwards. But there was more to this adornment than met the eye, says Boghardt.

"During George F Kennan's ambassadorship in 1952, a routine security check discovered that the seal contained a microphone and a resonant cavity which could be stimulated from an outside radio signal."

The inventing process still goes on, says military historian Peter Caddick-Adams. There remains a world of largely desk-based intelligence officers sifting through whacky ideas sent in by members of the public or academics. "The job has always been to reject nothing and consider everything," he says. "A lot never come to anything, but they're never quite rejected."

Bright ideas might well be picked up. "There are still battles going on. We now refer not to battlefields but to spaces - one of those battle spaces is the internet." This means that odd geeky ideas - something like a spell checker which could act as an Islamic faith veracity checker, perhaps - could be taken up. "I have absolutely no doubt about that," he says.

Sometimes, says author Wesley Britton, an expert on the links between spying fact and fiction, it would become a case of life imitating art. "The CIA would watch Mission: Impossible and then the phone calls would go round saying: 'Can we do that? Can we do that?' They actually consulted with Hollywood special effects wizards."

One of these, he says, was John Chambers who made the masks for Planet of the Apes, who helped make disguises for spies working in Laos. Indeed, Antonio Mendez, the CIA's former chief of disguise, was recruited through an advertisement to work as an artist.

And that could work equally for the other side - Gordievsky claimed that the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party instructed him, when KGB chief in London, to secure copies of any new Bond film, and to obtain the devices used.

Where a big difference does open up between fact and fiction, Britton says, is in ways to kill people. Despite some notable examples, such as an exploding cigar the US supposedly tried to kill Fidel Castro with, and the poison-tipped umbrella used to kill Georgi Markov in London in 1978, the vast majority of real-life technology was used for eavesdropping and surveillance rather than killing.

Devices

Many things seen on screen are now commercially available. Michael Marks, of London surveillance shop Spymaster, says many of the Bond inventions were based on technology which existed but which had not been perfected. As time goes by, more of the fiction has indeed become fact, he says.

Armoured cars - not just with Bond's rear windscreen shield - can be bought as can a range of other devices 007 would be familiar with. "We sell underwater breathing devices, and have done for three or four years now," he says. "They only give you 50 or so breaths, but they are an emergency device. They have a mouthpiece with a small cylinder each side, each one about the size of a finger."

Rolex watches with rotating saws, a la Live and Let Die, remain in the world of fiction although the International Spy Museum does have a German wristwatch from 1949 with a miniature camera. Tiny recording devices are now easily available. "We have a pocket device, called a docupen, that you scroll over an entire document which it will store in its memory for downloading later. It can copy up to 100 A4 pages."

And the process which started with the CIA watching Mission Impossible continues, even if only for the purposes of selling gadgets. "Nowadays electronics are so sophisticated and capable that it can actually be difficult to think things up to use the technology for," Mr Marks says. "The Bond films can actually spark off ideas on how to use them."

But aside from all the action and gadgets, there is a feature of one writer - John Le Carre - which Britton says has a particular ring for many spies. And that is that it can be very slow work, desk-based, involving lots of talking and reading. "99.9% of the craft is analysis," he says. "The biggest part of espionage is very dull and dreary. Even in the Bond books, it's clear that for three-quarters of the year, Bond is very bored."

reuters:U.S. mulls transfer of Taliban prisoner in perilous peace bid

U.S. mulls transfer of Taliban prisoner in perilous peace bid

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/12/30/uk-usa-afghanistan-detainees-idUKTRE7BS1B420111230?feedType=RSS&feedName=GCA-GoogleNewsUK

(Reuters) - The Obama administration is considering transferring to Afghan custody a senior Taliban official suspected of major human rights abuses as part of a long-shot bid to improve the prospects of a peace deal in Afghanistan, Reuters has learned.

The potential hand-over of Mohammed Fazl, a 'high-risk detainee' held at the Guantanamo Bay military prison since early 2002, has set off alarms on Capitol Hill and among some U.S. intelligence officials.

As a senior commander of the Taliban army, Fazl is alleged to be responsible for the killing of thousands of Afghanistan's minority Shi'ite Muslims between 1998 and 2001.

According to U.S. military documents made public by WikiLeaks, he was also on the scene of a November 2001 prison riot that killed CIA operative Johnny Micheal Spann, the first American who died in combat in the Afghan war. There is no evidence, however, that Fazl played any direct role in Spann's death.

Senior U.S. officials have said their 10-month-long effort to set up substantive negotiations between the weak government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the Taliban has reached a make-or-break moment. Reuters reported earlier this month that they are proposing an exchange of "confidence-building measures," including the transfer of five detainees from Guantanamo and the establishment of a Taliban office outside of Afghanistan.

Now Reuters has learned from U.S. government sources the identity of one of the five detainees in question.

The detainees, the officials emphasized, would not be set free, but remain in some sort of further custody. It is unclear precisely what conditions they would be held under.

In response to inquiries by Reuters, a senior administration official said that the release of Fazl and four other Taliban members had been requested by the Afghan government and Taliban representatives as far back as 2005.

The debate surrounding the White House's consideration of high-profile prisoners such as Fazl illustrates the delicate course it must tread both at home and abroad as it seeks to move the nascent peace process ahead.

One U.S. intelligence official said there had been intense bipartisan opposition in Congress to the proposed transfer.

"I can tell you that the hair on the back of my neck went up when they walked in with this a month ago, and there's been very, very strong letters fired off to the administration," the official said on condition of anonymity.

The senior administration official confirmed that the White House has received letters from lawmakers on the issue. "We will not characterize classified Congressional correspondence, but what is clear is the President's order to us to continue to discuss these important matters with Congress," the official said.

Even supporters of a controversial deal with the Taliban - a fundamentalist group that refers to Americans as infidels and which is still killing U.S., NATO and Afghan soldiers on the battlefield - say the odds of striking an accord are slim.

Critics of Obama's peace initiative remain deeply sceptical of the Taliban's willingness to negotiate, given that the West's intent to pull out most troops after 2014 could give insurgents a chance to reclaim lost territory or push the weak Kabul government toward collapse.

The politically charged nature of the initiative was on display this month when the Karzai government angrily recalled its ambassador from Doha and complained Kabul was being cut out of U.S.-led efforts to establish a Taliban office in Qatar.

