War is good for business, mantra of military industrial complexes

Military industrial complex players big and small gathered in London this month, hawking everything from long-range missiles to gold plated pistols to arms fair attendees—including representatives of horrific human rights violators—as weapon-makers and other merchants of the machinery of death reap record profits.

"War is good for business," one defense executive attending the biennial Defense and Security Equipment International (DSEI) conference at ExCel London flat-out told Reuters. "We are extremely busy," Michael Elmore, head of sales at the UK-based armored steelmaker MTL Advanced, told the media agency.

Russia's ongoing invasion of Ukraine and the West's scramble to arm Ukrainian homeland defenders have been a bonanza for arms-makers.

"Ukraine is a very interesting combination of First and Second World War technologies and very modern technology," Kuldar Vaarsi, CEO of the Estonian unmanned ground vehicle firm MILREM, told Reuters.

Saber-rattling and fearmongering by government, media, and business figures amid rising tensions between the US and its allies on one side, and a fast-rising China on the other, have also spurred military spending, including Japan's US$320 billion buildup announced last December.

"We think this is a longer-term essentially 'sea change' in national defense strategy for the U.S. and for our Western allies," Jim Taiclet, CEO of US arms giant Lockheed Martin, told investors during a call earlier this summer announcing higher-than-expected sales and profit outlooks.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the United States, Russia, France, China, and Germany were the world's top arms exporters from 2018-22, with the five nations accounting for 76% of all weapons exports during that period. The U.S. accounted for nearly 40% of such exports during those five years, while increasing its dominance in the arms trade. The US also remains by far the world's biggest military spender.

In addition to major corporations, middlemen like Marc Morales have also been profiting handsomely from wars in countries including Ukraine. Morales happened to have a warehouse full of ammunition in Bulgaria that the Pentagon originally intended for Afghanistan when Russia invaded its neighbor, and he has been richly rewarded as the US spends tens of billions of dollars arming Ukrainian forces. He named his new US$10 million yacht Trigger Happy.

Outside the sprawling ExCel convention center in London's Docklands, anti-war protesters rallied against the global arms trade and the death and destruction it fuels. The Guardian reported that at least a dozen demonstrators were arrested during the course of the conference, including nine on Thursday for blocking a road outside the venue.

Sam Perlo-Freeman, a researcher at the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), told The Guardian that a lot of countries that are being talked about as new arms export markets are ones we would be concerned about.

"Egypt is a repressive regime and Vietnam an absolute dictatorship," Perlo-Freeman added. "Indonesia is involved in brutality in West Papua."

Emily Apple, also of CAAT, told People's World that the companies exhibiting read as who is who of the world's worst arms dealers.

"Israel is an apartheid state, and it is disgusting that the UK is not only selling weapons to Israel but encouraging Israeli arms companies to sell their weapons in London," she continued.

"Representatives from regimes such as Saudi Arabia, who have used UK made weapons to commit war crimes in Yemen, will be wined and dined and encouraged to buy yet more arms."

"Deals done at DSEI will cause misery across the world, causing global instability, and devastate people's lives," Apple added.

Inside ExCel, it was business as usual. Pressed by Declassified UK chief reporter Phil Miller on why Britain's right-wing government supports selling arms to the Saudi dictatorship that sentences someone to death for tweeting, Minister of State for the Armed Forces James Heappey deflected.

Private sector leaders, however, have been more forthcoming. As Raytheon CEO Greg Hayes opined during a 2021 investor call touting the company's solid growth, "Peace is not going to break out in the Middle East anytime soon."

 

US exports over 100 million gallons of ethanol

The United States exported 101.48 million gallons of ethanol and 1.01 million metric tons of distillers’ grains in June, according to data released by the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service on August 04. Exports of both products were up as compared to June 2021.

Ethanol is an organic chemical compound. It is a simple alcohol with the chemical formula C₂H₆O. Its formula can be also written as CH ₃−CH ₂−OH or C ₂H ₅OH, and is often abbreviated as EtOH. Ethanol is a volatile, flammable, colorless liquid with a characteristic wine-like odor and pungent taste.

Ethanol is naturally produced by the fermentation of sugars by yeasts or via petrochemical processes such as ethylene hydration. It has medical applications as an antiseptic and disinfectant. It is used as a chemical solvent and in the synthesis of organic compounds, and as a fuel source. Ethanol also can be dehydrated to make ethylene, an important chemical feedstock.

