Global Warming Nonsense

In an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, Roger Bate (American Enterprise Institute, Washington D.C.) and Paul Reiter (Institut Pasteur, Paris) discuss myths regarding the relationship between global warming and public health concerns such as the spread of malaria.

Read full story.

German Spies Caught Reading Journalist’s E-Mails

German broadcaster Deutsche Welle reports on allegations that Germany’s foreign intelligence service BND spied on the email correspondence of Susanne Koelbl, a journalist at the Hamburg-based weekly Der Spiegel. The intelligence agency has admitted to, and apologized for the incident.

Read full story.

United States presidential election, 2008: how technology changed old-style political conventions

Michael Barone wrote in the last issue of USA Today about the impact of cellphone and BlackBerry on politics and especially the U.S. elections:

“Democrats are wringing their hands about the convention carnage that could visit the Mile High City. Yet in reality, we probably won’t get that 20th-century old-style convention. Why not? 21st-century technology will cut them off at the pass.”

Read full story.

Littoral Combat Ship, a new generation of U.S. Navy ships

A briefing from the Rand Corporation examines the U.S. Navy’s first modular warship, the Littoral Combat Ship, and offers suggestions for how to use the vessel strategically.

Read full story.

CIA director believes Iran still pursuing nuclear bomb

The director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Michael V. Hayden, has said that he believes Iran is still pursuing nuclear weapons, even though a US intelligence report had reached a different assessment last year.

Asked on NBC’s ‘Meet the Press’ whether he thought Iran was trying to develop a nuclear weapon, Hayden answered “yes,” adding that his assessment was not based on “court-of-law stuff. . . . This is Mike Hayden looking at the body of evidence.”

He said his conviction stemmed largely from Iran’s willingness to endure international sanctions rather than comply with demands for nuclear inspections and abandon its efforts to develop technologies that can produce fissile material.

“Why would the Iranians be willing to pay the international tariff they appear willing to pay for what they’re doing now if they did not have, at a minimum … the desire to keep the option open to develop a nuclear weapon and, perhaps even more so, that they’ve already decided to do that?” he said.

A report last December by the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), also signed off by the CIA, concluded that Iran had suspended its nuclear weapons work in 2003, soon after the United States invaded Iraq, and appeared not to have restarted it. Hayden is the latest senior Bush administration official to question the findings of the NIE.

United States presidential election, 2008: Rethinking President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative

In an op-ed in The Boston Globe, Democratic Representative of Massachusetts John Tierney, and military expert and author of The Edge of Disaster Stephen Flynn write that the best way to mark the anniversary of President Reagan’s ‘Star Wars’ speech would be a debate about its relevance post-September 11.

“The silver anniversary of President Ronald Reagan’s ‘Star Wars’ speech came and went quietly this week. However, the research program to develop ballistic missile defense still remains a big-ticket item a quarter-century later.

For 2009, the White House is requesting $12.3 billion to develop ballistic missile defense. This is on top of the more than $120 billion taxpayers have already spent since 1985 to develop a system that still has yet to be realistically tested and may never be operationally effective.

Over the past decade, security experts have warned that the most likely way a nuclear weapon will find its way into the United States is hidden in the cargo of a ship or smuggled across US borders.”

Read full story.

***

Address to the Nation on National Security by President Ronald Reagan, March 23, 1983

My fellow Americans, 

The calls for cutting back the defense budget come in nice, simple arithmetic. They’re the same kind of talk that led the democracies to neglect their defenses in the 1930’s and invited the tragedy of World War II. We must not let that grim chapter of history repeat itself through apathy or neglect.

This is why I’m speaking to you tonight - to urge you to tell your Senators and Congressmen that you know we must continue to restore our military strength. If we stop in midstream, we will send a signal of decline, of lessened will, to friends and adversaries alike.

Free people must voluntarily, through open debate and democratic means, meet the challenge that totalitarians pose by compulsion. It’s up to us, in our time, to choose and choose wisely between the hard but necessary task of preserving peace and freedom and the temptation to ignore our duty and blindly hope for the best while the enemies of freedom grow stronger day by day.

The solution is well within our grasp. But to reach it, there is simply no alternative but to continue this year, in this budget, to provide the resources we need to preserve the peace and guarantee our freedom.

Now, thus far tonight I’ve shared with you my thoughts on the problems of national security we must face together. My predecessors in the Oval Office have appeared before you on other occasions to describe the threat posed by Soviet power and have proposed steps to address that threat. But since the advent of nuclear weapons, those steps have been increasingly directed toward deterrence of aggression through the promise of retaliation.

This approach to stability through offensive threat has worked. We and our allies have succeeded in preventing nuclear war for more than three decades. in recent months, however, my advisers, including in particular the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have underscored the necessity to break out of a future that relies solely on offensive retaliation for our security.

Over the course of these discussions, I’ve become more and more deeply convinced that the human spirit must be capable of rising above dealing with other nations and human beings by threatening their existence. Feeling this way, I believe we must thoroughly examine every opportunity for reducing tensions and for introducing greater stability into the strategic calculus on both sides.

One of the most important contributions we can make is, of course, to lower the level of all arms, and particularly nuclear arms. We’re engaged right now in several negotiations with the Soviet Union to bring about a mutual reduction of weapons. I will report to you a week from tomorrow my thoughts on that score. But let me just say, I’m totally committed to this course.

If the Soviet Union will join with us in our effort to achieve major arms reduction, we will have succeeded in stabilizing the nuclear balance. Nevertheless, it will still be necessary to rely on the specter of retaliation, on mutual threat. And that’s a sad commentary on the human condition. Wouldn’t it be better to save lives than to avenge them? Are we not capable of demonstrating our peaceful intentions by applying all our abilities and our ingenuity to achieving a truly lasting stability? I think we are. Indeed, we must.

After careful consultation with my advisers, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I believe there is a way. Let me share with you a vision of the future which offers hope. It is that we embark on a program to counter the awesome Soviet missile threat with measures that are defensive. Let us turn to the very strengths in technology that spawned our great industrial base and that have given us the quality of life we enjoy today.

