Terrorism & Security

Police officers lay down floral tributes handed to them by members of the public at the scene of a terror attack in Woolwich, southeast London, Thursday. The British government’s emergency committee met Thursday after two attackers killed a man in a daylight attack in London that raised fears terrorism had returned to the capital. (Sang Tan/AP)

London murder highlights 'lone wolf' terrorist concerns

By Ariel Zirulnick, Staff writer / 05.23.13

• A daily summary of global reports on security issues.

In a perplexing, brutal attack in London yesterday, two men assaulted and killed a British soldier with a meat cleaver in broad daylight, and then remained at the scene and spoke about their actions, which they said were revenge for British involvement in wars in the Muslim world.

The attack, coming while last month's bombing at the Boston Marathon is still fresh in the public's mind, highlights the threat of "lone wolves," or individuals who commit terrorist acts on their own, without any affiliation with the large terrorist networks that governments have been tracking assiduously.

Little information about the attackers has been disclosed, but Reuters reports that authorities are treating the attack like a terrorist act. The Counter Terrorism Command of the Metropolitan Police is handling the investigation, according to police. Both suspects are in custody.

"I am afraid it is overwhelmingly likely now to be a terrorist attack, the kind the city has seen before," London Mayor Boris Johnson said.

Speaking from France, where he was until cutting the visit short to return to Britain, Prime Minister David Cameron said, "The police are urgently seeking the full facts about this case but there are strong indications that it is a terrorist incident."  

In footage filmed by an onlooker, one of the men – with the meat cleaver still in one hand and the other hand visibly bloodied – said he was taking revenge for British involvement in wars in the Muslim world, Reuters reports.

"We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you. The only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying every day," he shouted. "This British soldier is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."

"I apologize that women had to witness that, but in our lands our women have to see the same thing. You people will never be safe. Remove your government. They don't care about you," he said.

According to Reuters, British counterterrorism chiefs "recently warned that radicalized individuals posed as great a risk as those who plotted attacks" on the London subway in 2005.

The New York Times reports that Britain has "suffered more than any other country in northern Europe from Islamic terrorist plots in recent years, and it has worked assiduously to prevent more. Security officials have said that at any given time they are tracking hundreds of young men in extremist networks."

But "small-scale attacks can be hard to detect," the Times notes.

Reuters reports that British soldiers have been a target at home before, as British involvement overseas has stirred anger of British Muslims, and that British authorities thwarted "at least two major plots" by Muslim extremists to kill members of the military.

Baroness Neville-Jones, a former security minister and chairwoman of the joint intelligence committee, and Col. Richard Kemp, who commanded British troops in Afghanistan, called for a crackdown on extremist websites, which they said could have inspired the attack, the Telegraph reports.

“What we shouldn’t forget is that even if there is nobody else behind it one of the things which runs through the scene at the moment is the inspiration that comes from internet hate preaching and jihadist rhetoric and this is a very, very serious problem now,” [Ms. Neville-Jones] said.

The Muslim Council of Britain condemned the killing as a “truly barbaric” act with “no basis in Islam”.

Lady Neville-Jones added: “I do think it’s very welcome that Muslim leadership in the UK have roundly condemned this. That’s very reassuring and very helpful. But I do think there’s a further task that Muslim leadership in this country does need to help with … we need to redouble our efforts in tackling the spread of this kind of rhetoric.”

…

[Mr. Kemp] said that “one of the biggest priorities” for the security services should now be looking at the role the Internet plays in “motivating people” to commit terrorist attacks.

“I think it is possible that it will be further attacks will be inspired by this attack,” he said. “One of the biggest priorities for the services is to look at the role of the internet in motivating people and look very carefully at which radical sites should be suppressed on the internet as well as of course more direct preaching in some of the mosques in this country which has caused some people to turn to radicalism and terrorism before.”

Brooke Rogers, a senior lecturer in risk and terror at King's College London, said to the BBC: "I do think [extremist] websites are a significant problem. People can find the information if they want it and I think that is a problem. We very much need to keep a balance between freedom to access information and understand the nature of individuals and the psychological processes that occur when they see this information."

CBSNews.com foreign editor Tucker Reals notes, however, that Islamist activists in Britain "are careful in their street preaching and online propaganda to never specifically call for violence. They know incitement is illegal, and they're smart enough to stay on the right side of the letter of the law – to be able to continue propagating their message."

One of those activists, London lawyer Anjem Choudary, was quick to defend the perpetrators of the London attack.

"Woolwich is a lesson for us all, we must take the role of the UK in Muslim land seriously & its harsh repercussions on the streets of the UK," Choudary tweeted just hours after the attack in south London's economically depressed Woolwich neighborhood, where he spent at least part of his own young life.

Speaking to CBS News Wednesday night, after the murder, Choudary said he thought he might have recognized one of the suspects from his rallies or sermons.

Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, a close ally of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, speaks with journalists, during a press conference after registering his candidacy for the upcoming presidential election, at the election headquarters of the interior ministry, in Tehran, Iran, May 11. Ahmadinejad says he will seek the reinstatement of Mr. Mashaei candidacy in next month's presidential elections by appealing to Iran's supreme leader. (Ebrahim Noroozi/AP)

Ahmadinejad to appeal ally's removal from Iran's presidential race

By Arthur Bright, Staff writer / 05.22.13

• A daily summary of global reports on security issues.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says he will seek the reinstatement of his ally's candidacy in next month's presidential elections by appealing to Iran's supreme leader, the only official with the power to overturn the ban issued yesterday by the country's Guardian Council.

Iran's state-owned Press TV reports that Mr. Ahmadinejad said he will ask Ayatollah Khamenei to approve by decree the candidacy of his former chief of staff Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei. Ahmadinejad, who cannot run for a third term under Iranian law, has publicly backed Mr. Mashaei as his political heir. But Iran's Guardian Council, which must approve all presidential candidates, decided against letting Mashaei run.

Reacting to the Council’s decision on Mashaei, Ahmadinejad said, “I ask those who support me and Mr. Mashaei to be patient, because there will be no problem because of the presence of the Leader [of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei],” Ahmadinejad told reporters on Wednesday.

While the Council's decisions are technically not subject to appeal, the supreme leader is able to approve a candidate for election by decree.

But Reuters writes that observers are skeptical that Khamenei will do so, given that he likely had a hand in barring Mashaei and the Guardian Council's other prominent barred candidate, former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.

Khamenei, the ultimate arbiter of nuclear and other affairs of state, is seen as wanting a more docile president than the turbulent Ahmadinejad. He could reinstate the two heavyweight challengers by decree, but analysts said this was unlikely.

"Khamenei surely signaled to the Guardian Council ... that he did not want Rafsanjani or Mashaie to run," said Cliff Kupchan of Eurasia Group, a political risk consultancy. "The Leader wants a pliant president and a calm election."

The disqualification of Mr. Rafsanjani was a surprise, The Christian Science Monitor reports, given his political prominence and ties to the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

[Rafsanjani] has been a regime stalwart for a generation and engineered the elevation of Khamenei to his "supreme" post, but was sympathetic to the 2009 post-election protests. The Council hinted yesterday that physical fitness would be a new criteria, and the 78-year-old might not pass.

For the Islamic Republic, the June 14 election could not be more important. Both inside and outside Iran it is seen as a critical step to restoring legitimacy to a regime tainted by the last presidential poll in 2009, which resulted in street protests against fraud, calls of “death to the dictator” – in reference to Ayatollah Khamenei – and a violent government crackdown that earned widespread condemnation....

Allowing Rafsanjani and Mashaei to run would have boosted the legitimacy of the election, writes Meir Javedanfar in an analysis for Al-Monitor. But for Iran's conservative leaders, stability is even more important than legitimacy, and "The rewards of allowing Meshai and Rafsanjani to run simply do not seem to have justified the high cost, as both would most likely have publicly questioned policies directly involving the domain of the supreme leader," Mr. Javedanfar writes.

Take Rafsanjani, for example: He's the most senior person in Iran to have stated publicly that the chances of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's survival are small. Some conservatives inside the regime saw this as a gift to Iran's enemies, while others could have interpreted this as his criticism of the supreme leader and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps’ (IRGC) continued support for Assad. Had Rafsanjani been allowed to run, he could have brought this and the current nuclear policy up as election issues. This would have exposed such policies to public scrutiny, and criticism, none of which the supreme leader and the IRGC want in the public domain.

The Guardian Council's decision means that Iran's next president will be "drawn from a slate of conservative candidates in Iran’s ruling camp, a loose alliance of Shiite Muslim clerics and Revolutionary Guard commanders," reports The New York Times. "That would put the last major state institution under their control — the first time since the 1979 revolution that all state institutions were under the firm control of one faction."

One of the frontrunners in the race is Saeed Jalili, Iran's lead negotiator in nuclear talks with the international community. The Monitor's Scott Peterson profiled him yesterday.

An Israeli soldier from the Golani Brigade sleeps as others, seen through a black netting, pray close to the ceasefire line between Israel and Syria on the Israeli occupied Golan Heights, two weeks ago. The Israeli military confirmed Tuesday that their soldiers 'returned precise fire' after Syria fired on Israeli troops in the Golan Heights, former Syrian territory that Israel annexed after the 1967 war. (Baz Ratner/Reuters)

Syrian Army fires across border into Israel to retaliate for airstrikes

By Ariel Zirulnick, Staff writer / 05.21.13

• A daily summary of global reports on security issues.