The 101.48 million gallons of ethanol exported in June was down when compared to the 147.06 million gallons exported in May, which was a four-year high, but up from the 82.09 million gallons exported during the same month of last year.

The US exported ethanol to more than 30 countries in June. Canada was the top destination for US ethanol at 41.2 million gallons, followed by South Korea at 13.64 million gallons and the UK at 12.02 million gallons.

The value of US ethanol exports was at US$324.77 million in May, down from US$410.39 million a month ago, but up from US$187 million in June 2021.

Total US ethanol exports for the first half of 2022 reached 827.39 million gallons at a value of US$2.25 billion, compared to 662.62 million gallons exported during the same period of 2021 at a value of US$1.27 billion.

The 1.01 million metric tons of distillers’ grains exported in June was up from both 966,108 metric tons in May and 938,280 metric tons in June 2021.

The US exported distillers’ grains to approximately three dozen countries in June. Vietnam was the top destination at 197,192 metric tons, followed by Mexico at 158,501 metric tons and Turkey at 109,819 metric tons.

The value of US distillers’ grains exports was at US$311.08 million in June, down slightly from US$311.85 million the previous month but up from US$248.47 million in June of last year.

Total US distillers’ grains exports for the first six months of the year reached 5.67 million metric tons at a value of US$1.67 billion, compared to 5.4 million metric tons exported during the same period of last year at a value of US$1.42 billion.

Joe Biden to ask G7 nations to ban import of Russian gold

US President, Joe Biden said Sunday that the Group of Seven (G7) nations will ban Russian gold imports to further impose financial costs on Moscow for its invasion of Ukraine.  

“The United States has imposed unprecedented costs on Putin to deny him the revenue he needs to fund his war against Ukraine,” Biden tweeted on Sunday. “Together, the G7 will announce that we will ban the import of Russian gold, a major export that rakes in tens of billions of dollars for Russia.” 

Biden’s announcement came on the first day of a G7 meeting in Germany; a formal announcement is expected later on during the summit.  

While it does not bring in as much money as energy, gold is a major source of revenue for the Russian economy. Restricting exports to G7 economies will cause more financial strain to Russia as it wages the war in Ukraine.  

The G7 includes the United States, France, Canada, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom and Italy.  

The US and its allies have been searching for more ways to punish Russia for the bloody war that recently entered its fifth month. Biden has announced waves of penalties coordinated with allies that range from sanctions on Russian officials and oligarchs to export controls to sanctions on major Russian banks.  

Still, Europeans are limited in what they can do because of their dependence on Russian energy imports. European countries have vowed to phase out Russian oil but have not taken steps like the US to do so immediately.  

Biden administration officials teased new announcements to squeeze Russia ahead of Biden’s trip to Europe and it is possible there will be more announcements beyond the plan to ban Russian gold imports.  

Biden embarked on the trip to Europe for the G7 meeting and, later, a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit with the goal of demonstrating unity with allies on keeping up pressure on Russia even as the war roils the global economy. 

Biden spent Sunday morning meeting with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and later participated in a working lunch with other leaders.  

A White House readout of Biden’s meeting with Scholz indicated Ukraine was a main topic of conversation.  

“The leaders underlined their commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as their continued provision of military, economic, humanitarian, and diplomatic support to help Ukraine defend its democracy against Russian aggression,” the White House readout said. “The leaders also discussed efforts to alleviate the impacts of Russia’s war in Ukraine on global food and energy security.” 

Biden also thanked Scholz for committing to boosting Germany’s defense spending above NATO’s 2% of gross domestic product target.  

A White House official characterized the meeting as “very warm and friendly” and said there was “very broad alignment on all of the issues that they discussed and all the common challenges that our countries are working on together.”

 

United States urged to restore Iran nuclear deal

More than 40 former government officials and leading nuclear non-proliferation experts have expressed strong support for an agreement that returns Iran and the United States to comply with the 2015 nuclear deal.

The accord between Iran and the major world powers, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), was unanimously endorsed by the UN Security Council through Resolution 2231.

The major world powers are P5+1 (the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States—plus Germany) together with the European Union.