What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that their security did not rest upon the threat of instant U.S. retaliation to deter a Soviet attack, that we could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies?

I know this is a formidable, technical task, one that may not be accomplished before the end of this century.

Yet, current technology has attained a level of sophistication where it’s reasonable for us to begin this effort. It will take years, probably decades of effort on many fronts. There will be failures and setbacks, just as there will be successes and breakthroughs. And as we proceed, we must remain constant in preserving the nuclear deterrent and maintaining a solid capability for flexible response. But isn’t it worth every investment necessary to free the world from the threat of nuclear war? We know it is.

In the meantime, we will continue to pursue real reductions in nuclear arms, negotiating from a position of strength that can be ensured only by modernizing our strategic forces. At the same time, we must take steps to reduce the risk of a conventional military conflict escalating to nuclear war by improving our nonnuclear capabilities.

America does possess - now - the technologies to attain very significant improvements in the effectiveness of our conventional, nonnuclear forces. Proceeding boldly with these new technologies, we can significantly reduce any incentive that the Soviet Union may have to threaten attack against the United States or its allies.

As we pursue our goal of defensive technologies, we recognize that our allies rely upon our strategic offensive power to deter attacks against them. Their vital interests and ours are inextricably linked. Their safety and ours are one. And no change in technology can or will alter that reality. We must and shall continue to honor our commitments.

I clearly recognize that defensive systems have limitations and raise certain problems and ambiguities. If paired with offensive systems, they can be viewed as fostering an aggressive policy, and no one wants that. But with these considerations firmly in mind, I call upon the scientific community in our country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace, to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.

Tonight, consistent with our obligations of the ABM treaty and recognizing the need for closer consultation with our allies, I’m taking an important first step. I am directing a comprehensive and intensive effort to define a long-term research and development program to begin to achieve our ultimate goal of eliminating the threat posed by strategic nuclear missiles. This could pave the way for arms control measures to eliminate the weapons themselves. We seek neither military superiority nor political advantage. Our only purpose - one all people share - is to search for ways to reduce the danger of nuclear war.

My fellow Americans, tonight we’re launching an effort which holds the promise of changing the course of human history. There will be risks, and results take time.

But I believe we can do it. As we cross this threshold, I ask for your prayers and your support.

Thank you, good night, and God bless you.

The U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on Iran and Its Aftermath

An important discussion of the U.S. National Intelligence Report (NIE) report and its aftermath by three Israeli intelligence experts: Aharon Ze’evi Farkash, former Head of Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) Military Intelligence; Yaakov Amidror, former Head of Research and Assessment, IDF Military Intelligence; and Yossi Kuperwasser, former Head of Research and Assessment, IDF Military Intelligence.

Between 2003 and 2005, the Iranians refrained from any nuclear activity under the influence of the impression created by America’s pre-emptive policies in the region, which served as the main instrument that enabled the Europeans to force Iran to postpone uranium conversion and enrichment. But when the Iranians realized in 2005 that there was no actual threat, they decided to start conversion and then enrichment. As a result, the Iranians already have prepared enough uranium hexafluoride gas (UF6) for more than ten atomic bombs.

The U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran and its Aftermath: A Roundtable of Israeli Experts - Jerusalem Council for Public Affairs, March-April 2008

The opening sentence of the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of November 2007 stated: “We judge with high confidence that in Fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.” This conclusion put the U.S. intelligence community at odds with Israel, which believes that Iran only engaged in a temporary halt in 2003, and since that time the Iranian nuclear weapons program had been resumed.

Israel is not alone in disagreeing with the conclusion of the NIE. Already in December, just after the NIE’s release, Britain’s Daily Telegraph reported London’s response with the headline: “Britain: Iran ‘Hoodwinked’ CIA Over Nuclear Plans,” stating that Britain’s intelligence chiefs had “grave doubts that Iran…mothballed its nuclear weapons program.”

It was in the context of the Western detection of its nuclear program and the Iraq War that led Iran to halt its nuclear program across the board in 2003, with the exception of its surface-to-surface missile program. But prior to that freeze, Iran had been developing a military nuclear capability under a broad civilian cover for fifteen years.

The Iranian ballistic missile program is part of the Iranian nuclear weapons program; Iran does not have a civilian space program and it is doubtful that it would develop ballistic missiles with a range of thousands of kilometers in order to carry conventional warheads alone.

Between 2003 and 2005, the Iranians refrained from any nuclear activity under the influence of the impression created by America’s pre-emptive policies in the region, which served as the main instrument that enabled the Europeans to force Iran to postpone uranium conversion and enrichment. But when the Iranians realized in 2005 that there was no actual threat behind their fears of U.S. pre-emption, they decided to start conversion and then enrichment. As a result, the Iranians already have prepared enough uranium hexafluoride gas (UF6) for more than ten atomic bombs.

Maj.-Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror: The NIE - More Confusion than Clarity

The U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of November 2007, entitled Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities, has created more confusion than clarity. To many observers who heard news reports when it was first released, it appeared that the U.S. intelligence community had concluded that there was no longer any nuclear threat from Iran.

That impression was fostered by the opening sentence of the report: “We judge with high confidence that in Fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.” Moving beyond the NIE’s first sentence, however, there are other conclusions that seem to suggest the very opposite.

It might be suggested that the seemingly contradictory statements in the NIE are due to the fact that it is a product of sixteen different agencies that belong to the U.S. intelligence community. But this would be too simple an explanation. There must have been a consensus of those drafting the report that caused them to lead with the idea that in 2003 Iran was no longer developing nuclear weapons. This conclusion put the U.S. intelligence community at odds with Israel, whose defense minister, Ehud Barak, stated openly that Iran only engaged in a temporary halt in 2003, and since that time the Iranian nuclear weapons program had been resumed.