Israel and Syria traded fire across their border today in the third such incident in a week. Although Israel has not taken sides in Syria's civil war, it has been explicit that it is willing to take drastic measures to ensure that, amid Syria's chaos, advanced weapons do not drift unnoticed into the hands of the anti-Israel militant group and Damascus-ally Hezbollah.

Earlier this week, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel was "preparing for every scenario" and that "we will act to ensure the security interest of Israel's citizens in the future as well," Reuters reports. The Israeli military confirmed today that their soldiers "returned precise fire" after Syria fired on Israeli troops in the Golan Heights, Syrian territory that Israel has occupied since the 1967 war. Israel annexed the land in 1981, while Syria continues to claim it, leaving the border a cease-fire line. (Editor's Note: This article was amended to clarify the status of the Golan Heights dispute.) 

The Times of Israel reports that the Syrian Army stated that its troops "destroyed" an Israeli military vehicle, along with those in it, but that the Israel Defense Forces spokesman's office reported that a vehicle was "hit by light weapons fire, causing slight damage to the vehicle." It was the first time that the Syrian Army acknowledged firing across the border into Israel since the outbreak of civil war.

The Times of Israel posits that the acknowledgement was "an attempt by President Bashar [al-Assad]'s regime to project toughness following three Israeli airstrikes near Damascus" in the last month to which it did not retaliate.

Until civil war erupted in Syria, the border had been relatively quiet since 1973, the last time Israel and Syria fought a war. Even now, Israel's involvement has little to do with the Syrian government itself, but with the possibility of an uptick in the number of weapons bound for Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite militant group that is a key ally of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a client of Iran, and one of the greatest threats to Israel.

Michael Herzog, a former Israeli defense ministry chief of staff and current fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, wrote following an Israeli airstrike near Damascus earlier this month that Israel's "actions were driven not by ambitions to shape Syria's future, but by concerns about the strategic balance between itself and the Hezbollah-Iran axis."

Israeli decision-makers are under no illusion that they can elicit a desirable outcome in Syria. Instead, Israel prefers to keep a low profile and focus on other pressing challenges, paramount among them Iran's drive towards nuclear weapons. Israeli actions in Syria are therefore focused on addressing direct threats to its security, particularly the transfer of strategic weapons to Hezbollah.

The war in Syria has escalated this problem since it presented Hezbollah with the opportunity to upgrade its already formidable arsenal of over 60,000 rockets by acquiring more sophisticated weapons from Syria's stocks. Syria's huge arsenal includes hundreds of tonnes of chemical agents, tens of thousands of rockets and missiles, radars and more. Assad, deeply indebted to Iran and Hezbollah for their support, now feels obligated to allow the transfer of such weapons.

While the world is rightly focused on Syria's chemical weapons, Israel is no less concerned about conventional ones, which in the hands of Hezbollah could be game-changers. Israel believes that while other countries might intervene to prevent proliferation of chemical weapons, in stopping the transfer of conventional weapons, it is on its own. It expects only tacit political support for its actions from the US and Europe, which so far it has received.

Herzog notes that Hezbollah is not Israel's chief foe – that would be Hezbollah's chief sponsor, Iran. But Hezbollah, with whom Israel fought a war in 2006, runs a solid second, and Israelis "see a high chance of another round with Hezbollah in the future."

Hezbollah is deeply involved in the fight in Syria, as The Christian Science Monitor's Nicholas Blanford illustrated yesterday in a dispatch from Lebanon's border region, where residents were holding funerals for Hezbollah fighters killed in battle in Syria.

With the number of fighters killed or wounded in Syria becoming too large to keep quiet, Hezbollah has finally come out into the open about its presence in Syria. It is currently fighting alongside the Syrian Army in a high-profile offensive to retake the Syrian rebel-held town of Qusayr, a few miles north of the Lebanese border.

The battle in Qusayr is Hezbollah's first major combat action since the end of the month-long war against Israel in 2006. Although the organization is dedicated to the confrontation against Israel, its cadres are now in Syria battling fellow Arab Muslims, albeit Sunnis. Meanwhile, Israeli jets penetrate Lebanese airspace on a daily basis. Two weeks ago they bombed suspected Hezbollah arms stockpiles outside Damascus in two separate sorties. Neither Hezbollah nor regime forces retaliated.

Syria is the linchpin connecting Hezbollah by land to its patron Iran, serving as a conduit for the flow of arms and granting the Shiite group strategic depth. The collapse of the Assad regime would represent a serious blow to Iran and Hezbollah, leaving them isolated on opposite ends of the Middle East.

Hezbollah's rapidly expanding role in Syria is regarded as part of a strategic decision undertaken by the party, Damascus, and Tehran to safeguard the Assad regime at all costs. To soothe any misgivings among Hezbollah's rank and file, the party's leadership has crafted a narrative that the West and Israel are using militant Sunni jihadists to oust the Assad regime and weaken the "resistance front" of Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah for the benefit of the Jewish state. 