The joint statement points out that if President of United States, Joe Biden fails to bring negotiations with Iran to a prompt and successful conclusion it would perpetuate the failed strategy pursued by the Trump administration and allow Iran to further improve its capacity to produce weapons-grade nuclear material. The result, the nuclear nonproliferation experts write, “would increase the danger that Iran would become a threshold nuclear-weapon state”.

Signatories of the letter include a former special representative to the president of the United States on non-proliferation, former US State Department officials, the United States’ former Ambassador to Israel, Russia, and the United Nations, and leading nuclear non-proliferation experts based in the United States, Europe, and Asia.

“A prompt return to mutual compliance with the JCPOA is the best available way to deny Iran the ability to quickly produce bomb-grade nuclear material,” the experts’ letters notes.

“It would reinstate full IAEA international monitoring and verification of Iran’s nuclear facilities, thus ensuring early warning if Iran were to try to acquire nuclear weapons—and possibly become the second state in the Middle East (in addition to Israel) with such an arsenal.”

Despite Iran’s compliance with the accord, former US President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the JCPOA in May 2018, reimposed sanctions that had been waived as part of the agreement and embarked on a pressure campaign designed to deny Tehran any benefit of remaining in compliance with the nuclear deal.

Iran continued to meet its JCPOA obligations until May 2019, when Tehran began a series of calibrated violations of the agreement designed to pressure the remaining JCPOA parties to meet their commitments and push the United States to return to the agreement. These violations, while largely reversible, have increased the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program.

“As a result of Trump administration policies,” the experts’ statement says, “it is now estimated that the time it would take Iran to produce a significant quantity (25 kg) of bomb-grade uranium (enriched to 90 percent U-235) is down from more than a year under the JCPOA, to approximately one or two weeks today.”

“Restoring the limits on Iran’s nuclear program will significantly increase (by many months) the time it would take Iran to produce a significant quantity of bomb grade material, which provides the margin necessary for the international community to take effective action if Iran were to try to do so,” the experts say.

“Just as importantly,” the experts write, “the JCPOA mandates unprecedented International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) monitoring, verification, and transparency measures that make it very likely that any possible future effort by Iran to pursue nuclear weapons, even a clandestine program, would be detected promptly.”

Failure to bring Iran back under the limits established by the JCPOA would produce long-term adverse effects on the global non-proliferation regime, put US allies at greater risk, and create a new nuclear crisis, experts say.

Courtesy: International Press Syndicate

 

United States and allies getting ready to kick certain Russian banks out of SWIFT

The White House on Saturday announced that the United States and allies will kick certain Russian banks out of a major international banking system, a significant step in a bid to cripple the Russian economy in response to its invasion of Ukraine. 

The Biden administration and European allies agreed to cut Russia out of access to the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT), a rapid shift from just days ago when it appeared such a move was unlikely in the near future.

The US and European nations also committed to imposing measures to prevent the Russian Central Bank from using its reserves to undermine sanctions and boost the ruble.

The announcement came via a joint statement from the leaders of the United States, the European Commission, France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom and Canada. The leaders called Russian attacks on Ukraine "an assault on fundamental international rules and norms that have prevailed since the Second World War, which we are committed to defending."

"We stand with the Ukrainian people in this dark hour. Even beyond the measures we are announcing today, we are prepared to take further measures to hold Russia to account for its attack on Ukraine," they said in the statement.

Banks across the world use SWIFT to finalize transactions and transfers. Cutting Russia off from SWIFT would make it incredibly difficult for its banks to operate efficiently but could also wreak economic havoc for European nations that depend on Russian oil and natural gas exports. 

If a Russian bank that has been removed from SWIFT wants to make a transaction with a bank located outside of Russia, it will need to use the telephone or a fax machine, a senior administration official told reporters.

Biden on Thursday had indicated kicking Russia out of SWIFT was not part of the initial rounds of sanctions because not all European allies were on board with the measure. But as fighting intensified in Ukraine in recent days and Russia moved close to the capital of Kyiv, pressure grew for Western nations to offer a tougher response.

Additional measures announced on Saturday included limitations on the use of so-called golden passports that allow wealthy Russians with connections to the Kremlin to become citizens of other countries and access their financial systems.

The US and its allies also said they would announce a task force to ensure the effective implementation of the coordinated sanctions being imposed on Russia.

The Biden administration and European allies have unveiled multiple rounds of sanctions in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which began late Wednesday night. The US has sanctioned multiple Russian financial institutions to freeze their US assets as well as a list of several Russian oligarchs.