U.S. officials appear to have smoothed things over with Karzai since then. Karzai's High Peace Council is signalling it would accept a liaison office for the Taliban office in Qatar - but also warning foreign powers that they cannot keep the Afghan government on the margins.

The detainee transfer may be even more politically explosive for the White House. In discussing the proposal, U.S. officials have stressed the move would be a 'national decision' made in consultation with the U.S. Congress.

Obama is expected to soon sign into law a defence authorization bill whose provisions would broaden the military's power over terrorist detainees and require the Pentagon to certify in most cases that certain security conditions will be met before Guantanamo prisoners can be sent home.

The mere idea of such a transfer is already raising hackles on Capitol Hill, where one key senator last week cautioned the administration against negotiating with "terrorists."

Senator Saxby Chambliss, the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said such detainees would "likely continue to pose a threat to the United States" even once they were transferred.

POTENTIAL MAELSTROM

In February, the Afghan High Peace Council named a half-dozen it wanted released as a goodwill gesture. The list included Fazl; senior Taliban military commander Noorullah Noori; former deputy intelligence minister Abdul Haq Wasiq; and Khairullah Khairkhwa, a former interior minister.

All but Khairkhwa were sent to Guantanamo on January 11, 2002, according to the military documents, meaning they were among the first prisoners sent there.

Bruce Riedel, a former CIA and White House official, said Fazl was alleged to have been involved in 'very ugly' violence against Shi'ites, including members of the Hazara ethnic minority, beginning in the late 1990s, and the deaths of Iranian diplomats and journalists at the Iranian consulate in the northern Afghan city of Mazar-i-Sharif in 1998.

Michael Semple, a former UN official with more than two decades of experience in Afghanistan, said Fazl commanded thousands of Taliban soldiers at a time when its army carried out massacres of Shi'ites. "If you're head of an army that carries out a massacre, even if you're not actually there, you are implicated by virtue of command and control responsibility," he said.

He added: "However it does not serve the interests of justice selectively to hold Taliban to account, while so many other figures accused of past crimes are happily reintegrated in Kabul."

Some U.S. military documents - select documents have been released, others were leaked - indicate that Fazl denied being a senior Taliban official and says he only commanded 50 or 60 men. But the overall picture of his role is unclear from the documents which have become public.

Richard Kammen is an Indiana lawyer who has nominally represented Fazl; the detainee did not want an attorney.

"Based upon the public information with which I'm familiar, it would appear his role in things back in 2001 has been significantly exaggerated by the government," Kammen said.

According to the documents, Fazl and Noori surrendered to Abdul Rashid Dostum, now Afghanistan's army chief of staff but at the time a powerful warlord battling against the Taliban, in northern Afghanistan in November 2001.

While the men were being held at the historic Qala-i-Jani fortress in Mazar-i-Sharif, Taliban prisoners revolted against their captors from the Northern Alliance, the anti-Taliban coalition.

"Dostum brought (Fazl and Noori) to the bunker to ask the prisoners to surrender; detainee and (Noori) refused," the detainee assessment from a 2008 document read.

Spann, a one-time Marine captain who was sent to Afghanistan as a CIA operative in the fall of 2001, was trying to locate al Qaeda operatives at the Mazar fortress among a large group of Taliban soldiers who had surrendered, according to the CIA and media reports at the time. When the Taliban prisoners began to riot - many of them were apparently armed - Spann was surrounded and killed. After a bloody, multi-day battle his body was later found booby-trapped.

Even a loose association between Fazl and Spann's death - despite the fact there is nothing to suggest he was directly involved - is likely to increase the temperature of the debate in Washington.

What could be problematic for some Afghans is Fazl's identification with the killing of civilians in central and northern Afghanistan.

"The composition and timing of any release has got to pay attention to Northern Alliance concerns," Semple said.

Buy-in from supporters of that alliance - and from those wary of a resurgent Taliban - will be key in making a peace deal stick, if one can be had.

Despite the congressional concerns that released Taliban will return to the battlefield, Semple said it was unlikely even prisoners like Fazl - who truly was a significant military figure for the Taliban - would alter that equation.

"These people are not going to make a real contribution to the Taliban war effort even if they are able to go over to Quetta and rejoin the fight. It's not risky in battlefield terms; it's only risky in U.S. political terms."

UPI:Mullah Omar never on FBI list

Mullah Omar never on FBI list

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2011/12/28/Mullah-Omar-never-on-FBI-list/UPI-15541325095177/

WASHINGTON, Dec. 28 (UPI) -- Reclusive Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar was never on the FBI's list of most wanted terrorists, an agency spokesman said.

The Express Tribune, owned by The New York Times, reported that the FBI removed Omar's name from its list of most-wanted terrorism suspects. Since the report initially surfaced, The Express Tribune removed the story from its Web site.

Omar, the Afghan Taliban's key leader since the 1990s, is listed on a separate terrorism database maintained by the U.S. State Department, which put a $10 million bounty in his head.

The FBI's list concerns terrorists allegedly linked to attacks inside the United States or those targeting U.S. national interests. An FBI spokesman was quoted by India's Economic Times as saying that factor, and the State Department listing, meant there was "no question of him being removed from our list."

Pakistan's Dawn newspaper notes the original story in The Express Tribune used unidentified officials and wasn't backed by reliable sources. The original story, Dawn reported, alleged Washington pulled Omar's name off the list to build stronger ties with the Taliban.

Washington has maintained that reaching out to moderates in the Taliban was a part of a long-term peace plan for Afghanistan.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai this week reversed course, the BBC reports, by saying he supported a Taliban office in Qatar that would serve as a base for future peace talks.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2011/12/28/Mullah-Omar-never-on-FBI-list/UPI-15541325095177/#ixzz1hxWO1lr4

GOOGLE(AP):Book: Petraeus almost quit over Afghan drawdown

Book: Petraeus almost quit over Afghan drawdown

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hBcL_r-6J4h5HIE7_6eqfluH4SIw?docId=b69103b0b42942b69e9938ae59aa01ff

By KIMBERLY DOZIER, AP Intelligence Writer – 5 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Four-star general-turned-CIA director David Petraeus almost resigned as Afghanistan war commander over President Barack Obama's decision to quickly draw down surge forces, according to a new insider's look at Petraeus' 37-year Army career.