It was not the first time that the U.S. and Israel disagreed over their assessments about Iran. In 1995, I was the head of the Research and Assessment Division of IDF Military Intelligence and we found the first signs that the Iranians were going nuclear. In those days, we thought the most important action that we could take was to brief our counterparts in Washington and convince them that this was a danger soon to be faced by the entire Free World. It was not easy to convince them that this subject should be on the table. We sought to do so at a meeting in Washington where a very well-known ambassador represented the U.S. side and I tried to convince the Americans that the Iranians had indeed decided to go nuclear.

At the end of our discussions, the U.S. side gave us the impression that they were thinking to themselves: “After we Americans finish off Iraq as an enemy of the State of Israel, then you Israelis are going to build a new threat because you cannot live without such a threat.” During my more than four years as the head of the Assessment Division, this was one of my great failures. It took American experts another two years, until 1997, for the American intelligence community to understand that the Iranians were going nuclear.

Today, Israel is not alone in disagreeing with the conclusion of the NIE. Already in December, just after the NIE’s release, Britain’s Daily Telegraph reported London’s response with the headline: “Britain: Iran ‘Hoodwinked’ CIA Over Nuclear Plans,” stating that Britain’s intelligence chiefs had “grave doubts that Iran…mothballed its nuclear weapons program.”

French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel also went out of their way to state that Iran still remained a danger and pressure had to be kept up over its nuclear program.

Even officials at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), who were traditionally more forgiving about Iranian behavior than the U.S., expressed doubts about the NIE right after it was released. One official stated: “We don’t buy the American analysis 100 percent. We are not that generous with Iran.”

While we are dealing only with the public version of the NIE, we understand that there is no fundamental difference between this version and the unpublished version. For this reason, it is very important that the NIE be carefully analyzed. There is no argument about the civilian side: Iranian enrichment efforts continue. But what we need to focus upon are Iran’s purely military capabilities. We believe that this report of the U.S. intelligence community was a huge mistake from both a methodological and professional point of view. I would not have permitted such a report to be issued by Israeli Military Intelligence while containing such holes in its arguments.

It is noteworthy how Admiral Mike McConnell, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, tried to correct the impression created by the NIE in his remarks to the Senate Intelligence Committee in February 2008: “The only thing they’ve halted was nuclear weapons design, which is probably the least significant part of the program.”

For a detailed look at the NIE, Maj.-Gen. (res.) Aharon Ze’evi Farkash, who served as head of Israeli Military Intelligence from 2001 to 2006, offers his own insights into the evolution of the Iranian nuclear program.

Maj.-Gen. (res.) Aharon Ze’evi Farkash: No Evidence that Iran Did Not Renew Nuclear Weaponization Work

In August 2002, Iran understood that the Western countries - the U.S., the EU-3 (France, Germany, and the United Kingdom), and Israel - had obtained hard information that Iran was conducting a clandestine nuclear weapons program. Shortly thereafter, in March 2003, the regional environment quickly became dominated by the outbreak of the Iraq War and the downfall of Saddam Hussein. By July 2003, the Iranians opened negotiations with the EU-3, which sought to halt the Iranian nuclear program. At the end of the same year, Qaddafi stopped Libya’s nuclear military plans.

It was in the context of the Western detection of its nuclear program and the Iraq War that led Iran to halt its nuclear program across the board in 2003, with the exception of its surface-to-surface missile program. But prior to that freeze, Iran was developing a military nuclear capability under a broad civilian cover. The participants were the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) and the Iranian Ministry of Defense (MOD).

A nuclear weapons program is comprised of three key elements:

- A delivery system, requiring the development of surface-to-surface missiles.

- The accumulation of fissile material through uranium enrichment and plutonium production.

- Weaponization - preparing a warhead from the fissile material and fitting it into a missile.

Several of these elements in the Iranian nuclear program were in fact soon resumed.

At the beginning of 2003, the Iranians were concentrating all their efforts on the centrifuge program at their facility in Natanz, where they had managed to build a cascade with 164 centrifuges. Today, they have reached a capacity of 3,000 centrifuges. If parts of the nuclear weapons program were restarted, there is every reason to believe that all parts were reactivated as well. Indeed, Iran’s development of surface-to-surface missiles had never ceased, even when uranium enrichment had been temporarily halted.

At the same time, the Iranians were busy with procurement activities, with a focus on obtaining all the materials and components needed for uranium enrichment. At the beginning of 2004, we know that Iran was attempting to procure fast high voltage switches suitable for a nuclear weapons system. The Iranian Ministry of Defense was also supervising the mining of uranium in southeast Iran.

According to information provided by the Iranian opposition, Lavizan was one of the sites that dealt with Iran’s weaponization program, and the IAEA requested to visit Lavizan in September-October 2003. By March 2004, the Lavizan facility had disappeared; it had been dismantled. When Iran renewed its nuclear enrichment program in January 2005, there is no evidence that they did not renew the work of the weaponization group at the same time.

Developing the Missiles to Deliver a Nuclear Payload

Together with developing a nuclear weapon, Iran has been developing an appropriate long-range delivery system. Its Shihab 3 missile can carry a warhead of approximately 700 kilograms over a distance of 1,300-1,500 kilometers. These missiles are under the command of the Revolutionary Guard, not the Iranian military. The Revolutionary Guard reports to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and it is not under the authority of President Ahmadinejad. Iranian missile exercises showed that the missiles are aimed at both Tel Aviv and Riyadh.

Iran is continuing to develop even longer-range missiles with a range of 3,500-5,000 kilometers that could reach all of Europe (perhaps with the exception of Portugal), while those with a range of 6,000-10,000 kilometers could reach the east coast of the U.S. The original missile technology was delivered to the Iranians by North Korea, and the Iranians have made substantial efforts to improve their range. As we know, the Iranian ballistic missile program is part of the Iranian nuclear weapons program; Iran does not have a civilian space program and it is doubtful that it would develop ballistic missiles with a range of thousands of kilometers in order to carry conventional warheads alone.

European Reaction to the Iranian Missile Threat

As Director of IDF Military Intelligence, I briefed leaders in Europe about Iran’s nuclear military plans and met personally with decision-makers in Italy, France, the UK, and other European countries over a period of six months. Most of the European leaders understood the data about Iran’s nuclear plans, but their response was not encouraging.