That narrative seems to have been absorbed. "No, we are fighting Israelis in Syria," one Hezbollah fighter told Mr. Blanford. "Only they are wearing a dishdash and carrying the Quran. But it is the same Western and Israeli project that wants to weaken the resistance."

North Korean pirates seize Chinese hostages, demand a ransom

By Arthur Bright, Staff writer / 05.20.13

• A daily summary of global reports on security issues.

The Chinese embassy in North Korea is "working on" securing the release of the crew of a Chinese fishing boat held by unidentified armed North Koreans, who are reportedly seeking a ransom.

The Associated Press reports that, according to the ship owner Yu Xuejun, the Liaoning-based boat was seized on May 5 by kidnappers demanding 600,000 yuan ($100,000) ransom for the 16 crew members' safe return.

In another plea for help on Monday, Yu wrote on his blog that he received another call from “the North Korean side” on Sunday night, still demanding money.

“My captain gave me the phone, his voice was trembling, could feel he was very afraid, told me no later than 5 p.m. today,” Yu wrote. He said he suspected his crew had been mistreated.

Mr. Yu said that the boat was seized in Chinese waters, although the kidnappers reportedly claimed it was in North Korean territory.

Yu told Agence France-Presse that he believes the kidnappers are part of the North Korean military, though he is not certain. He reported the incident to the Chinese government, but took to social media to publicize his crew's predicament after becoming frustrated with a lack of official action.

"It has almost been two weeks, but I haven't seen any results," he told AFP.

Chinese state news agency Xinhua published its first report on the matter on Sunday, writing that the Chinese embassy in North Korea "is working on the detention" and is "asking Pyongyang to ensure the safety and legitimate rights and interests of the fishermen."

The incident comes amid a tense situation on the Korean peninsula. North Korea in recent months has conducted several missile launches and nuclear tests, including six short-range rocket launches over the weekend and two more today. China, a traditional ally of North Korea, has been showing greater irritation with its neighbor, including supporting UN sanctions against Pyongyang over its most recent nuclear test.

AP writes that kidnappings of Chinese nationals by North Korean pirates are actually fairly common – including a similar event last year in which 29 fishermen were seized by armed North Koreans and later released.

“Whatever you call North Korea – rogue state or whatever – these kind of cases just keep happening,” said a Liaoning Maritime and Fishery Administration official who identified himself only by his surname, Liu. “We had such cases last year and the year before. There’s very little we can do to prevent them.”

The Global Times, a Chinese Communist Party newspaper, suggests that the current tension between Beijing and Pyongyang may result in a greater willingness for the Chinese to publicize the incidents – and that North Korea is deliberately targeting China.

Cui Zhiying, director of the Korean Peninsula Research Center at the Shanghai-based Tongji University, told the Global Times that as the relations between China and North Korea are gradually changing from traditional ideological allies to normal bilateral relations, these kinds of reports are being disclosed more frequently than before.

Jin Qiangyi, director of the Asian Studies Center at Yanbian University, told the Global Times Sunday that China has been inclined to deal with such disputes in a low-key manner, which has been taken advantage of by North Korea to infringe upon Chinese fishermen's interests.

"It's also possible that the nuclear state is taking revenge on China after the UN imposed  a series of sanctions on it following its third nuclear test," said Jin, stressing that the Chinese government should hold firm in safeguarding the safety of its citizens, otherwise, such incidents will reoccur in the future.

This citizen journalism image shows buildings which were destroyed from Syrian forces shelling, in Homs province, Syria, Tuesday. Russia boosts its naval presence in Syria, sends new missiles to the embattled Syrian government, highlighting the depth of Moscow’s commitment to the Assad regime. (Lens Young Homsi/AP)

Russia boosts its naval presence in Syria, sends regime new missiles (+video)

By Whitney Eulich, Staff writer / 05.17.13

• A daily summary of global reports on security issues.

Russia has deployed upwards of a dozen ships to its naval base in Syria over the past three months, and recently sent advanced anti-ship missiles to the embattled Syrian government, highlighting the depth of Moscow’s commitment to the Assad regime and the challenges in finding an internationally palatable solution to the crisis.

Some believe Russia’s increased presence is meant to deter Western powers from getting involved militarily with the Syrian conflict, which has killed more than 70,000 people and displaced millions over the past three years. US officials, however, told The Wall Street Journal they do not fear a direct conflict with Russia.

"It is a show of force. It's muscle flexing," a senior U.S. defense official said of the Russian deployments. "It is about demonstrating their commitment to their interests."

Russia supports Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad, whereas the US recently stated that a political solution to the crisis would have to exclude the president from the transitional government.