The White House on Friday announced additional sanctions against Russian President Vladimir Putin and a dozen of his top advisers, freezing any of their assets in the United States.

Imposing sanctions on Russia's central bank could crush the country's economy and financial sector; depending on how severely Western allies restrict its assets.

With limited access to its foreign reserves, Russia could face serious challenges keeping targeted banks afloat and mitigating the economic impact of sanctions. A total freeze on foreign reserves would likely devastate the Russian economy, cause a domestic financial crisis and leave the ruble worthless.

The United States has targeted the central banks of only North Korea, Iran and Venezuela with sanctions — nations with limited leverage over the global economy. Taking action against the Russian central bank could pose its own economic risks for the US and allies. The Biden administration and western allies have been wary of any sanctions that could limit access to Russian petroleum or natural gas exports.

"Our calculus is we have two choices," the senior administration official told reporters on Saturday. "Either we continue to ratchet costs higher to make this a strategic failure for President Putin, or the alternative, which is unacceptable, and that would be allowing unchecked aggression in the core of Europe."

 

NATO members scramble to support Ukraine amid Russian threat

The threat of a Russian invasion of Ukraine has sent NATO countries scrambling to provide military support to Kyiv. In recent weeks, Spain, France, Estonia, the United Kingdom and the United States among others have provided varying kinds of military support to Ukraine in anticipation of Russian aggression.  

NATO is under no treaty’s obligation to defend Ukraine because the ex-Soviet country is not a member of the alliance, but the group has made clear that it stands with Kyiv and has called on Moscow to de-escalate tensions. 

Some military movements appear to be posturing, aimed at deterring Russia from any aggressive actions, but other steps appear to be prepared for a serious conflict. Either way, experts say, the assistance could show Russian President Vladimir Putin that the cost of an invasion of Ukraine is too great.   

“There's clearly a sense that the military support provided to Ukraine would help Ukraine raise the cost to Russia of military aggression,” said former US Ambassador William Courtney, a senior fellow at RAND Corporation.  

Ukraine has asked to join NATO, a move that is staunchly opposed by Russia. Russian officials have demanded that NATO not extend further east, but the alliance has rebuffed these demands. The Kremlin has used this refusal as a justification to amass forces at the border, claiming unspecified security concerns. 

Russia has amassed at least 100,000 troops near its border with Ukraine, and US officials have warned that an attack could likely occur by mid-February.  

In recent years, the Ukrainian forces have been able to increase operability and protect itself against another invasion. Still, the Russian military is far more dominant and capable than its opponent.  

Courtney confirmed that NATO has no formal obligation to defend Ukraine, but added that the West’s military support to the Eastern European country has been “quite substantial” since 2014. 

At the time, Russian forces invaded and annexed the Crimean Peninsula.    

“Europe and the United States, over time, developed an increasing desire to help Ukraine advance internally both through reforms democratic and economic reforms, and also to move closer to the West which seems to be Ukraine's interest,” he said.  

One goal of aiding Ukraine is centered on the concept of “porcupine defense,” the idea that a country makes itself as difficult to invade as possible.  

“You provide security assistance and arms that are lethal that complicate Russia's ability to take large parts of Ukraine without getting beaten up in the process,” said Rachel Ellehuus, deputy director of the Europe, Russia and Eurasia program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 

“So, they can certainly withstand a Russian incursion for a limited period of time, but not forever,” she continued.  

This method, combined with the alliance’s threats of severe economic consequences should Russia invade, could make Putin think twice about doing so.  

“The issue is helping to deter Russian aggression by making clear that the cost to it economic, military and the human costs of casualties will be greater than maybe expected before,” Courtney said.  

While the alliance is behind Ukraine, countries thus far have varied on the extent of their support.  

Over the past couple of weeks, Denmark decided to send four additional F-16 fighter jets to Lithuania for air policing and a 160-man frigate in the Baltic Sea. France, for its part, has offered to send troops to Romania.  

The United Kingdom also announced that it is sending Ukraine light, anti-armor defensive weapons systems, as well as a small number of UK personnel to provide training.  

Meanwhile, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania recently received approval from the US to send American-made weapons to Ukraine for additional defense.  

Estonia is providing Javelin anti-armor missiles, while Latvia and Lithuania are providing Stinger anti-aircraft missiles and adjacent equipment.  