The Europeans said they did not understand why Israel was trying to scare them with a nuclear military threat since they had lived with such a threat during the Cold War. They were also of the opinion that, in the end, if Iran did achieve a nuclear military capability, the U.S. and Israel would solve the problem, and I believe this remains their attitude today.

What Does the NIE Say?

The U.S. National Intelligence Estimate summary report says that in 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program, but the NIE’s headline finding is written in such a way that guarantees that its other conclusions will be misunderstood.

In Paragraph C, the NIE summary states that Iran made significant progress in 2007 installing centrifuges at Natanz. Based upon this finding, Israeli military intelligence estimates that late 2009 is the earliest possible date that Iran will be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon.

Paragraph D of the NIE says that Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons if a decision is made to do so. Thus, Iran’s continuing civilian uranium enrichment program could produce enough fissile materials by the end of 2009 or 2010.

Paragraph F of the NIE notes: We assess that Iran probably would use covert facilities rather than its declared nuclear sites for the production of highly enriched uranium for a weapon.

Finally, Paragraph H of the NIE states: We assess that Iran has the scientific, technical, and industrial capacity to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so.

All of this means that the Iranians will have enough fissile material no later than 2010 and that if they decide to build a nuclear military plant, no one can promise that we or the Americans will know about it, if they indeed actually did halt their nuclear weapons program in 2003. It would be a mistake to conclude that Iranian nuclear weapons ambitions have been halted on the basis of reading the first sentence of the NIE alone.

In my view, any distinction between Iranian military and civilian nuclear programs is artificial. The enrichment of uranium, critical to both civilian and military uses, is continuing. Once they have enough enriched uranium, they will be 3-6 months away from building a nuclear bomb if they decide to do so.

Pressure on Iran Dissipates after the NIE

After the NIE report was released, the declaration that Tehran had halted its nuclear weapons program was reported by all of the world’s major media without any contradicting information. Soon thereafter, Russia and Iran reached agreement on a schedule to complete the plutonium-based nuclear facility in Bushehr.

This was followed by an announcement that China and Iran had signed a $2.3 billion economic agreement related to energy that had been on hold for more than half a year. Prior to this, China had come to join the economic pressure on Iran. In addition, Ahmadinejad formally visited Riyadh, and a new Egyptian-Iranian relationship began to develop for the first time since Sadat’s assassination.

The NIE has clearly weakened international support for tougher sanctions against Iran, and it closes off any military option for the Bush administration. The NIE has sent a signal to Tehran that the danger of external sanctions has ended. Furthermore, the NIE has weakened Turkey and the moderate Sunni countries in the region that were seeking to build a coalition against Iran. So, ironically, the NIE opens the way for Iran to achieve its military nuclear ambitions without any interference.

Brig.-Gen. (res.) Yossi Kuperwasser: The NIE, A Very Poor Intelligence Product

The main problem with the NIE is the phrasing of its message. It’s a very poor intelligence product because it is not only a matter of what you say but also how you say it and what you don’t say.

One of the major issues that arise from the report is its admission that the Iranians had a nuclear weaponization project for fifteen years, from the end of the 1980s until 2003. How far did the Iranians go in those fifteen years?

How many obstacles do they still face? By saying that if the Iranians have the ability to enrich uranium, they can have a bomb within a very short period of time, the NIE actually alludes to the idea that the Iranians have already gone a very long way in the context of weaponization. So why doesn’t the NIE say so explicitly? The first thing an intelligence organization has to know is to ask the right questions, but this question is not asked, nor is it answered.

Furthermore, it is a totally wrong approach to make this differentiation between the military and the civilian parts of the Iranian nuclear program. It’s all one program. Part of it can be justified by civilian needs, so the Iranians do it under civilian cover. Part of it cannot be justified by civilian needs, but it is all part of the same program, and the part of the program that is designated to develop the fissile material is ongoing.

Between 2003 and 2005, the Iranians refrained from any nuclear activity. They were under the influence of the impression created by America’s pre-emptive policies in the region in Iraq and Afghanistan, which served as the main instrument that enabled the Europeans to force Iran to make a deal and to postpone uranium conversion and enrichment. But when the Iranians realized in 2005 that there was no actual threat behind their fears of U.S. pre-emption, they decided to take the risk and start conversion and then enrichment.

In other words, once the U.S. appeared to be entangled in Iraq, a situation to which the Iranians themselves made no small contribution, Tehran could return to vigorously advancing its nuclear program. The fact is that Iran has moved forward with conversion. As a result, the Iranians already have prepared, through the conversion process, enough uranium hexafluoride gas (UF6) for more than ten atomic bombs.

Iran has moved forward with enrichment too. There is a debate in the NIE report over where exactly the Iranians are in their enrichment R&D. Some claim that maybe they have not yet reached the point where they can really perform enrichment in a robust way and not worry about failing. But there’s no doubt that they have spent at least two years on R&D.

If we believe the NIE judgment about their technical capabilities, then the Iranians are not far away from the point where they will have the ability to produce an ample supply of enriched uranium in order to make a bomb. Bearing in mind that they probably have everything else they need to proceed, the Iranians will be able to do whatever is still needed to finish their weaponization activities without being worried about a military move. Only such a military move can really stop them right now. So we see the harsh repercussions of the very poor work that the American intelligence agencies have done.

* * *

About the authors

Maj.-Gen. (res.) Aharon Ze’evi Farkash served as Director of IDF Military Intelligence from 2001 to 2006. He previously served as Head of the Technology and Logistics Division, and as Deputy Head of the IDF Planning Division.

Maj.-Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror, Program Director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and Vice President of the Lander Institute in Jerusalem, is former commander of the IDF’s National Defense College and the IDF Staff and Command College. He is also the former head of the Research and Assessment Division of Military Intelligence, with special responsibility for preparing the National Intelligence Assessment. In addition, he served as the military secretary of the Minister of Defense.

Brig.-Gen. (res.) Yossi Kuperwasser served in a number of senior roles in the IDF, most recently as head of the Research and Assessment Division of Military Intelligence. Previously, he was the senior intelligence officer of the IDF Central Command.