The US and Russia last week announced a peace conference on Syria, but a date has not been set. The idea of the conference was met with high hopes from the international community, which has been stymied over how to help draw the Syrian civil war to a close. Today, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said the joint conference must be held as soon as possible so that the international community does “not lose momentum.”

But Russia’s recent actions around Syria could potentially complicate that goal. Moscow insisted yesterday on the attendance of Iran at any peace conference, another controversial player in the Syrian conflict and on the international stage, reports Reuters.

Iran has long been believed to be moving weapons to Hezbollah via Syria. Earlier this month, Israel conducted an airstrike in Syria, stating that “if there is activity, it is only against Hezbollah, not against the Syrian regime.”

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in an interview posted on a government website yesterday, "Among some of our Western colleagues, there is a desire to narrow the circle of external participants and begin the process from a very small group of countries in a framework which, in essence, would predetermine the negotiating teams, agenda, and maybe even the outcome of talks."

Russia's recent delivery of sophisticated anti-ship cruise missiles to Syria also has raised concerns, reports The New York Times. The weapons enable “the regime to deter foreign forces looking to supply the opposition from the sea, or from undertaking a more active role if a no-fly zone or shipping embargo were to be declared at some point,” Nick Brown, editor in chief of IHS Jane’s International Defense Review, told the Times. “It’s a real ship killer.”

The Wall Street Journal noted that the missiles appear to contradict earlier Russian reassurances about the kinds of weapons it would supply to Assad's forces. 

Yakhont missiles are an offensive system. Moscow has told Western diplomats it will supply only defensive weaponry to the Syrian regime. But U.S. and Israeli officials have long been worried about Syria's existing stocks of the weapon. If transferred to Hezbollah or other militant groups, they could provide a serious threat to both Israeli and U.S. warships in the region.

Russian Navy and foreign ministry officials didn't respond to requests for comment about the deployments of the warships.

French President François Hollande said yesterday that Russia’s ongoing arms supply to the Assad regime was problematic in finding a diplomatic resolution to the civil war, and that rebels needed to be able to keep up military pressure on the Syrian Army.

"While the Russians are accepting the idea of this conference they continue to give weapons to Bashar al-Assad's regime, so we need to have an attitude that balances that out," Mr. Hollande said.

“This weapons transfer is obviously disappointing and will set back efforts to promote the political transition that is in the best interests of the Syrian people and the region,” Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, the senior Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement last night. “There is now greater urgency for the U.S. to step up assistance to the moderate opposition forces who can lead Syria after Assad.”

Which players will have a role in Syria’s political transition is believed, in part, to be at the crux of the international standstill on Syria. A UN resolution yesterday drew ire from the likes of Russia because it explicitly backed the Syrian National Commission, an opposition group, for future talks on the political transition, reports Agence France-Presse.

“An angry Russia said this would encourage opposition ‘armed actions’ against the Assad government,” AFP reports.

An Afghan fireman stands next to the debris of a car at the scene where a suicide car bomber attacked a NATO convoy in Kabul, Afghanistan, Thursday, May 16, 2013. (Anja Niedringhaus/AP)

Afghanistan blast targets NATO convoy, kills at least 6 (+video)

By Tom A. Peter, Correspondent / 05.16.13

• A daily summary of global reports on security issues.

A suicide attack rocked the Afghan capital this morning, killing at least six people and injuring dozens more. A violent faction of Hizb-e-Islami claimed responsibility for the attack, dampening hopes that the group might take an active role in the peace process.

A car laden with explosives reportedly rammed a NATO convoy in eastern Kabul at 8:00 a.m. during rush hour traffic. The explosion destroyed at least one of the NATO vehicles while it was moving through a difficult spot in the road and caused damage to surrounding shops and houses, reports Pajhwok Afghan News.

“I heard firing first. When I looked from the window I heard a big explosion and saw smoke and flame rising from the cars on the road,” said Yar Mohammad, in an interview with the Washington Post. He witnessed the attack and suffered minor injuries when the window near him blew out from the explosion. “It was very powerful explosion and totally destroyed one of the vehicles used by foreign forces and several other cars.”

The International Security Assistance Force has yet to release details about those killed and injured in the explosion but it issued a statement on Thursday morning indicating that two service members and four ISAF contractors had been killed in an improvised explosive attack in Kabul.

Officials from Hizb-e-Islami said the attack was part of an effort to attack NATO troops and Afghan civilians working with them.

“Our party will increase its attacks against foreign troops in Afghanistan in the future,” said Zubair Sediqqi, spokesman for the Hizb-e-Islami in an interview with The Los Angeles Times.

The officials from the group also claim that they’ve created a special “martyrdom” unit to attack foreign forces in Afghanistan, reports the Associated Press. The attack and subsequent announcement could indicate a shift for the group, which once avoided suicide attacks and military operations that could harm civilians. 