Petraeus decided that resigning would be a "selfish, grandstanding move with huge political ramifications" and that now was "time to salute and carry on," according to a forthcoming biography.

Author and Petraeus confidante Paula Broadwell had extensive access to the general in Afghanistan and Washington for "All In: The Education of General David Petraeus," due from Penguin Press in January. The Associated Press was given an advance copy.

The book traces Petraeus' career from West Point cadet to his command of two wars deemed unwinnable: Iraq and Afghanistan. Co-authored with The Washington Post's Vernon Loeb, the nearly 400-page book is part history lesson through Petraeus' eyes, part hagiography and part defense of the counterinsurgency strategy he applied in both wars.

Critics of counterinsurgency argue the strategy has not yet proved a success, with violence spiking in Iraq after the departure of U.S. troops, and Afghan local forces deemed ill-prepared to take over by the 2014 deadline.

The book unapologetically casts Petraeus in the hero's role, as in this description of the Afghanistan campaign: "There was a new strategic force released on Kabul: Petraeus' will."

Broadwell does acknowledge that Petraeus rubs some people the wrong way.

"His critics fault him for ambition and self-promotion," she writes. But she adds that "his energy, optimism and will to win stand out more for me."

The book also is peppered with Petraeus quotes that sound like olive branches meant to soothe Obama aides who feared Petraeus would challenge their boss for the White House.

"Petraeus tried to make clear that he and Obama were in synch," Broadwell writes of Petraeus' Senate testimony on the Afghan war.

The book describes Petraeus' frustration at still being labeled an outsider from the Obama administration, even as he retired from the military at Obama's request before taking the job last summer as the CIA's 20th director.

The book depicts Petraeus' rise at an unrelenting, near-superhuman pace. He starts his career as a fiercely competitive West Point cadet known as "Peaches," where he famously wooed the school superintendent's daughter, Holly Knowlton. He went on to command the 101st Airborne Division as part of the invasion of Iraq, then masterminded the rewrite of the Army and Marine Corps' counterinsurgency training manual before returning to command the surge in Baghdad. He was then appointed to head Central Command, overseeing the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as military affairs across much of the Gulf and the Mideast.

He accepted a cut in authority and pay to lead the Afghanistan war campaign when Gen. Stanley McChrystal was forced to resign after a Rolling Stone article that "scorched the general (McChrystal) and his aides, caricaturing them as testosterone-addled frat boys as they insulted Obama" and other officials, Broadwell writes.

She describes how Petraeus' first act was to lift McChrystal's restrictions on the use of force — especially on airstrikes — if civilians were nearby.

"There is no question about our commitment to reducing civilian loss of life," Petraeus told his staff. There was, however, "a clear moral imperative to make sure we are fully supporting our troops in combat."

Broadwell adds that the problem, according to Petraeus, was less McChrystal's order than how it was even more strictly re-interpreted by lower commanders.

In her account, Petraeus also faults McChrystal for overpromising and underdelivering in places like Taliban-riddled Marjah in the south, producing months of embarrassing headlines that hurt the war effort back in Washington.

But the book also includes Petraeus' own Rolling Stone-esque moment, when he was quoted badmouthing the White House in Bob Woodward's latest book, "Obama's Wars." A frustrated Petraeus is described as telling his inner circle, on a flight after a glass of wine, that "the administration was (expletive) with the wrong guy."

"Petraeus later expressed his displeasure to all of them for betraying his confidence," Broadwell wrote. "But he knew he was ultimately responsible for making the intemperate remark," a candid admission, through Broadwell, of his lapse in judgment.

He also concedes the Afghan war is not yet won.

"He had wanted to hand (Marine Corps Gen. John) Allen ... a war that had taken a decisive turn," Broadwell writes of what had been Petraeus' goal for his successor. "He knew that, despite the hard-fought progress, that wasn't yet the case."

Yet that admission also presents a get-out clause when combined with the book's account that he considered resigning over the rapid drawdown of troops, neatly removing Petraeus from responsibility if the war goes wrong.

And the account does nothing to puncture the mythology his troops built up around him, something an early mentor, retired Gen. Jack Galvin, told Petraeus to embrace.

"They want you to be bigger than you are, so they magnify you," Galvin said in an interview with Broadwell. "Live up to it all with the highest standards of integrity. You become part of a legend."

"All In" fits neatly into that.

NEWSMAX(AP):Saudi Official: Gulf Arab States Can Offset Iran Oil

Saudi Official: Gulf Arab States Can Offset Iran Oil

Read more: Saudi Official: Gulf Arab States Can Offset Iran Oil
Important: Can you afford to Retire? Shocking Poll Results

Gulf Arab nations are prepared to offset any potential loss of Iranian oil in the world market, a senior Saudi oil official said as Iranian officials stepped up their rhetoric Wednesday about shutting off a key supply route.

The remarks from the world's largest oil producer came after Iran's vice president on Tuesday warned his country was ready to close the Strait of Hormuz — a vital waterway through which a sixth of the world's oil flows — if Western nations impose sanctions on its oil shipments.

And on Wednesday, Iranian navy chief Adm. Habibollah Sayyari, added that Iran's Navy can readily block the strait if need be. His comments to Iran's English-language state Press TV came as Iran held a 10-day drill in international waters near the strategic chokepoint.

Western nations are growing increasingly impatient with Iran over its nuclear program, and worries abound that new sanctions on the country could target its oil exports.

While the comments by Vice President Mohamed Reza Rahimi and the Iranian admiral may be little more than a warning by the Islamic Republic, they still stoked fears in the market.

A closure of the strait could temporarily cut off some oil supplies and force shippers to take longer, more expensive routes that would drive oil prices higher. It also potentially opens the door for a military confrontation with Iran that would further rattle global oil markets.

The Saudi oil ministry official told The Associated Press that OPEC kingpin Saudi Arabia and other Gulf producers were ready to step in if necessary. He did not say what other routes the Gulf nations could take to ship the oil if the strait was closed off. The official spoke late Tuesday on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue.

Theodore Karasik, an analyst at the Dubai-based Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis, said Iran would likely need to use a combination of sea mines and direct attacks on ships passing through the strait to truly close it.

"They would physically have to attack and maintain hold of that property. And everyone in the neighborhood is going to (try to) stop them," Karasik said.