France’s Nuclear Diplomacy

Michelle Smith and Charles Ferguson evaluate Sarkozy’s nuclear deals in the Middle East, in the International Herald Tribune.

“The recent war games in the Gulf with France, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are connected to French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s nuclear diplomacy. Sarkozy has been leveraging France’s leading civilian nuclear technology to gain diplomatic, commercial and military advantages with countries in the Middle East, as well parts of Africa and Asia. In response, nonproliferation experts have voiced their unease at the idea of exporting potentially nuclear bomb-usable technologies to proliferation-prone regions.”

Read full story.

Gehirntraining: Lebenslanges Lernen ist wie eine Muskelübung

Im Rahmen der Serie zur Trainierbarkeit des Gehirns der Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung erläutert die Sprach- und Kognitionsforscherin Prof. Dr. Angela D. Friederici die neuen Möglichkeiten der Neuroplastizität im Zusammenhang von Lernprozessen.

“Es gibt den Begriff lebenslanges Lernen. Wenn man das Gehirn am Lernen hält, dann ist es später, auch im Alter und unter komplexen Einflüssen, viel flexibler als viele denken. Aber das hat natürlich auch Grenzen. Was die Trainierbarkeit angeht, ist unser Gehirn vielleicht mit einem Muskel zu vergleichen. Ein Muskel, der lange nicht benutzt worden ist, wird natürlich schwerer zu reaktivieren sein.”

Vollständiges Gespräch lesen.

Made in Israel – Highlights der israelischen Sicherheitsindustrie

Der Heimatschutz hat in Israel schon vor der Staatsgründung höchste Priorität besessen. Israelische Sicherheitssysteme wurden für ein Land entwickelt, dass ständig um seine Existenz zu kämpfen und wachsam gegenüber andauernden Bedrohungen zu sein gezwungen gewesen ist. Aus dieser einzigartigen Perspektive heraus hat die israelische Sicherheitsindustrie eine beispiellose Fachkompetenz und eine weltweite Reputation in der Entwicklung von Spitzenprodukten erlangt.

Die Ereignisse des 11. September 2001 haben die globale Perspektive auf den Terrorismus verändert. Überall auf der Welt suchen Länder nun nach Mitteln, um der Bedrohung durch den Terrorismus zu begegnen, und viele der nötigen Technologien können von Israels Sicherheits- und Heimatschutzindustrie geliefert werden. Hunderte von israelischen Unternehmen bieten ausgeklügelte Sicherheitslösungen an - von automatischen Spracherkennungssystemen und Fernsensoren bis hin zu Videolokalisierung, Frühwarngeräten und taktischen Bildbearbeitungssystemen.

Gegenwärtig arbeiten in Israel 25 000 Menschen in 450 sicherheits- und heimatschutzbezogenen Unternehmen, von denen mehr als 300 ins Ausland exportieren. Die Exporte im nichtmilitärischen Bereich beliefen sich dabei im Jahr 2005 auf eine Milliarde Dollar und zwei Milliarden Dollar im IT-Sektor.

Über die Jahre hat sich Israel bei der Landesverteidigung auf seine eigenen Ressourcen verlassen müssen. Für ein kleines Land mit einer Bevölkerung von etwa sieben Millionen Menschen hat es eine unverhältnismäßig große Zahl von militärischen Projekten entwickelt und hergestellt, darunter Satelliten, die Kampfflugzeuge Kfir und Lavi, den Merkava-Panzer, die Maschinenpistole Uzi sowie die Sturmgewehre Galil und Tavor u.v.m.

Die israelische Sicherheits- und Heimatschutzindustrie umfasst ein weites Spektrum von Unternehmen. Dazu gehören große Rüstungsfirmen wie Elbit, Tadiran, Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), RAFAEL, Elisra, ELTA und Israel Military Industries (IMI), aber auch Unternehmen aus der Telekommunikationsbranche wie Motorola, Comverse, Nice, Verint, Mer Group, Ness TSG u.a.

Einige Firmen haben sich allein auf die Entwicklung und Herstellung von Sicherheitsprodukten in Bereichen wie Eingangskontrolle oder Körperschutz spezialisiert. Einige der weltbekannten Unternehmen in diesem Zusammenhang sind ISDS, Magal Security Systems, Plasan Sas und Rabintex.

Zu den Kernbereichen der Branche gehören: Luft- und Seefahrt-Sicherheit, CBRN-Bereitschaft, Kommando- und Kontrollsysteme, Terrorismusbekämpfung, Krisen- und Notfallmanagement, Infrastrukturschutz, internationale Veranstaltungen, IT-Sicherheit und Betrugsbekämpfung, Körperschutz, öffentliche Aufmerksamkeit und Bereitschaft, Dienstleistungsanbieter.

Israelische Sicherheitsunternehmen sind in allen Regionen der Welt aktiv und bieten Lösungen und Technologien für staatliche und private Abnehmer. Die folgenden Beispiele veranschaulichen die globale Präsenz:

- Mehr als ein Dutzend israelischer Unternehmen waren bei der Sicherung der Olympischen Spiele in Athen beteiligt.

- Gegenwärtig sind israelische Unternehmen in Grenzschutzprojekte v.a. in den USA, Asien und Lateinamerika involviert.

- Israelische Schutzeinrichtungen für Fahrzeuge, Gebäude und Personen werden von den internationalen Truppen und Organisationen im Irak und anderen Konfliktzonen verwendet.

- Die Infrastruktur des Buckingham Palace, des Vatikan und des Eiffelturms werden mit israelischer Technologie gesichert; ebenso die Flughäfen JFK in New York, Heathrow in London, Hannover, Tel Aviv und Singapur u.a.

Ausführliche Informationen zur israelischen Sicherheitsindustrie findet man unter folgendem Link.

© The Israel Export and International Cooperation Institute

NSA Surveillance

The Wall Street Journal reports on Pentagon efforts to build a new data-sweeping system that has some civil liberties activists up in arms.

Read full story.

