United States drops over 100,000 bombs across Syria

I am shocked to read a revelation by The New York Times (NYT) that a top secret US cell known as Talon Anvil sidestepped safeguards and repeatedly ordered airstrikes that killed an untold number of civilians in Syria under the guise of targeting ISIS fighters.

According to the report published on 12 December, the shadowy group operated from anonymous rooms “cluttered with flat screens” in three shifts around the clock between 2014 and 2019.

Among US officials, Talon Anvil was known to disregard safeguard procedures to function at the “speed of war,” and obscured a countless number of civilian deaths including farmers trying to harvest, children in the street, families fleeing fighting, and villagers taking shelter in buildings.

The NYT report also claims that Talon Anvil played an “outsize role” in the dropping of over 100,000 bombs in the war-torn country.

“They were ruthlessly efficient and good at their jobs … but they also made a lot of bad strikes,” a former Air Force intelligence officer who worked on hundreds of classified Talon Anvil missions told the NYT.

Among the many bombing campaigns that Talon Anvil was responsible for is the 2019 airstrike in the eastern Syrian governorate of Dayr al-Zawr which killed over 60 civilians, including dozens of women and children. This particular attack has been described as being “part of a pattern of reckless strikes that started years earlier.”

US Air Force officials who spoke with the NYT on condition of anonymity said that over the years they notified their commanding officers several times about Talon Anvil’s disregard for civilian lives. However, the military leaders seemed reluctant to scrutinize the strike cell as it was “driving the offensive” on the battlefield.

According to Larry Lewis, a former Pentagon and State Department adviser, every year that Talon Anvil operated in Syria the civilian casualty rate increased significantly.

Lewis also claims that US military commanders “enabled the tactics by failing to emphasize the importance of reducing civilian casualties.” He singles out General Stephen J. Townsend, who commanded US troops in Syria in 2016 and 2017, as being “dismissive of widespread reports from news media and human rights organizations describing the mounting toll.”

Talon Anvil’s operations were highly classified and the strike cell as a whole never existed in an official manner. It was run by a classified Special Operations unit called Task Force 9, whose other tasks included training allied Syrian and Kurdish armed groups.

The strike cell reportedly worked out of “bland office spaces” both in Iraq and Syria and was in control of a “fleet of Predator and Reaper drones that bristled with precision Hellfire missiles and laser-guided bombs.”

They carried out most of their operations based on tips from allied forces, secret electronic intercepts, drone cameras, and other information to find enemy targets.

A former member of Talon Anvil told the NYT that the strike cell often decided that something was an enemy target with scant supporting evidence. But as suspicion mounted over their tactics, Talon Anvil began to classify nearly all of its attacks as defensive – even when targets were 100 miles away from the front lines.

“It’s more expedient to resort to self-defense,” said Lewis. “It’s easier to get approved.”

The drone operators were also known to turn away the drone cameras away from targets before launching bombs or missiles to avoid accountability.

The operators also pressured analysts, who watched drone footage after strikes had taken place, to report that they had seen weapons or other evidence that would justify a strike hit. If they refused, the cell would simply ask for another analyst.

 

 

Joe Biden reaffirms support for JCPOA, vows to engage Iran

Joe Biden has said that he still stands by his views on the 2015 Iran nuclear deal that were articulated in a mid-September op-ed, but a US return to the deal would be “hard.” In an interview with The New York Times’ columnist Thomas Friedman, Biden addressed a variety of domestic and foreign policy issues, including the Iran nuclear deal, which President Donald Trump quit on May 8, 2018.

Asked whether he still stands by his views on the Iran deal that he expressed in a September 13 op-ed for CNN, Biden answered, “It’s going to be hard, but yeah.”

This is the first statement on Iran; Biden said in the op-ed that he will return to the nuclear deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

“I will offer Tehran a credible path back to diplomacy. If Iran returns to strict compliance with the nuclear deal, the United States would rejoin the agreement as a starting point for follow-on negotiations. With our allies, we will work to strengthen and extend the nuclear deal's provisions, while also addressing other issues of concern,” then-presidential candidate Biden said.

According to Friedman, the view of Biden and his national security team is that once the deal is restored by both sides, there will have to be, in very short order, a round of negotiations to seek to lengthen the duration of the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program — originally 15 years — as well as to address Iran’s regional activities.

The columnist also said that the Biden team may involve Iran’s Arab neighbors, namely Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, in follow-on negotiations on Iran's regional activities.

“Ideally, the Biden team would like to see that follow-on negotiation include not only the original signatories to the deal — Iran, the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France, Germany and the European Union — but also Iran’s Arab neighbors, particularly Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates,” wrote Friedman.

A few days ago, Friedman wrote a column urging a Biden administration to address Iran’s precision-guided missile before restoring the JCPOA. But this column seems to have failed to influence the Biden team. “But for now they insist that America’s overwhelming national interest is to get Iran’s nuclear program back under control and fully inspected,” Friedman admittedly said.