Reflecting unease over the rising tensions in the Middle East, the U.S. benchmark crude futures contract for February deliver was up above $101 per barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Its London-based Brent counterpart fell slightly, but still remained above $109 per barrel on the ICE Futures exchange.

Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer, has been producing about 10 million barrels per day, leaving it with over 2 million barrels per day in spare capacity.

The oil rich kingdom is widely seen as the only producer able to offset production losses elsewhere. But others would have to also boost their output to accommodate a loss of exports from Iran, which is the world's fourth largest oil producer.

Gulf Arab oil ministers, who met in Cairo on Dec. 24, declined to comment on whether they were eying alternative routes for oil in the case that Iran closes off the Strait of Hormuz. The ministers had gathered for a meeting of the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries.

OPEC, of which both Iran and Saudi Arabia are members, agreed on Dec. 14 to set its output ceiling at about 30 million barrels per day — in line with the bloc's current production. In the OAPEC meeting in Cairo days later, the ministers appeared comfortable with that level and said future moves would be determined based on demand and supply fundamentals in the market.

Sanctions targeting Iranian oil would hit Europe and Asia markets hardest. Crude from the country does not go to the United States because of existing sanctions.

The West maintains that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, a charge the country denies. Iran says its nuclear program is purely for peaceful purposes, such as generating electricity.

Read more: Saudi Official: Gulf Arab States Can Offset Iran Oil
Important: Can you afford to Retire? Shocking Poll Results

yahoo(AP):Iran warns of closing strategic Hormuz oil route

Iran warns of closing strategic Hormuz oil route

http://news.yahoo.com/iran-warns-closing-strategic-hormuz-oil-route-144219762.html

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran's navy chief warned Wednesday that his country can easily close the strategic Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf, the passageway through which a sixth of the world's oil flows.

It was the second such warning in two days. On Tuesday, Vice President Mohamed Reza Rahimi threatened to close the strait, cutting off oil exports, if the West imposes sanctions on Iran's oil shipments.

In response, the Bahrain-based U.S. 5th Fleet's spokeswoman warned that any disruption "will not be tolerated." The spokeswoman, Lt. Rebecca Rebarich, said the U.S. Navy is "always ready to counter malevolent actions to ensure freedom of navigation."

With concern growing over a possible drop-off in Iranian oil supplies, a senior Saudi oil official said Gulf Arab nations are ready to offset any loss of Iranian crude.

That reassurance led to a drop in world oil prices. In New York, benchmark crude fell 77 cents to $100.57 a barrel in morning trading. Brent crude fell 82 cents to $108.45 a barrel in London.

"Closing the Strait of Hormuz is very easy for Iranian naval forces," Adm. Habibollah Sayyari told state-run Press TV. "Iran has comprehensive control over the strategic waterway," the navy chief said.

The threats underline Iranian concern that the West is about to impose new sanctions that could target Tehran's vital oil industry and exports.

Western nations are growing increasingly impatient with Iran over its nuclear program. The U.S. and its allies have accused Iran of using its civilian nuclear program as a cover to develop nuclear weapons. Iran has denied the charges, saying its program is geared toward generating electricity and producing medical radioisotopes to treat cancer patients.

The U.S. Congress has passed a bill banning dealings with the Iran Central Bank, and President Barack Obama has said he will sign it despite his misgivings. Critics warn it could impose hardships on U.S. allies and drive up oil prices.

The bill could impose penalties on foreign firms that do business with Iran's central bank. European and Asian nations import Iranian oil and use its central bank for the transactions.

Iran is the world's fourth-largest oil producer, with an output of about 4 million barrels of oil a day. It relies on oil exports for about 80 percent of its public revenues.

Iran has adopted an aggressive military posture in recent months in response to increasing threats from the U.S. and Israel that they may take military action to stop Iran's nuclear program.

The navy is in the midst of a 10-day drill in international waters near the strategic oil route. The exercises began Saturday and involve submarines, missile drills, torpedoes and drones. The war games cover a 1,250-mile (2,000-kilometer) stretch of sea off the Strait of Hormuz, northern parts of the Indian Ocean and into the Gulf of Aden near the entrance to the Red Sea as a show of strength and could bring Iranian ships into proximity with U.S. Navy vessels in the area.

Iranian media are describing how Iran could move to close the strait, saying the country would use a combination of warships, submarines, speed boats, anti-ship cruise missiles, torpedoes, surface-to-sea missiles and drones to stop ships from sailing through the narrow waterway.

Iran's navy claims it has sonar-evading submarines designed for shallow waters of the Persian Gulf, enabling it to hit passing enemy vessels.

A closure of the strait could temporarily cut off some oil supplies and force shippers to take longer, more expensive routes that would drive oil prices higher. It also potentially opens the door for a military confrontation that would further rattle global oil markets.

Iran claimed a victory this month when it captured an American surveillance drone almost intact. It went public with its possession of the RQ-170 Sentinel to trumpet the downing as a feat of Iran's military in a complicated technological and intelligence battle with the U.S.

American officials have said that U.S. intelligence assessments indicate the drone malfunctioned.

dailybeast:U.S., Israel Discuss Triggers for Bombing Iran’s Nuclear Infrastructure

U.S., Israel Discuss Triggers for Bombing Iran’s Nuclear Infrastructure

Dec 28, 2011 4:45 AM EST

The Obama administration is trying to assure Israel privately that it would strike Iran militarily if Tehran’s nuclear program crosses certain “red lines”—while attempting to dissuade the Israelis from acting unilaterally. Eli Lake reports exclusively.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/28/u-s-israel-discuss-triggers-for-bombing-iran-s-nuclear-infrastructure.html

When Defense Secretary Leon Panetta opined earlier this month that an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities could “consume the Middle East in a confrontation and a conflict that we would regret,” the Israelis went ballistic behind the scenes. Michael Oren, Israel’s ambassador to Washington, lodged a formal diplomatic protest known as a demarche. And the White House was thrust into action, reassuring the Israelis that the administration had its own “red lines” that would trigger military action against Iran, and that there is no need for Jerusalem to act unilaterally.