Zum Tode von Joseph Weizenbaum: Pionier und Kritiker des Computers

Die Süddeutsche Zeitung schreibt den Nachruf auf den aus Berlin stammenden US-amerikanischen Informatiker und Gesellschaftskritiker Joseph Weizenbaum (1923-2008), der nach eigener Aussage nur zufällig ein Pionier des Computers wurde.

“Joseph Weizenbaum war ein Experte für Computer, als noch kaum jemand auf der Welt wusste, was unter diesem Begriff zu verstehen sei. Bereits in den 1950er Jahren arbeitete der 1936 aus Berlin in die USA emigrierte Sohn eines Kürschnermeisters im Computer Development Laboratory des Elektrokonzerns General Electric. Er entwickelte dort unter anderem die Grundlagen für Bankensoftware, wie sie heute die Finanzmärkte der Welt beherrscht.[...]

Weizenbaum selbst war wichtig, als Gesellschaftskritiker verstanden zu werden. Er habe eben zufällig sein Leben mit Computern verbracht, sagte Joseph Weizenbaum 1999 im Gespräch mit der Süddeutschen Zeitung, daher verknüpfe er seine Gesellschaftskritik mit diesem Thema. Wäre er Arzt geworden, würde er die Medizin kritisieren.”

Zum Artikel.

Air and Space Power in the future

An article from Joint Force Quarterly, a publication of the U.S. National Defense University, looks at potential future trends in air and space military forces.

Read full story.

In the Navy

Friendly Fire

Foreign policy experts Charles Ferguson and Bruce MacDonald write that the Bush administration risked U.S. security interests in shooting down a satellite this week, in the Los Angeles Times.

“Washington should not be surprised when Beijing exploits this launch to justify its own burgeoning anti-satellite program. The U.S. action will give China, Russia and others an excuse to develop and test comparable capabilities, claiming that they too need to keep their populations safe from falling satellites. China may well feel freed from the pledge it made last year not to test its anti-satellite weapons again.”

Read full story.

Anti-Defamation League briefs Israeli Knesset on Internet Hate

Press Release

Jerusalem, February 21, 2008 - Citing the widespread use of hate on the Internet, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) urged Israeli high tech companies to utilize their ingenuity to develop technology to confront anti-Semitism, racism and bigotry on the Web.

“The unintended result of the Internet is the dissemination of hate globally in nano-seconds under the protection of anonymity,” said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director in a briefing before the Knesset Immigration, Absorption and Diaspora Committee, on February 19, 2008.

“The vicious anti-Semitism and bigotry found on the Internet has reached a level unparalleled in history considering the web’s scope. We urge Israeli high tech companies to utilize their ingenuity to help develop technologies for the consumer to be able to differentiate between information, misinformation and disinformation,” Mr. Foxman said.

Mr. Foxman also shared with the committee the latest ADL statistics on anti-Semitic incidents in the United States, which have declined for the third consecutive year in 2007. Mr. Foxman noted, however, that there was a steady number of troubling incidents in US high schools and university campuses.

According to ADL statistics released to the Knesset, there were some 1,350 anti-Semitic incidents across the United States in 2007, representing a 13 percent decline from the 1,554 reported in 2006. This was a 12 percent decline from the 1,757 reported in 2005.

“While the downward trend in numbers of incidents is clearly welcome, and may reflect some degree of success of security programs and preventative countermeasures, it does not justify complacency,” Mr. Foxman told the committee.

Mr. Foxman said that over 200 anti-Semitic incidents were recorded in U.S. high schools and some 80 at U.S. college campuses, where anti-Israel events often turned into ugly spectacles of anti-Semitism.

“When they start holding up placards saying ‘Death to the Jews’ or equating Israeli policies with Nazis, then the line has clearly been crossed,” Mr. Foxman said.

One in three Americans, Mr. Foxman noted, believe that US Jews are more loyal to Israel than the United States, and that an ADL survey showed that some 15 percent of U.S. citizens hold anti-Semitic attitudes.

“This may not sound like a large number, but it represents some 35 million people,” Mr. Foxman said.

The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world’s leading organization fighting anti-Semitism and racism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.

————————————————————————————————————

Full Text of the Speech

Anti-Semitism in the United States

Presentation to the Knesset Committee on Diaspora Affairs
Abraham H. Foxman
National Director of the Anti-Defamation League

February 19, 2008

“As often as I am asked to speak on anti-Semitism, I can’t help thinking each time how tenacious and unyielding this cancer remains - “the longest hatred,” as it was called by Professor Robert Wistrich of Hebrew University in his excellent book of that title. What has given this irrational prejudice such a long life, and kept it alive even after the Holocaust, when rational people would have thought it could not raise its monstrous head again?

Of the many theories and interpretations offered by writers and psychologists, none is more revealing or accurate as this simple fact: it is useful. It provides an easy scapegoat for frustrated individuals or demagogues in denial about their own failures. It offers a handy explanation for the otherwise inexplicable, and a target at once easily identifiable and vulnerable.

And it is a convenient vehicle for exploiting the all-too-human willingness to believe in conspiracies. Witch hunting still lives, even if witches do not.

As I speak to you today about anti-Semitism in the United States, let me be clear: the anti-Semitism in the United States is not the anti-Semitism of Europe. Not to suggest that there haven’t been periods of significant bias against Jews, in society and in institutions. It is not ancient history.

Only sixty years ago, there were quotas for Jews, if unofficial, in universities, banking, and other business.

I always remember the story of Lionel Trilling, one of the nation’s great literary critics. As an undergraduate at Columbia, he decided to pursue a doctorate in English literature. When he went to his advisor, he was told that this was a mistake, that real understanding of British literature was only possible for Anglo-Saxons, not Jews. Fortunately, Trilling ignored the advice.

Still, America in the last 50 years has become a place where Jews are completely equal as citizens, completely comfortable in their skins as Americans. And this is reflected in their full involvement in communities around the country, on every level of cultural, communal, business and political activity.