“We sincerely hope that Ukraine will face no need to use this equipment and call on Russian Federation to seize its aggressive and irresponsible behavior,” the Baltic nations said in a statement.  

Spain announced that it is sending warships to bolster NATO’s naval forces in the Mediterranean and Black Seas and is mulling sending its own fighter jets to Bulgaria.  

But countries sending assistance must strike a delicate balance — helping Ukraine without doing anything that could provoke the Kremlin.  

Charles Kupchan, a senior fellow at the Council for Foreign Relations, explained that recent efforts to provide assistance have been defensive in nature for this reason.  

“Given that diplomacy continues and that the preferred outcome by NATO countries is a diplomatic resolution to the conflict, NATO members are trying to find the right balance between improving the capabilities of the Ukrainian military to resist Russian aggression and taking steps that the Russians would see as a provocation,” Kupchan said.  

Further complicating matters is uncertainty about how Russia would invade Ukraine, should it choose to do so.  

Moscow has largely positioned troops along Ukraine’s northeastern border. On Tuesday, it announced that it is moving troops to Belarus for military drills that are scheduled for next month, when the West fears an invasion could occur.  

The drills put more pressure on NATO nations, as it puts Russian troops on Ukraine’s northern neighbor, giving Putin more options for a possible invasion.  

“I think the dynamic really changed when Russia sent forces into Belarus,” Ellenhuus said. “A lot of allies now worry that Russia is somehow preparing to invade Ukraine, both from the south and then also from, from Belarus.”  

A Russian invasion of Ukraine could trigger a rush to ensure that countries on its eastern flank are defended.  

The US, for its part, has no intentions of sending troops to deter an invasion, but has said if Russia invades, then it would send troops to bolster NATO’s forces along the Eastern Flank.  

President Biden has also repeated several times in recent weeks that if Russia decides to invade Ukraine, the US will slap devastating economic sanctions on the country. Vice President Harris echoed this same sentiment in an interview with Savannah Guthrie earlier this week.  

The US military has already sent the USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier strike group to take part in a NATO naval exercise in the Mediterranean, though Pentagon officials insist the drill are not in response to Russia’s recent aggressions. 

US and EU support for Taiwan deepens ideological fault line

The global ideological fault line running between mainland China and Taiwan deepened in recent weeks owing to support for the self-governing island in Washington and Europe. 

US President Joe Biden’s plan for a Summit for Democracy, announced shortly before he took office, looked certain to become a thorn in Beijing’s side. 

The announcement was one of the first signals that he would keep hard-line policies against Beijing introduced by the administration of his predecessor Donald Trump.

Soon after, Washington suffered setbacks at home and abroad that allowed Beijing to treat the summit more as farce than threat.

Just two weeks before Biden took office, Trump’s supporters ransacked the US Capitol building, incited by a fiery speech from the then-president which was full of unsubstantiated claims about election fraud that few in his Republican Party have disavowed.

The fall of Kabul to the Taliban in Afghanistan in August as well as humanitarian crises in countries including Lebanon, Ethiopia and Sudan further underscored Washington’s uphill battle against what the US Secretary of State has called the world’s “democratic recession”.

However, news that Taipei would be at the virtual summit table crossed a red line that raised the stakes for Biden’s event. The move enraged Beijing after a long-awaited summit between Biden and his counterpart Xi Jinping that appeared to have at least stabilized a bilateral relationship strained by a trade war, export restrictions and defence posturing in the South and East China Sea.

The online gathering of more than 100 heads of state, which pointedly excluded China and Russia, was billed as an allied effort to counter the rise of authoritarians and convened at a time when Beijing was dispatching record numbers of military jets to Taiwan’s airspace and a build-up of Russian troops on the country’s border with Ukraine.

While criticizing Biden’s summit, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi promised to work with Iran, another country not invited to the forum, “to oppose any unilateralism and bullying acts, and uphold the principle of non-interference in internal affairs”.

Washington isn’t the only Western country expressing such explicit support for Taipei. Lithuania’s decision to host the first de facto Taiwanese embassy in Europe to bear the name “Taiwan” has also deepened the ideological rift between Beijing and the West.

Investigating reports of an embargo on Lithuania’s exports to and imports from China, apparently as a result of the representative office’s name, the European Union confirmed that it was looking into the accusations and warned that Lithuania’s relationship with China “has an impact on overall EU-China relations”.