In September, the Monitor reported that Hizb-e-Islami used a female suicide bomber to carry out its last attack in Kabul that killed 12 people. The group’s leadership said the attack was in response to the anti-Islamic “Innocence of Muslims” YouTube video.

Hizb-e-Islami is broken into two factions. The one that carried out the attacks on Thursday and in September is loyal to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a US ally during the Soviet war in Afghanistan who has since become a staunch enemy, leading his group in violent opposition to the foreign presence in Afghanistan. The other faction is nonviolent and largely loyal to the Afghan government, but is sometimes sympathetic to the violent faction.

Prior to the bombing in September, many in Kabul had hoped the group might take a greater role in negotiations with the Afghan government. It had previously taken liberal positions such a supporting girls’ education and criticizing insurgent groups that attacked reconstruction projects. The attack in September dashed many of these hopes. And Thursday’s attack, combined with statements by the group’s spokesman that they plan to increase attacks is likely to further dampen these hopes.

“Hizb-e-Islami is viewed as a liberal opponent of the government, so in the long-term it will negatively affect their standing among the Afghans if they intensify their fighting and carry out more attacks, but they still want to show themselves as a strong player in the current conflict,” Muhammad Hassan Haqyar, an independent political analyst in Kabul, told The Christian Science Monitor following last September’s attack.

Thursday’s attack was the first major bombing inside Kabul since March when a suicide bombing targeted the Defense Ministry. The BBC reports that the attack against its convoy is yet another incident in what has been a violent month for international forces in Afghanistan. Since the beginning of this month, 15 international troops have been killed in separate incidents.

A man claimed by Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) to be Ryan Fogle, a third secretary at the US Embassy in Moscow, is in the FSB offices in Moscow, early Tuesday. (Courtesy of FSB Public Relations Center/AP)

I spy, you spy: Russian officials downplay Fogle incident

By Arthur Bright, Staff writer / 05.15.13

• A daily summary of global reports on security issues.

Both Washington and the Kremlin played down the diplomatic impact of Russia's detention of a US diplomat it suspects of being a CIA agent, suggesting that the incident will prove a minor episode in US-Russian relations.

Reuters reports that Dmitry Peskov, a spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin, said that the Ryan Fogle incident did not contribute to "strengthening mutual trust between Russia and the US," but Reuters notes that Mr. Peskov avoided inflammatory language. And BBC News writes that Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov did not address the incident during a meeting with US Secretary of State John Kerry in Sweden.

"I decided that talking about it would be superfluous, since it is already made public and everyone already understands everything," [Mr. Lavrov] said in comments published on the foreign ministry's website.

Similarly, Nikolai Kovalyov, a former Russian security chief and current parliamentarian for Putin's United Russia party, told independent Russian news agency Interfax that he did not believe Fogle's detention will affect US-Russian relations. "The Americans do nothing other secret services, including ours, would not do," he said.

Reuters notes that US State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell also played down the impact of the Fogle arrest on US-Russian relations, saying "I'm not sure I would read too much into one incident one way or another."

Fogle was reportedly detained on Monday by Russian security on suspicion that he is a CIA agent trying to turn Russian agents. The FSB, Russia's CIA counterpart, claims that it caught Fogle red-handed, with "special technical devices, written instructions for the Russian citizen being recruited, a large sum of cash and means of changing his appearance." Fogle's image dominated the Russian media on Tuesday, which showed him in detention with a collection of wigs, sunglasses, money, and other paraphernalia he is alleged to have been carrying.

Fogle's alleged spy kit has struck many experts as too obviously cloak-and-dagger to be legitimate, however.

Former FBI counterintelligence officer Eric O'Neill told CNN that he "very much doubt[s] that a highly trained CIA operative is going to be walking the streets of Moscow wearing a really bad blonde wig. It's poor tradecraft, and looks like a setup to me," suggesting that the material was planted on Fogle for dramatic effect.

Mark Galeotti, a security and espionage expert at New York University told the Daily Telegraph that it's possible that Fogle is indeed a low-level CIA agent, but that the kit was added to "ice the cake."

"I'm sure the way Russia is handling this was a political decision made at or near the top," he said in a telephone interview. "Part of this is a message to the United States saying, 'don't take us for granted'. But mostly, this is a message for the internal constituency.

"It feeds into a Russian narrative that says, 'yes, of course, we will deal with the West because it's pragmatic to do so, but you have to understand the extent to which we are constantly under siege in a hidden campaign against us by the West, and that's why we need a strong hand in the Kremlin."

Alexander Golts, a security analyst with the online newspaper Yezhednevny Zhurnal, told The Christian Science Monitor that "There are some peculiar aspects of this story as well, particularly the letter – which has been reproduced in the Russian press – promising this Russian $1 million per year for his cooperation. I really have trouble picturing what kind of information is worth that much money."