Having said this, when the Knesset meets to hear about anti-Semitism, more often than not the focus is on anti-Semitism in Europe, the Middle East and South America, rather than the U.S.. Undoubtedly, that will be so again this time, but America now needs to be a focus as well.

Not only because of new, emerging challenges, but also because any problems arising in America, the place where Jews can most freely work to help protect Israel and combat anti-Semitism abroad, take on greater significance if they might lead to any lessening of American Jewish activism.

This new challenge of anti-Semitism in America takes two forms: daily heart-rending incidents and classic political anti-Jewish conspiracy theories. Let me talk about both. For over 25 years, ADL has systematically tracked reported incidents of anti-Jewish vandalism, including swastika defacements, against synagogues, other Jewish institutions and private Jewish property, as well as harassment, including physical and verbal assaults directed at individuals in the United States.

Our report for 2007, to be released soon, will show a decline for the third consecutive year. While not all the numbers from each of our 50 states are in, the League’s annual Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents counted more than 1,350 anti-Semitic incidents across the United States last year, representing a 13 percent decline from the 1,554 reported in 2006. This, in turn, was a 12% decline from the 1,757 reported in 2005.

Here are a few examples of these incidents:

- Denver, Colorado: Rocks and tomatoes thrown at synagogue office door, breaking door’s glass and several windows. Eggs thrown at synagogue window bearing Star of David (March);

- Chicago, Illinois: 70 headstones and 5 benches overturned and swastika etched onto mausoleum at Jewish cemetery (May);

- Victoria, Texas: Swastikas and “Heil Hitler” painted on front of synagogue (June);

- Bronx, New York: Synagogue vandalized on 3 occasions over several weeks; 17 windows broken (July);

- Lakewood, NJ: A Jewish teenager, identifiable by his wearing a yarmulke, suffered serious injuries when he was severely beaten by several men and youths who yelled “F—ing Jew” as they attacked him (November);

Each of these hate crimes causes great anguish not only to the targeted victims, but to the larger Jewish community. While the downward trend in numbers of incidents is clearly welcome, and may reflect some degree of success of security programs and preventive countermeasures, it does not justify complacency.

In 2007, for the third straight year, the Audit recorded a troubling number of incidents - over 200– at American public schools. School-based incidents took the form of swastikas and hate graffiti painted or written on desks, walls and other school property, as well as name-calling, slurs, mockery, bullying and assault - some directed at teachers, as well as at Jewish students.

And for the second year in a row, ADL recorded over 80 anti-Semitic incidents on U.S. college campuses. In many of these college incidents, the expression of anti-Semitism flowed from anti-Israel activity, both from left-wing groups on campus and from Muslim groups and individuals. Anti-Israel events, in and of themselves, are not counted as anti-Semitic incidents. But when placards equating Israeli policies with Nazis are displayed or protestors against Israeli policies yell “Kill the Jews,” the line has clearly been crossed.

It must also be noted that our Audit does not include the number of anti-Semitic websites and expressions that are occurring at an alarming rate over the Internet. Sadly and disturbingly, these are just too many to track. Every day we see literally thousands of blogs, e-mails and Web sites, and social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace where conspiracy theories about alleged Jewish power have now infiltrated the mainstream.

Many of these sites include Internet radio shows and downloadable music and games with anti-Semitic themes and propaganda. With its speed, its ubiquitous and inexpensive reach, and its facility for recruitment and for reaching young people, the Internet is presenting us with one of our biggest challenges in the fight against anti-Semitism and all forms of hate.

The decline in the number of overall anti-Semitic incidents came in a year marked by the results of an ADL national survey showing that the number of Americans who hold anti-Semitic attitudes remained constant. The ADL 2007 Survey of American Attitudes Toward Jews in America found that 15% of Americans - or nearly 35 million adults - hold views about Jews that are “unquestionably anti-Semitic.”

Previous ADL surveys over the last decade had indicated that such attitudes were in decline. Ten years ago, in 1998, the number of Americans with hardcore anti-Semitic beliefs had dropped to 12% from 20% in 1992. Again, these are not the numbers we see in Europe, where our surveys show anti-Semitic attitudes showing up in 30 to 50 percent of the population, depending on the country. But nevertheless we continue to be concerned that the success we had seen moving toward a more tolerant America appear not to have taken hold as firmly as we had hoped.

As noted, the larger political threat to Jews comes from lethal anti-Jewish conspiracy theories. These theories are a part of American life. We come to expect this kind of thing from extremist groups like the KKK, Aryan Nations, and the Nation of Islam. They for a long time accuse Jews of sinister control of America.

We expose this hate with the knowledge that the overwhelming majority of our countrymen reject these extremist groups and their ideology.

It is another matter when it comes from the mainstream. The most significant event in this regard was before America entered World War II. Charles Lindbergh, the American aviator hero, led the group opposed to U.S. intervention in the European war, “America First.”

In a speech in Des Moines, Iowa, Lindbergh blamed the efforts of the powerful Jews in America who are trying to drag us into war against the Nazis to save their own interests. This resonated with many Americans who had been bombarded every Sunday night with anti-Jewish conspiracy notions from the popular radio priest Father Coughlin of Royal Oak, Michigan.

Now, fast forward to the first Gulf War. Pat Buchanan on a TV talk show says that the only people who want America to go to war against Saddam Hussein are “Israel’s amen corner.” Everybody understood whom he meant.

Well, this accusation died on the vine. It wasn’t a ripe moment for anti-Semitism because everyone understood why we were going to war — Saddam was in Kuwait, we had a strong U.N. resolution and a very broad international coalition. Buchanan’s effort to find a sinister Jewish force behind the war was deemed ridiculous.

Now fast forward again to the current war in Iraq — a different environment. No understanding of why we were going to war: great anxiety about motives. And this, of course, came at a time of heightened anxiety in the country after 9-11. Fears of more Islamist terror. And then talk of an Iranian nuclear bomb. In other words, a “perfect storm” for finding the true hidden powers behind the policy.

And so came Virginia Congressman Jim Moran, who in 2003 blamed neo-conservative Jews for bringing us the war In Iraq. No matter that all the decision makers — George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, and Condi Rice are not Jewish. No need for rational thinking when it comes to blaming Jews.