Digging in, Beijing rejected a request by the EU to discuss the alleged trade block on Lithuanian firms, claiming it is too preoccupied with the coronavirus pandemic.

Days later, Vilnius pulled its Beijing embassy staff from the country and, almost simultaneously, Xi pledged to support efforts by Lithuania’s historical rival Russia to protect its long-term security amid rising international pressure over Moscow’s attitude to Ukraine.

Xi made the pledge in a video call with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, where the Chinese leader also said China and Russia opposed attempts to divide the two nations and called for more joint actions to safeguard their security interests.

As if to underscore the growing divide between the democratic world that Biden is trying to solidify into a more determined and closely aligned bloc and nations on Beijing’s side, Xi said “China and Russia are both major nations with global influence”.

Israeli weapons used against Taliban in Afghanistan

From drones to missiles and armored vehicles, Israeli-made weapons systems helped coalition forces against Taliban fighters. Though Israeli troops have never been on the ground in the war-torn central Asian country, numerous coalition nations used Israeli systems during the 20 years of fighting against the radical jihadist terrorist group.

While many Israeli defense companies have stayed mum on the use of their products in Afghanistan, according to multiple reports, countries like the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada and Australia have used their products for years.

Numerous countries used remotely piloted aircraft (RPAs) to collect intelligence, and Israeli-made SPIKE missiles were used in battle. Troops were also able to drive around safely in high-intensity areas in Israeli-made MRAP (Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected) military light tactical vehicles.

One of the main Israeli weapons systems used by foreign militaries in Afghanistan was drones.

Foreign reports state that Israel is considered a leading exporter of drones and has sold such systems to numerous countries including Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, France, Germany, India, Mexico, Singapore and South Korea.

The German Air Force began operating the Heron TP, manufactured by Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), in Afghanistan in 2010. They were involved in thousands of missions, logging thousands of flight hours.

The Heron TPs are IAI’s most advanced RPAs with 40-hour endurance, a maximum take-off weight of 11,685 pounds, and a payload of 2,204 pounds. They can be used for reconnaissance, combat and support roles, and can carry air-to-ground missiles to take out hostile targets.

The German pilots were trained in Israel regarding how to operate the RPA and learn about its surveillance capabilities.

The Canadian military and the Australians also flew IAI’s Heron 1 RPA in Afghanistan.

Equipped with satellite data link and electro-optical infrared sensors, the Heron 1 is not only able to provide reconnaissance to ground forces in combat situations, assist in convoying and patrolling, create movement profiles, and carry out long-term monitoring, but it is also able to track down explosives from the air.

Several of them crashed in Afghanistan.

But it wasn’t only the Heron that was flying in Afghanistan’s skies.

Since 2005, the Australian Army in Afghanistan has also flown the Skylark 1 unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) manufactured by Elbit Systems.

The Skylark, measuring seven and a half feet, is used by troops for tactical surveillance and close-range counter-terror missions. It can be launched by one or two soldiers, and is operated on the roof of buildings or in the back of armored personnel carriers, providing live video to operators once airborne.

With a range of 10-15 km, the mini-UAV has an exceptionally quiet electric motor and outstanding observation capabilities giving troops beyond-line-of-sight intelligence, enhancing their performance in various mission scenarios.

Australia also flew the Skylark during missions in Iraq.

In addition to RPAs, Rafael Advanced Defense Systems’ Spike NLOS (Non Line Of Sight) missile was used by both the British and Canadians in Afghanistan.

The missile’s precision proved useful in battles against the Taliban. Although the Brits tried to keep its use quiet, they publicly admitted to using the missile, known as Exactor, in 2014.

The Spike NLOS is capable of penetrating 39 inches of armor, and can be operated in either direct attack or mid-course navigation based on target coordinates only. These modes enable the defeat of long-range hidden targets with pinpoint precision, damage assessment, and the obtaining of real-time intelligence.

It has a range of 25 km and can be used with a number of warheads such as heat, fragmentation, PBF (penetration, blast and fragmentation) and PBF/F suited for urban and high-intensity conflicts. The missile, which can be installed on a variety of platforms, provides the gunner with the ability to attack targets at stand-off range and get real-time intelligence and damage assessment following the strikes.

Though Israel does not comment on foreign reports, Iranian media reported in 2019 that troops were sent to Afghanistan to collect intelligence on Iranian military movement.