Panetta’s seemingly innocent remarks on Dec. 2 triggered the latest drama in the tinder-box relationship that the Obama administration is trying to navigate with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. With Republicans lining up to court Jewish donors and voters in America in 2012, Obama faces a tricky election-year task of ensuring Iran doesn’t acquire a nuclear bomb on his watch while keeping the Israelis from launching a preemptive strike that could inflame an already teetering Middle East.

The stakes are immensely high, and the distrust that Israelis feel toward the president remains a complicating factor. Those sentiments were laid bare in a speech Netanyahu’s minister of strategic affairs, Moshe Ya’alon, gave on Christmas Eve in Jerusalem, in which he used Panetta’s remarks to cast doubt on the U.S.’s willingness to launch its own military strike.

Ya’alon told the Anglo-Likud, an organization within Netanyahu’s Likud party that caters to native English speakers, that the Western strategy to stop Iran’s drive for nuclear weapons must include four elements, with the last resort being a military strike.

“The fourth element of this combined strategy is the credible military strike,” Ya’alon said, according to a recording of the speech provided to The Daily Beast. “There is no credible military action when we hear leaders from the West, saying, ‘this is not a real option,’ saying, ‘the price of military action is too high.’”

The lack of trust between the Israeli and American leaders on Iran has been a sub-rosa tension in the relationship since 2009. Three U.S. military officials confirm to The Daily Beast that analysts attached to the Office of the Secretary of Defense are often revising estimates trying to predict what events in Iran would trigger Prime Minister Netanyahu to authorize a military attack on the country’s nuclear infrastructure. Despite repeated requests going back to 2009, Netanyahu’s government has not agreed to ask the United States for permission or give significant advanced warning of any pending strike.

The sensitive work of trying to get both allies on the same page intensified this month. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak visited Washington last week to go over Iran issues; and the undersecretary of state for political affairs, Wendy Sherman, and a special arms control adviser to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Robert Einhorn, were in Israel last week to discuss Iran as well. Panetta for his own part has revised his tone on the question of Iran’s nuclear program, telling CBS News last week that the United States was prepared to use force against Iran to stop the country from building a nuclear weapon.

The new diplomacy has prompted new conversations between the United States and Israel over what the triggers—called “red lines” in diplomatic parlance—would be to justify a pre-emptive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Matthew Kroenig, who served as special adviser on Iran to the Office of the Secretary of Defense between July 2010 and July 2011, offered some of the possible “red lines” for a military strike in a recent Foreign Affairs article he wrote. He argued that the U.S should attack Iran’s facilities if Iran expels international nuclear weapons inspectors, begins enriching its stockpiles of uranium to weapons-grade levels of 90 percent, or installs advanced centrifuges at its main uranium-enrichment facility in Qom.

In an interview with The Daily Beast, Kroenig also noted that Iran announced in 2009 that it was set to construct 10 new uranium enrichment sites. “I doubt they are building ten new sites, but I would be surprised if Iran was not racing to build some secret enrichment facilities,” Kroenig said. “Progress on new facilities would be a major factor in our assessment of Iran’s nuclear program and shape all aspects of our policy towards this including the decision to use force.”

Until recently, current and former Obama administration officials would barely broach the topic in public, only hinting vaguely that all options are on the table to stop Iran’s program. Part of the reason for this was that Obama came into office committed to pursuing negotiations with Iran. When the diplomatic approach petered out, the White House began building international and economic pressure on Iran, often in close coordination with Israel.

All the while, secret sabotage initiatives like a computer worm known as Stuxnet that infected the Siemens-made logic boards at the Natanz centrifuge facility in Iran, continued apace. New U.S. estimates say that Stuxnet delayed Iran’s nuclear enrichment work by at most a year, despite earlier estimates that suggested the damage was more extensive.

Last week in a CBS interview, Panetta said Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon is a “red line.” White House advisers have more recently broached the subject more specifically in private conversations with outside experts on the subject.

Patrick Clawson, the director of research for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy said, “If Iran were found to be sneaking out or breaking out then the president’s advisers are firmly persuaded he would authorize the use of military force to stop it.” But Clawson added, “The response they frequently get from the foreign policy experts is considerable skepticism that this is correct, not that these people are lying to us, but rather when the occasion comes we just don’t know how the president will react.”

Henry Sokolski, the executive director the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, said “You don’t propose and go about doing an oil embargo unless you are serious about taking the next step, and the next step for the administration is clearly some form of military action, and people who have left the administration like Dennis Ross have made it clear that this is precisely what’s on this administration’s mind.”

Ross did not respond to emails and phone calls requesting comment.

Ironically, Panetta often is the official the Obama administration uses to engage Israel. “Panetta has been straightforward with the Israelis and they seem to appreciate that,” one senior administration official said. “The Israelis view Panetta as an honest broker.” In some ways that is why his remarks stung Netanyahu’s government so much.

Complicating matters, the Dec. 2 remarks also came at the same time a high-level delegation of Israeli diplomats, military officers and intelligence officials were in Washington for an annual meeting called the strategic dialogue. At the meeting, the Israeli side offered a new presentation on Iran’s nuclear program suggesting that Iran’s efforts to build secret reactors for producing nuclear fuel were further along than the United States has publicly said. Some of the intelligence was based on soil samples collected near the suspected sites.

Part of the issue now between the United States and Israel are disagreements over such intelligence. The Israelis and the U.S. both believe that Iran suspended its work on weaponization, or the research and testing on how to fit an atomic explosion inside a warhead, in 2003 shortly after the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

The Israelis, however, say the Iranians started that work again in 2005, according to Israeli officials and Ya’alon, who said this in his speech on Christmas Eve. The 2007 and 2011 U.S. national intelligence estimates for Iran say this weaponization work remains suspended.

The Israelis also say a recent document uncovered by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that shows detailed plans for constructing a “neutron initiator,” or a pellet that sits at the middle of the nuclear core and is crushed by high explosives in a nuclear explosion, is evidence that Iran is continuing its weaponization work. The latest IAEA report released in November said members states had shared intelligence alleging that Iran had conducted explosive tests associated with nuclear weapons research.

A senior administration official told The Daily Beast, “Both Americans and Israelis agree that some research and design work is probably continuing in the event the Iranians decide to move ahead with weaponization.”