But Mr. Golts notes that spycraft is often stranger than fiction, citing Kremlin accusations in 2006 that Britain's MI6 was making use of a high-tech device disguised as a rock to spy on Russia – accusations that later proved to be true.

"Remember how we all laughed at the spy-rock story? But it turned out to be real enough, so we must admit that such things do happen," he says.

A Free Syrian Army fighter holds his weapon as he takes position in Deir al-Zor, Syria, Monday. (Khalil Ashawi/Reuters)

Syrian rebel's video surfaces amid intensified pressure for action on Syria

By Whitney Eulich, Staff writer / 05.14.13

• A daily summary of global reports on security issues.

An unauthenticated video that appears to show a Syrian rebel severely abusing the body of a dead soldier has highlighted the increasingly dire situation in Syria, where war crimes and sectarian rhetoric in the two-year conflict appear to be on the rise.

"I swear to God we will eat your hearts and your livers, you soldiers of Bashar the dog," a man says on tape as he stands over the body of a soldier, referring to soldiers of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The video is 27 seconds long, according to Time, and the man is believed to be a rebel commander named Khalid al-Hamad, also known as Abu Sakkar.

The video, in part, speaks to one challenge facing Western governments that have discussed arming rebels but have yet to take action: how to support rebels in a mismatch against the better-armed regime, while ensuring weapons don’t fall into the “wrong hands” and perpetuate an already gruesome conflict, as Time notes in its report:

Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are already providing the rebel forces with military aid, and the U.S. is helping with nonmilitary aid. There is an ongoing debate in Washington about whether the U.S. government should provide further aid to the rebels, possibly including weapons. Eating an enemy’s liver may be an extreme example of what appears to be a rebel atrocity, but there is enough documented evidence of extrajudicial killings, torture and desecration on the part of the rebels that it would be near impossible to know for certain who, exactly, are the “good” guys, says Peter Bouckaert, director of emergencies for the New York–based group Human Rights Watch.

“In this context, where different rebel groups are fighting alongside each other, and sharing weapons, it’s difficult to control where the weapons end up. It is very likely that some of the weapons will end up in the hands of the likes of Abu Sakkar.”

In the spring of 2011, Syrians joined regional pro-democracy uprisings, but the Assad government clamped down on protests. Many believed the violence would be contained and short-lived, but today upwards of 70,000 Syrians have died in the bloody civil war.

In what the United Nations envoy called “the first hopeful news concerning that unhappy country in a very long time," Russia and the US have agreed to host a conference on Syria at the end of the month or early June.

President Obama is under increasing pressure to take action in Syria. According to Voice of America, different stakeholders are clamoring for President Obama to create no-fly zones or execute targeted air strikes on the regime.

The pressure is coming from all directions – from Obama’s political rivals at home, the Syrian rebels themselves and powerful U.S. allies such as Britain, France, Israel and Turkey. All of them argue Syria has already crossed the so-called “red line” Obama himself drew nearly a year ago when he said use of chemical weapons against civilians would be a “game changer” requiring U.S. action in Syria.

Kori Schake from Foreign Policy argues there may be a way for the US to intervene without confronting the murky issue of arming rebels. Mr. Schake contends that emphasizing humanitarian need may present an opportunity to united disparate world players and help move Syria toward a peaceful resolution.

Focusing on refugees would be the path of least international resistance, something important to this administration, and could even conceivably produce an international "legal" basis. Whether the UN will actually support invoking the Responsibility to Protect is worth testing, but it needn't be the only means by which the UN could be brought in. The Obama administration could lead from behind by orchestrating an appeal to the Security Council led by Turkey, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia -- perhaps even Israel could be included to show the breadth of regional support, and Iraq lured by Sunni emboldenment and the status of inclusion to abandon Iranian objectives….

Such an approach would not prevent all Syrian attacks. But it would protect more Syrians and it would diminish the Assad government's military advantage over time. And it just might be limited enough, and contain enough elements of the kind of policies the Obama administration favors, for the commander in chief to consider it.

According to FP, the violence in Syria has displaced more than 4 million people from their homes, and nearly 1.5 million Syrians have fled to neighboring countries. Jonathan Kay from Canada’s National Post echoes the idea of a humanitarian-focused approach to the war.

Instead of focusing on “red lines” and the like, Western nations should be funding and organizing a proper aid response to a humanitarian disaster that some are describing as one of the most horrendous the world has witnessed since World War II. This effort will require not only money, but also a sustained diplomatic push in Ankara, Beirut, Amman and Baghdad to ensure that these nations permit aid to travel to the people who need it, and expand their own refugee-aid infrastructure.

“It’s really not very certain in international law what the legality of humanitarian intervention is,” Ian Hurd, associate professor of political science at Northwestern University, told VOA. “You can use international law to justify a humanitarian intervention, as in Libya, but you can also use the fact of state sovereignty to argue against it.”