According to Iran’s Tasnim news agency, Israeli troops operated out of a United States Air Force base in Shindand in the western Afghanistan province of Herat some 75 km from the Iranian border and were collecting intelligence on Iranian movement around the Persian Gulf region.

Russia’s Sputnik News stated at the time that the Israelis were operating “under the flags of the United States and the United Arab Emirates.”

Sputnik quoted an expert on Israel as saying that the Israeli troops were operating under the framework of American forces stationed there, and that the activity was carried out with the knowledge and approval of the Afghan government.

As Western forces leave Afghanistan and the Taliban solidifies its power over the country, the jihadist group has also obtained advanced American weaponry, including some drones.

But with the Canadians, Brits and Germans having ended their fight several years ago, it’s unlikely that the Taliban got their hands on the Israeli-made systems that hunted them for so long.

World powers creating ground for Israeli attack on Iran

The statement jointly issued by the world powers on Friday accusing Iran of attacking an Israeli ship reminds me of the saga of presence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq.  The time proved it was a ‘hoax call’ aimed at creating justification for attack on Iraq.

It may be recalled that earlier Israel convened a meeting in Jerusalem of representatives of United Nations Security Council nations to discuss the possibility of a retaliatory military strike on Iran for its attack on the Mercer Street. Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz declared, “Now is the time for deeds — words are not enough. It is time for diplomatic, economic and even military deeds — otherwise the attacks will continue.”

US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken and Foreign Ministers of Group of Seven (G-7) nations and the European Union on Friday issued a joint statement condemning Iran for carrying out a “deliberate and targeted attack” on an Israeli-owned vessel last week that killed two of its international crew.

The statement serves as a show of international unity against Iran’s actions in the region and assigns the Islamic Republic responsibility for the oil tanker attack off the coast of Oman, violating international law meant to guarantee freedom of navigation in the international waters. 

The G-7 nations — United States, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom — were joined in the statement by the high representative of the European Union. 

“We condemn the unlawful attack committed on a merchant vessel off the coast of Oman on 29th July, which killed a British and a Romanian national. This was a deliberate and targeted attack, and a clear violation of international law. All available evidence clearly points to Iran. There is no justification for this attack,” the statement read. 

The G-7 nations and the EU further condemned Iran’s support for “proxy forces and non-state armed actors” as threatening international peace and security.

The statement follows the US, UK and Romania assigning blame to Iran for attacking the Israeli-owned Mercer Street vessel on July with an explosive drone. 

A report published Friday from US Central Command identified the drones recovered in the attack as Iranian-made.

Blinken on Wednesday spoke with UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab on “ongoing efforts to forge a coordinated response to Iran’s attack,” according to a readout of the call. 

Israel fears losing its freedom to operate against Iran

Speculation about the extent to which the incoming American administration will appease Iran has been rampant. But US President-elect Joe Biden’s picks for relevant top positions don’t seem to leave much room for supposition.

Let’s start with William Burns, Biden’s nomination for CIA director. Burns currently serves as president of the left-wing foreign-policy think tank the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, one of its donors is the Open Society Foundations network, established by George Soros.

Burns has decades of experience as a career diplomat under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Burns is a longtime associate of Biden. The two have worked closely together, most recently when the latter was Vice President and the former was Deputy Secretary of State for Near Eastern affairs, during the administration of former US President, Barack Obama.

Burns who had served as Ambassadors to Russia and Jordan, also had a key role in talks with the regime in Tehran in 2013. These led to the 2015 signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between Iran and the 5+1 countries: the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia and China plus Germany. By that time Burns had retired, but his imprint lived on in the nuclear deal.

In this context, Biden’s statement about Burns – “[He] shares my profound belief that intelligence must be apolitical” – is not liked by his opponents. The cause of greater concern is Burns’s faith in the JCPOA from which outgoing US President Donald Trump withdrew in 2018.

In an 29th August 29 2020 opinion piece in The Atlantic titled “‘America First’ Enters its Most Combustible Moment,” Burns spelled out his objections.