The intelligence disagreement is significant in part because one of the factors in drawing up red lines on Iran’s program is how much progress Iran has made in constructing secret enrichment facilities outside of Natanz, where IAEA inspectors still monitor the centrifuge cascades. In 2009, the Obama administration exposed such a facility carved into a mountain outside of the Shiite holy city of Qom. The IAEA has chastised the Iranians for not fully disclosing their work on the Qom site until the United States forced the regime’s hand.

Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.

Eli Lake is the senior national-security correspondent for Newsweek and the Daily Beast. He previously covered national security and intelligence for the Washington Times. Lake has also been a contributing editor at The New Republic since 2008 and covered diplomacy, intelligence, and the military for the late New York Sun. He has lived in Cairo, Egypt, and traveled to war zones in Sudan, Iraq, and Gaza. He is one of the few journalists to report from all three members of President Bush's axis of evil: Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.

For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.

foxnews:Iran Reportedly Threatens to Cut Off Oil Flow Through Key Route Over Nuclear Sanctions

Iran Reportedly Threatens to Cut Off Oil Flow Through Key Route Over Nuclear Sanctions

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/12/27/iran-reportedly-threatens-to-cut-off-oil-flow-through-key-route-over-nuclear/?test=latestnews#ixzz1hqeRMmtC

Iran is threatening to stop the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz – a key world oil route in the Persian Gulf – if the West imposes more sanctions over its controversial nuclear energy program.

The sanctions stem from a U.N. watchdog report that alleges the country may be developing nuclear weapons. Iran has denied the claims, stating that its program is for peaceful purposes, Reuters reports.

"If [the West] impose sanctions on Iran's oil exports, then even one drop of oil cannot flow from the Strait of Hormuz," Iran's First Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi told Iranian news agency IRNA.

"Our enemies will give up on their plots against Iran only if we give them a firm and strong lesson," he added.

In Washington, State Department spokesman Mark Toner called the threat "bluster." He said it was "another attempt by them to distract attention from the real issue, which is their continued noncompliance with international nuclear obligations."

Rahimi has no major role in Iran's foreign or military policy.

On Monday, the Iranian navy warned off a foreign helicopter that had approached the site of a 10-day naval drill it is currently conducting in international waters beyond the Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf.

A spokesman for the drill, Rear Adm. Mahmoud Mousavi, tells state TV the helicopter left the area immediately after the warning Sunday. He gives no other details.

Iran’s navy began the 10-day drill on Saturday, and regularly holds war games. The country has also been active in fighting piracy in the Gulf of Aden.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/12/27/iran-reportedly-threatens-to-cut-off-oil-flow-through-key-route-over-nuclear/?test=latestnews#ixzz1hqeVjtW4

GOOGLE(AFP):Candidates register for Iran legislative elections

Candidates register for Iran legislative elections

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hoFUB5Qyg0CSq0saZc7Agxa0h4Rw?docId=CNG.a00b16d99e65fef7697dda52553d56c2.491

TEHRAN — Candidates started registering Saturday to stand in Iran's March legislative elections in a process vetted by the Guardian's Council, the Islamic republic's electoral watchdog.

"We recommend to candidates to come forward to serve the people and to keep the success of the Islamic revolution in mind," the ministry's website quoted Interior Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar as saying.

Registration was to continue to December 30, but the interior ministry urged would-be candidates to not wait until the last day.

The Guardians Council, made up of clerics and jurists, determines which applicants can be candidates in the election for the 290-seat parliament. It is also responsible for endorsing the final results of the March 2, 2012 poll.

Candidates are required to be Iranian citizens aged 30-75 who are loyal to the constitution, including its recognition of the absolute authority of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamanei.

Iran's current legislature is dominated by conservatives, with only around 60 reformists in the house.

The parliamentary speaker, Ali Larijani, has repeatedly criticised the policies of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, especially on the economy.

The March poll will be the first since the 2009 presidential election which saw Ahmadinejad announced the winner over opposition claims the vote was rigged, triggering widespread mass protests.

sfgate:Iran takes initial steps toward March elections

Iran takes initial steps toward March elections

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/12/24/MNA71MGPOM.DTL

Tehran -- Iran began registering potential candidates Saturday for March parliamentary elections, a vote that will be especially hard-fought between supporters and opponents of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad within the conservative camp.

The country's major reformist groups are staying out of the race, saying that basic requirements for free and fair elections have not been met.

In their absence, the poll for the 290-seat assembly is likely to pit hard-line candidates who remain staunchly loyal to the country's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei against conservatives who support Ahmadinejad.

Whatever the outcome, the vote is unlikely to change Iran's course. The country is a theocracy, and Khamenei has final say on all state matters.

The March 2 elections will be the first nationwide balloting since Ahmadinejad's disputed re-election in 2009, which the opposition said was heavily rigged. That vote set off months of near-daily protests in which hundreds of thousands took to the streets in support of opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, who they said was the rightful winner.

The wave of protests was the biggest challenge to Iran's clerical leadership since it came to power in the 1979 Islamic Revolution. But a heavy crackdown suppressed the protests, and many in the opposition were arrested. The opposition has not been able to hold a major protest since December 2009.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/12/24/MNA71MGPOM.DTL#ixzz1hq7RpTak

WASHPOST:Under Obama, an emerging global apparatus for drone killing

Under Obama, an emerging global apparatus for drone killing

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/under-obama-an-emerging-global-apparatus-for-drone-killing/2011/12/13/gIQANPdILP_story.html?tid=pm_national_pop

The Obama administration’s counterterrorism accomplishments are most apparent in what it has been able to dismantle, including CIA prisons and entire tiers of al-Qaeda’s leadership. But what the administration has assembled, hidden from public view, may be equally consequential.

In the space of three years, the administration has built an extensive apparatus for using drones to carry out targeted killings of suspected terrorists and stealth surveillance of other adversaries. The apparatus involves dozens of secret facilities, including two operational hubs on the East Coast, virtual Air Force­ ­cockpits in the Southwest and clandestine bases in at least six countries on two continents.

Other commanders in chief have presided over wars with far higher casualty counts. But no president has ever relied so extensively on the secret killing of individuals to advance the nation’s security goals.

The rapid expansion of the drone program has blurred long-standing boundaries between the CIA and the military. Lethal operations are increasingly assembled a la carte, piecing together personnel and equipment in ways that allow the White House to toggle between separate legal authorities that govern the use of lethal force.