Soon, thereafter came a double-barreled attack, first from the heart of the academic establishment and then from a former president. Professors John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard in essence cast U.S. policymaking in conspiratorial terms, though with a patina of scholarship.

Why does America support this country Israel that is allegedly responsible for all the Middle East problems? Because the Israel lobby — read Jews — controls American Middle East policymaking to serve Israel’s interests against the interest of the U.S. and that lobby stifles any open discussion in this country.

Now in their book, as opposed to their paper, they soften the tone of the charges and make qualifications, but the bottom line is no different. In an interview published just last week in the newsletter CounterPunch Professor Mearsheimer is quoted saying “the Lobby is pushing policies not in the U.S interest and not in Israel’s interest either ” and “we as Americans should care how the Lobby influences U.S.-Middle East policies, because it sometimes influences them in a way which is not in the best interests of the U.S.” He went on to explain “We don’t believe there is a New Anti-Semitism. We believe there is not a lot of Anti-Semitism in the U.S. or in Europe itself. And that charge is leveled at critics of Israel like us and Jimmy Carter, because it is an effective way of marginalizing and sidelining us.”

And Jimmy Carter added his vast credibility to this when in his book “Palestine: Peace or Apartheid,” he makes similar accusations about the stifling control of policymaking and discussion by the Israel lobby.

It was this unmistakable odor of anti-Semitism, and its source from within the American Establishment, that motivated the publication of my book, The Deadliest Lies, refuting their pernicious accusations. It was and remains necessary to expose and condemn this anti-Jewish assault in scholarly camouflage because, unlike the rabid and self-proclaimed haters who have no credibility with the American public, these prejudiced professors are finding a more serious hearing for their distortions, which then gain undeserved legitimacy.

Probably the best responses to these outrageous charges have come from long-time policymakers themselves. George Shultz wrote a long introduction to my book in which he cut through the fantasy world of how decisions are made as envisioned by Mearsheimer and Walt.

Similarly, people like Dennis Ross, Ned Walker, Leslie Gelb and others, long involved in the nitty gritty of U.S. Middle East policy, have made clear that there’s nothing in these assaults they can recognize as to how policy is actually made in the U.S.

For us, it is dangerous and tragic when these accusations against American Jews arise in America, in the establishment. It is particularly dangerous because not enough good people have stood up against these assaults.

Do I think it will lead to greater anti-Semitism in the U.S.? I don’t know, but I surely cannot and will not be complacent about it. I worry about these ideas circulating among college students and others. It’s my business and our history as a people to take this seriously.

In conclusion, what should we all be doing? We need to continue to work together to highlight the dangers of anti-Semitism, not only to Jews but to the well-being of democratic societies. We need to strengthen laws on hate crimes and monitoring of hate crimes.

We need to educate against hatred. We need to have leaders speak out. We need to reassure Jewish communities that they will be protected. We need to recognize that demonizing Israel has consequences. We need to oppose stereotypes of Muslims, but we also must demand that Islamic leaders speak out unequivocally against terrorism and hatred of Jews.

In the last century, the great struggles of free societies against the two totalitarian threats — Nazism and communism — were also struggles to fight against the virulent anti-Semitism of those extreme systems. So today, if the great challenge that the free world faces is that from Islamic extremism, one of its core elements is this latest totalitarian threat to the Jewish people.

We can win this struggle, but we must understand the threat. And we must work together in ways that we have not done until today. Thank you.”

Warum Amazon wichtiger ist als Google, eBay, Facebook und iTunes

Der gut recherchierte Weblog Beobachtungen zur Medienkonvergenz erklärt warum das US-amerikanische Unternehmen Amazon Internet-Firmen wie Google, eBay, Facebook oder auch iTunes überholen und die wichtigste digitale Plattform wird:

“Amazon ist längst nicht mehr nur ein Online-Versand, sondern hat sich still und heimlich eine äusserst starke Position in ein paar sehr zukunftsträchtigen Bereichen geschaffen. Diese Firma ist eindeutig mit Abstand der innovativste der Internet-Riesen und damit in gewisser Weise wichtiger als die anderen genannten Unternehmen, obwohl die immer noch viel mehr Presse-Aufmerksamkeit kriegen.”

Zum Artikel.

Event: Iran’s nuclear file - What can Europe do?

The Transatlantic Institute and Jana Hybaskova, Member of the European Parliament, have the pleasure of inviting you to join us for an off-the-record briefing with:

Dr. Emanuele Ottolenghi, director of the Transatlantic Institute

Jana Hybaskova, former Czech ambassador to Kuwait and Chairman of the Delegation for Relations with Israel of the European Parliament

IRAN’S NUCLEAR FILE: WHAT CAN THE EU DO?
Wednesday, March 5, 2008 - 15:15 - 17:00

At the European Parliament - Room 5E3

To participate, please contact Jana Hybaskova’s office: Phone +32 473 743 803 or Email: jana.hybaskova-assistant@europarl.europa.eu

Spy Satellite Destruction

World Politics Review reports that U.S. plans to destroy a spy satellite by shooting it out of the sky have raised serious questions about diplomatic fallout, given U.S. opposition to China shooting down a satellite in January 2007.

Read full story.

Canada’s Fossil Energy Future

A report from the Canadian government’s agency focused on natural resources examines the country’s fossil energy reserves and outlines potential obstacles facing the country.

“Canada is experiencing a significant economic surge driven in large part by the natural resources sectors, in particular by the fossil fuel industries in Western Canada. Combined under the banner of fossil energy, Canada’s oil, natural gas, and coal resources make the country one of the world’s most attractive energy centres for continuing investment and development.

This economic opportunity comes with challenges, such as requirements to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and managing the impacts of climate change. Canadian GHG emissions are up more than 25 percent since 1990. There is growing public concern supported by consensus among the scientific community (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) that global emissions growth will soon drive atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations to levels not seen in 10 million years, bringing a growing risk of rapid climate change.”

Read full report.