 “Any leverage against Iran produced by the UAE-Israel agreement [the Abraham Accords between the United Arab Emirates and the Jewish state that subsequently were signed on 15th September 2020 at the White House] is already being swallowed up in the serial diplomatic malpractice of the administration’s ‘maximum pressure’ campaign – aimed more at toppling the Iranian regime than at changing its behavior,” he wrote. “Doubling down on failed policy is not a smart diplomatic prescription... but the Trump administration is not likely to see the light. Instead, it will continue to pretend that the United States can participate in only the punitive parts of the Iran nuclear deal... [a strategy that it] tried – and spectacularly failed at.”Nothing could be further from the truth. Trump’s “maximum-pressure campaign” is anything but “diplomatic malpractice.”

Antony Blinken, for instance – who, pending congressional confirmation, will replace Pompeo – is another JCPOA enthusiast. Blinken served under Obama, first as Deputy National Security advisor and then as deputy secretary of state. Like Burns, he was instrumental in formulating and promoting the deal. He also wants to lift sanctions against Tehran as one of those “goodwill gestures” that American multilateralists so love extending to the regimes.

He was clear about this in the immediate aftermath of Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA. In a thread of tweets on 9th May 2018, Blinken wrote, “By blowing up the Iran nuclear deal, President Trump puts us on a collision course with Iran and our closest allies. It gives Iranian hardliners the excuse to speed again toward the bomb without a united international coalition to oppose them or inspectors to expose them. Or if Iran and Europe stick with the deal, it forces us to sanction the latter to stop them from doing business with the former. Either way we lose.”

AS IF THIS weren’t an illustration of the degree to which Democrats misunderstand – or are willfully blind to – the mindset of the Iranian mullahs, Blinken goes on to make a ridiculous assertion. The cancellation of the JCPOA, he tweeted, “makes getting to yes with North Korea that much more challenging.

Cognizant of new reality, Israel is boosting its ability to combat Iranian forces and other proxy groups. The Democrats in the White House, State Department and Capitol building are lying in wait to lead the world, as Obama proudly did, “from behind.”

“UK should freeze arms sales to Israel”, demands Jeremy Corbyn

UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn renewed his call for a British arms embargo against Israel after a United Nations Human Rights Council commission of inquiry said that IDF has likely committed war crimes on the Gaza border.

“The UK government must unequivocally condemn the killings and freeze arms sales to Israel,” Corbyn tweeted on Friday. Last year, the Labour Party approved a motion that called for an arms ban to Israel.

The 22-page report investigated the death of 189 Palestinians by the IDF during the Hamas-led weekly Great March of Return protests which have taken place along the Gaza border.

The UNHRC report was authored by a three-person commission of inquiry, which plans to submit a full report prior to a March 18 debate on the matter at the UNHRC’s 40th session in Geneva.

The report focused primarily on Israeli and not Hamas violence, and concluded that the protests were peaceful. It warned that the International Criminal Court could prosecute Israeli leaders and soldiers.

Last year, the UNHRC passed a resolution which called on all UN member states to halt the sale of any arms to Israel that could be used to violate international human rights law. United States special envoy Jason Greenblatt attacked the UNHRC report on Gaza in a series of tweets.

“This [commission of inquiry] report is another manifestation of the UNHRC’s clear bias against Israel, which remains the only country that the Council dedicates an entire standing agenda item to targeting. When will the HRC speak the truth?” he wrote.

Hamas behaved with reckless irresponsibility [and] disregard for human life when it incited violent (not ‘civilian’) protests, breaches [and] attacks at the Gaza fence-line,” Greenblatt wrote. “Hamas is directly responsible for the miserable situation of the people of Gaza.”

Israel has rejected the report and holds that the protests are violent riots led by Hamas members.

During those riots, Palestinians in Gaza have thrown stones and Molotov cocktails at soldiers. The protesters have attempted to breach the border fence and have placed explosive devices by the fence. Palestinians in Gaza have also launched incendiary devices into Israel, burning thousands of dunams of fields and forests.

Republican lawmakers in the US also spoke out against the report and in support of Israel’s right to self-defense.

Congressman Lee Zeldin, a ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations and co-chair of the House Republican Israel Caucus, was among those who issued a statement on the matter.

“This one-sided, highly biased and woefully inaccurate report fails to take into account key facts; most evidently, Hamas’s provocation and orchestration of this violence, its purposeful destabilization of order along the border and its continued incursions into Israel’s sovereign soil, including the launching of over 10,000 rockets and mortars on Israeli towns and villages, and the dozens of tunnels, enabling their death squads, since the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza,” Zeldin wrote.