In Yemen, for instance, the CIA and the military’s Joint Special Operations Command pursue the same adversary with nearly identical aircraft. But they alternate taking the lead on strikes to exploit their separate authorities, and they maintain separate kill lists that overlap but don’t match. CIA and military strikes this fall killed three U.S. citizens, two of whom were suspected al-Qaeda operatives.

The convergence of military and intelligence resources has created blind spots in congressional oversight. Intelligence committees are briefed on CIA operations, and JSOC reports to armed services panels. As a result, no committee has a complete, unobstructed view.

With a year to go in President Obama’s first term, his administration can point to undeniable results: Osama bin Laden is dead, the core al-Qaeda network is near defeat, and members of its regional affiliates scan the sky for metallic glints.

Those results, delivered with unprecedented precision from aircraft that put no American pilots at risk, may help explain why the drone campaign has never attracted as much scrutiny as the detention or interrogation programs of the George W. Bush era. Although human rights advocates and others are increasingly critical of the drone program, the level of public debate remains muted.

Senior Democrats barely blink at the idea that a president from their party has assembled such a highly efficient machine for the targeted killing of suspected terrorists. It is a measure of the extent to which the drone campaign has become an awkward open secret in Washington that even those inclined to express misgivings can only allude to a program that, officially, they are not allowed to discuss.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, described the program with a mixture of awe and concern. Its expansion under Obama was almost inevitable, she said, because of the technology’s growing sophistication. But the pace of its development, she said, makes it hard to predict how it might come to be used.

“What this does is it takes a lot of Americans out of harm’s way . . . without having to send in a special ops team or drop a 500-pound bomb,” Feinstein said in an interview in which she was careful to avoid explicit confirmation that the programs exist. “But I worry about how this develops. I’m worried because of what increased technology will make it capable of doing.”

Another reason for the lack of extensive debate is secrecy. The White House has refused to divulge details about the structure of the drone program or, with rare exceptions, who has been killed. White House and CIA officials declined to speak for attribution for this article.

Drone war’s evolution

Inside the White House, according to officials who would discuss the drone program only on the condition of anonymity, the drone is seen as a critical tool whose evolution was accelerating even before Obama was elected. Senior administration officials said the escalating number of strikes has created a perception that the drone is driving counterterrorism policy, when the reverse is true.

“People think we start with the drone and go from there, but that’s not it at all,” said a senior administration official involved with the program. “We’re not constructing a campaign around the drone. We’re not seeking to create some worldwide basing network so we have drone capabilities in every corner of the globe.”

Nevertheless, for a president who campaigned against the alleged counterterrorism excesses of his predecessor, Obama has emphatically embraced the post-Sept. 11 era’s signature counterterrorism tool.

When Obama was sworn into office in 2009, the nation’s clandestine drone war was confined to a single country, Pakistan, where 44 strikes over five years had left about 400 people dead, according to the New America Foundation. The number of strikes has since soared to nearly 240, and the number of those killed, according to conservative estimates, has more than quadrupled.

The number of strikes in Pakistan has declined this year, partly because the CIA has occasionally suspended them to ease tensions at moments of crisis. One lull followed the arrest of an American agency contractor who killed two Pakistani men; another came after the U.S. commando raid that killed bin Laden. The CIA’s most recent period of restraint followed U.S. military airstrikes last month that inadvertently killed 24 Pakistani soldiers along the Afghan border. At the same time, U.S. officials have said that the number of “high-value” al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan has dwindled to two.

Administration officials said the expansion of the program under Obama has largely been driven by the timeline of the drone’s development. Remotely piloted aircraft were used during the Clinton and Bush administrations, but only in recent years have they become advanced and abundant enough to be deployed on such a large scale.

The number of drone aircraft has exploded in the past three years. A recent study by the Congressional Budget Office counted 775 Predators, Reapers and other medium- and long-range drones in the U.S. inventory, with hundreds more in the pipeline.

About 30 of those aircraft have been allocated to the CIA, officials said. But the agency has a separate category that doesn’t show up in any public accounting, a fleet of stealth drones that were developed and acquired under a highly compartmentalized CIA program created after the Sept. 11 attacks. The RQ-170 model that recently crashed in Iran exposed the agency’s use of stealth drones to spy on that country’s nuclear program, but the planes have also been used in other countries.

The escalation of the lethal drone campaign under Obama was driven to an extent by early counterterrorism decisions. Shuttering the CIA’s detention program and halting transfers to Guantanamo Bay left few options beyond drone strikes or detention by often unreliable allies.

Key members of Obama’s national security team came into office more inclined to endorse drone strikes than were their counterparts under Bush, current and former officials said.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, former CIA director and current Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, and counterterrorism adviser John O. Brennan seemed always ready to step on the accelerator, said a former official who served in both administrations and was supportive of the program. Current administration officials did not dispute the former official’s characterization of the internal dynamics.

The only member of Obama’s team known to have formally raised objections to the expanding drone campaign is Dennis Blair, who served as director of national intelligence.

During a National Security Council meeting in November 2009, Blair sought to override the agenda and force a debate on the use of drones, according to two participants.

Blair has since articulated his concerns publicly, calling for a suspension of unilateral drone strikes in Pakistan, which he argues damage relations with that country and kill mainly mid-level militants. But he now speaks as a private citizen. His opinion contributed to his isolation from Obama’s inner circle, and he was fired last year.

Obama himself was “oddly passive in this world,” the former official said, tending to defer on drone policy to senior aides whose instincts often dovetailed with the institutional agendas of the CIA and JSOC.

The senior administration official disputed that characterization, saying that Obama doesn’t weigh in on every operation but has been deeply involved in setting the criteria for strikes and emphasizing the need to minimize collateral damage.

“Everything about our counterterrorism operations is about carrying out the guidance that he’s given,” the official said. “I don’t think you could have the president any more involved.”

Yemen convergence

Yemen has emerged as a crucible of convergence, the only country where both the CIA and JSOC are known to fly armed drones and carry out strikes. The attacks are aimed at al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, a Yemen-based affiliate that has eclipsed the terrorist network’s core as the most worrisome security threat.

From separate “ops centers” at Langley and Fort Bragg, N.C., the agency and JSOC share intelligence and coordinate attacks, even as operations unfold. U.S. officials said the CIA recently intervened in a planned JSOC strike in Yemen, urging its military counterpart to hold its fire because the intended target was not where the missile was aimed. Subsequent intelligence confirmed the agency’s concerns, officials said.