Biden himself expressed less enthusiasm about addressing Iran’s missiles. “Look, there’s a lot of talk about precision missiles and all range of other things that are destabilizing the region,” Biden noted, adding that “the best way to achieve getting some stability in the region” is to deal “with the nuclear program.”

If Iran gets a nuclear bomb, Biden claimed, it puts enormous pressure on the Saudis, Turkey, Egypt and others to get nuclear weapons themselves. “And the last goddamn thing we need in that part of the world is a buildup of nuclear capability.”

Then, Biden said, “In consultation with our allies and partners, we’re going to engage in negotiations and follow-on agreements to tighten and lengthen Iran’s nuclear constraints, as well as address the missile program.” The US always has the option to snap back sanctions if need be, and Iran knows that, he added.

It’s worth noting that Iran has always said that it is not seeking to develop a nuclear bomb, and it even considers this kind of bomb religiously indecent.

UN Security Council session on JCPOA

The United Nations Security Council will hold a briefing session on the latest development in the West Asia region, including the situation around the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.

“Before the Christmas break, the Council will hear briefings on the Middle East [West Asia] peace process, including the question of Palestine, and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran’s nuclear program,” the UN said in a statement on Tuesday.

Council President Jerry Matthews Matjila said the Council will not discuss the recent assassination of prominent Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh because the 15-member UN body has not received any request concerning the assassination.

“As for the recent killing of an Iranian nuclear scientist, he said the Council has not received any request to act on that matter, but the meeting on Iran’s nuclear program later this month will be held in ‘a new global environment,’” the UN statement said.

Israel usually informs the US administration of information about its targets and the operations it intends to carry out prior to carrying out, but he refused to confirm whether the Israeli government had done so this time.

Iran's retaliatory step against the Americans will make Biden's job difficult regarding lifting sanctions on Tehran and launching the diplomatic process.

Additional sanctions will be imposed on Tehran within the next week and the following, as Trump has given Pompeo a “Carte Blanche” to continue imposing a policy of maximum pressure on Tehran over the next two months.

But slapping new sanctions on Iran could ratchet up tensions in the region especially after the assassination of the Iranian nuclear scientist significantly raised the tension in the region.

The UN has called for restraint hours after the assassination of Fakhrizadeh.

“We have noted the reports that an Iranian nuclear scientist has been assassinated near Tehran today. We urge restraint and the need to avoid any actions that could lead to an escalation of tensions in the region,” Farhan Haq, the deputy spokesman for the UN secretary-general, said.

Also on Friday, Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations Majid Takht Ravanchi sent a letter to the UN secretary-general and Security Council, warning against any “adventurist” steps by the US and Israel against Iran in the waning days of the Trump administration.

Warning against any adventurist measures by the United States and Israel against my country, particularly during the remaining period of the current administration of the United States in office, the Islamic Republic of Iran reserves its rights to take all necessary measures to defend its people and secure its interests," Ravanchi said in the letter.

Pakistan Succumbing to US Pressure

And finally Pakistan has opened Nato supply route, without demanding any transit fee on simple sorry by Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State.

In return Pakistan is likely to get US$1.1 billion due under Coalition Support Fund, which has been subject of wrangling between the two countries.

Pakistan’s claims often rejected and smaller sums approved by Washington for reimbursement. It is not a favor because the amount had been approved and already gone through the process and pertains to services rendered before closure of the supply route.

The announcement coming from the two governments suggest that the suspension of Nato supplies was not in the interest of Pakistan, which seem incorrect. In fact Nato had to incur almost three times the expense in using alternate routes. On top of all opening of route was necessary for withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, expected to commence in 2014.

Most offending is one of the editorials published in The New York Times alleging that the military of the 'crippled and chaotic' state continues to play a double game of accepting aid from America while enabling the Afghan Taliban. It also said that Pakistan's political system is growing ‘ever more dysfunctional’.

Pakistanis fail to understand because on one hand says the US administration says it needs Pakistan’s help in reopening a critical supply route to Afghanistan and in urging the Taliban to engage in peace talks so that combat troops can be withdrawn from Afghanistan by the end of 2014 and on the other hand Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says “reaching the limits of our patience.”

According to the editorial the US President, Barak Obama declined to hold an official meeting with President of Pakistan, Asif Zardari at the NATO summit meeting in Chicago in May. It also said The United States has little choice but to continue drone attacks on militants in Pakistan. It has urged India to become more involved in Afghanistan. Surprising was the phrase ‘Pakistan is paranoid about India’, which it sees as a mortal adversary.

Equally disturbing for Pakistan and United States should be the threats from Pakistani Taliban to attack Nato supply trucks and kill its drivers if they tried to resume supplies to troops in Afghanistan. Prior to the closure they have carried out dozens of attacks; disrupting supplies destined for Afghanistan, and have repeatedly warned of more if Pakistan reopened supply route.

Opening up of Nato route is likely to get fierce response from religious groups and politicians who have been demanding Pakistan should pull itself out of proxy US war in Afghanistan. Opponents of the present regime enjoy street power and if these demonstrations turn violent containing these would be difficult.