John Kampfner of the Guardian argues that Syria is proving to be the first conflict in a “post-superpower” world. Whereas in the past, the US would have intervened with or without global support, today, staying out of the melee has “proved attractive.”

The absence of leadership or strategy is palpable. On Assad's use of chemical weapons, which Obama said would mark a red line, it appears that the US bluff may have been called. In another sign of the west's weakness, both David Cameron and the US secretary of state, John Kerry, have gone cap in hand to Assad's chief supporter, Vladimir Putin – a few months ago the Americans and British were dismissive of the Russian position. In their meeting in Washington on Monday, Cameron said he and Obama – "whatever our differences" – had the same aim as Putin: "a stable, inclusive and peaceful Syria free from the scourge of extremists". That statement meant everything and nothing.

Twenty-five years of single-power dominance came crashing down with Iraq. Obama has been wise and politically brave to shed the hubris and self-delusion that had taken hold. Libya was a brief interlude, but the days of heavy-handed military intervention are over. It is Syria's tragedy, and will soon be others', that nothing has been put in its place.

Russia's President Vladimir Putin (l.) and Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speak after delivering joint statements following their meeting in Jerusalem in this 2012 file photo. (Jim Hollander/REUTERS/File)

A flurry of diplomacy over Syria, but will it amount to progress?

By Arthur Bright, Staff writer / 05.13.13

• A daily summary of global reports on security issues.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin tomorrow, adding to the recent flurry of global diplomatic activity over the ongoing civil war in Syria.

Agence France-Presse reports Mr. Netanyahu will meet Mr. Putin in Russia Tuesday, where "major attention will be paid to the current situation in the Middle East, first and foremost in Syria," according to a Kremlin statement. Although the statement did not offer further details, AFP reported on Sunday that Netanyahu's trip was "reportedly prompted by concerns that Russia was preparing to ship Syria S-300 surface-to-air missiles, which can defend against multiple aircraft and missiles."

Russia has been a close ally of President Bashar al-Assad's government in Syria as the civil war has unfolded, much to the consternation of the West and most Middle Eastern nations. Russia has countered that the West is fueling regional instability in its support for the rebels, particularly by empowering the Islamist elements therein.

The missiles, whose shipment came to light last week, are a source of concern for both Israel – which has staged two airstrikes against targets in Syria in recent weeks – and for the US, The Christian Science Monitor reported.

"I think we have made it crystal clear that we would prefer that Russia is not supplying assistance," to Syria, Secretary of State John Kerry told journalists during a visit to Italy.

"We have previously stated that [these] missiles are potentially destabilizing with respect to the state of Israel," he said....

Introduction of the S-300 into Syria's air defense arsenal could sharply limit the future options not only for Israel but for the US as well, should it decide to intervene in the conflict.

But even as the US and Israel express their concerns over Russia's missile shipment to the Assad regime, there is cautious optimism in some Western capitals over a planned international conference on Syria that both Moscow and Washington are organizing.

The Guardian writes that British Prime Minister David Cameron, who is visiting the White House today, is reportedly set to tell President Barack Obama that he believes Russia is prepared to adopt a more flexible approach to Syria, based on Mr. Cameron's meeting Friday with Putin in Sochi, Russia.

Speaking during his flight to Washington, Cameron described his talks with Putin as "extremely positive and good". He said: "I was very heartened that while it is no secret that Britain and Russia have taken a different approach to Syria I was very struck in my conversations with President Putin that there is a recognition that it would be in all our interests to secure a safe and secure Syria with a democratic and pluralistic future and end the regional instability.

"We have a long way to go. But they were good talks and I am looking forward to now taking them up with President Obama and seeing if we can turn this proposal for a peace process and a peace conference into something that can make a real difference." ...

Cameron said he would use his meeting with Obama to "try to really put flesh on the bones of this plan for a peace conference and to think of all the things that would make it work and deliver a peaceful transition in Syria. A lot of progress has been made and I want to push on on that."

But experts tell AFP that they doubt the progress will amount to anything concrete.

Stephen Sestanovich, an expert in Russian and Eurasian studies at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, said this week's agreement on a peace conference "moves the Geneva [peace plan] formula one step further, but what is one step beyond complete meaninglessness?"

"The real issue is whether the Russians are prepared to tell Assad and his supporters that the jig is really up for their regime," he added.

Salman Shaikh, director of the Brookings Doha Center, said he was not convinced that the different players' positions had changed "that much."

...Shaikh stressed that "the situation on the ground" -- rather than diplomatic efforts -- "will continue to shape events."

Reuters notes that it is not yet clear whether the Syrian opposition will attend the US-Russia peace conference. The opposition coalition is set to meet on May 23 to determine whether it will attend, though the coalition itself remains split over the leadership of the group. Reuters writes that two factions, one backed by the Muslim Brotherhood, the other by Qatar, are vying for control of the coalition.