But seams in the collaboration still show.

After locating Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen this fall, the CIA quickly assembled a fleet of armed drones to track the alleged al-Qaeda leader until it could take a shot.

The agency moved armed Predators from Pakistan to Yemen temporarily, and assumed control of others from JSOC’s arsenal, to expand surveillance of Awlaki, a U.S.-born cleric connected to terrorism plots, including the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day 2009.

The choreography of the strike, which involved four drones, was intricate. Two Predators pointed lasers at Awlaki’s vehicle, and a third circled to make sure that no civilians wandered into the cross hairs. Reaper drones, which are larger than Predators and can carry more missiles, have become the main shooters in most strikes.

On Sept. 30, Awlaki was killed in a missile strike carried out by the CIA under Title 50 authorities — which govern covert intelligence operations — even though officials said it was initially unclear whether an agency or JSOC drone had delivered the fatal blow. A second U.S. citizen, an al-Qaeda propagandist who had lived in North Carolina, was among those killed.

The execution was nearly flawless, officials said. Nevertheless, when a similar strike was conducted just two weeks later, the entire protocol had changed. The second attack, which killed Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, was carried out by JSOC under Title 10 authorities that apply to the use of military force.

When pressed on why the CIA had not pulled the trigger, U.S. officials said it was because the main target of the Oct. 14 attack, an Egyptian named Ibrahim al-Banna, was not on the agency’s kill list. The Awlaki teenager, a U.S. citizen with no history of involvement with al-Qaeda, was an unintended casualty.

In interviews, senior U.S. officials acknowledged that the two kill lists don’t match, but offered conflicting explanations as to why.

Three senior U.S. officials said the lists vary because of the divergent legal authorities. JSOC’s list is longer, the officials said, because the post-Sept. 11, 2001, Authorization for Use of Military Force, as well as a separate executive order, gave JSOC latitude to hunt broadly defined groups of al-Qaeda fighters, even outside conventional war zones. The CIA’s lethal-action authorities, based in a presidential “finding” that has been modified since Sept. 11, were described as more narrow.

But others directly involved in the drone campaign offered a simpler explanation: Because the CIA had only recently resumed armed drone flights over Yemen, the agency hadn’t had as much time as JSOC to compile its kill list. Over time, officials said, the agency would catch up.

The administration official who discussed the drone program declined to address the discrepancies in the kill lists, except to say: “We are aiming and striving for alignment. That is an ideal to be achieved.”

Divided oversight

Such disparities often elude Congress, where the structure of oversight committees has failed to keep pace with the way military and intelligence operations have converged.

Within 24 hours of every CIA drone strike, a classified fax machine lights up in the secure spaces of the Senate intelligence committee, spitting out a report on the location, target and result.

The outdated procedure reflects the agency’s effort to comply with Title 50 requirements that Congress be provided with timely, written notification of covert action overseas. There is no comparable requirement in Title 10, and the Senate Armed Services Committee can go days before learning the details of JSOC strikes.

Neither panel is in a position to compare the CIA and JSOC kill lists or even arrive at a comprehensive understanding of the rules by which each is assembled.

The senior administration official said the gap is inadvertent. “It’s certainly not something where the goal is to evade oversight,” the official said. A senior Senate aide involved in reviewing military drone strikes said that the blind spot reflects a failure by Congress to adapt but that “we will eventually catch up.”

The disclosure of these operations is generally limited to relevant committees in the House and Senate and sometimes only to their leaders. Those briefed must abide by restrictions that prevent them from discussing what they have learned with those who lack the requisite security clearances. The vast majority of lawmakers receive scant information about the administration’s drone program.

The Senate intelligence committee, which is wrapping up a years-long investigation of the Bush-era interrogation program, has not initiated such an examination of armed drones. But officials said their oversight of the program has been augmented significantly in the past couple of years, with senior staff members now making frequent and sometimes unannounced visits to the CIA “ops center,” reviewing the intelligence involved in errant strikes, and visiting counterterrorism operations sites overseas.

Feinstein acknowledged concern with emerging blind spots.

“Whenever this is used, particularly in a lethal manner, there ought to be careful oversight, and that ought to be by civilians,” Feinstein said. “What we have is a very unique battlefield weapon. You can’t stop the technology from improving, so you better start thinking about how you monitor it.”

Increasing reach

The return of armed CIA Predators to Yemen — after carrying out a single strike there in 2002 — was part of a significant expansion of the drones’ geographic reach.

Over the past year, the agency has erected a secret drone base on the Arabian Peninsula. The U.S. military began flying Predators and Reapers from bases in Seychelles and Ethi­o­pia, in addition to JSOC’s long-standing drone base in Djibouti.

Senior administration officials said the sprawling program comprises distinct campaigns, each calibrated according to where and against whom the aircraft and other counterterrorism weapons are used.

In Pakistan, the CIA has carried out 239 strikes since Obama was sworn in, and the agency continues to have wide latitude to launch attacks.

In Yemen, there have been about 15 strikes since Obama took office, although it is not clear how many were carried out by drones because the U.S. military has also used conventional aircraft and cruise missiles.

Somalia, where the militant group al-Shabab is based, is surrounded by American drone installations. And officials said that JSOC has repeatedly lobbied for authority to strike al-Shabab training camps that have attracted some Somali Americans.

But the administration has allowed only a handful of strikes, out of concern that a broader campaign could turn al-Shabab from a regional menace into an adversary determined to carry out attacks on U.S. soil.

The plans are constantly being adjusted, officials said, with the White House holding strategy sessions on Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia two or three times a month. Administration officials point to the varied approach as evidence of its restraint.

“Somalia would be the easiest place to go in in an undiscriminating way and do drone strikes because there’s no host government to get” angry, the senior administration official said. “But that’s certainly not the way we’re approaching it.”

Drone strikes could resume, however, if factions of al-Shabab’s leadership succeed in expanding the group’s agenda.

“That’s an ongoing calculation because there’s an ongoing debate inside the senior leadership of al-Shabab,” the senior administration official said. “It certainly would not bother us if potential terrorists took note of the fact that we tend to go after those who go after us.”

Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.