russiainsider--2020-01-21--How an Israeli Spy-Linked Tech Firm Gained Access to the US Gov’t’s Most Classified Networks

If the networks of the U.S. military , the U.S. intelligence community and a slew of other U.S. federal agencies were running the software of a company with deep ties , not only to foreign companies with a history of espionage against the U.S. but also foreign military intelligence , it would — at the very least — garner substantial media attention .
Yet , no media reports to date have noted that such a scenario exists on a massive scale and that the company making such software recently simulated the cancellation of the 2020 election and the declaration of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Earlier this month , MintPress News reported on the simulations for the U.S. 2020 election organized by the company Cybereason , a firm led by former members of Israel ’ s military intelligence Unit 8200 and advised by former top and current officials in both Israeli military intelligence and the CIA .
Those simulations , attended by federal officials from the FBI , DHS and the U.S. Secret Service , ended in disaster , with the elections ultimately canceled and martial law declared due to the chaos created by a group of hackers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ installment of this three part series delved deeply into Cybereason ’ s ties to the intelligence community of Israel and also other agencies , including the CIA , as well as the fact that Cybereason stood to gain little financially from the simulations given that their software could not have prevented the attacks waged against the U.S. ’ electoral infrastructure in the exercise .
Also noted was the fact that Cybereason software could be potentially used as a backdoor by unauthorized actors , a possibility strengthened by the fact that the company ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that have a history of placing backdoors into U.S. telecommunications and electronic infrastructure as well as aggressive espionage targeting U.S. federal agencies .
The latter issue is crucial in the context of this installment of this exclusive MintPress series , as Cybereason ’ s main investors turned partners have integrated Cybereason ’ s software into their product offerings .
This means that the clients of these Cybereason partner companies , the U.S. intelligence community and military among them , are now part of Cybereason ’ s network of more than 6 million endpoints @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a combination of staff comprised largely of former intelligence operatives and an AI algorithm first developed by Israeli military intelligence .
Cybereason , thus far , has disclosed the following groups as lead investors in the company : Charles River Ventures ( CRV ) , Spark Capital , Lockheed Martin and SoftBank .
Charles River Ventures ( CRV ) was among the first to invest in Cybereason and has been frequently investing in other Israeli tech start-ups that were founded by former members of the elite Israeli military intelligence Unit 8200 over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ based in California , appears to have followed CRV ’ s interest in Cybereason since the venture capitalist who co-founded Spark and led its investment in Cybereason is a former CRV partner who still has close ties to the firm .
While CRV and Spark Capital seem like just the type of investors a company like Cybereason would attract given their clear interest in similar tech start-ups coming out of Israel ’ s cyber sector , Cybereason ’ s other lead investors — Lockheed Martin and SoftBank — deserve much more attention and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Government , thanks to Lockheed “ A match made in heaven , ” trumpeted Forbes at the news of the Lockheed Martin-Cybereason partnership , first forged in 2015 .
The partnership involved not only Lockheed Martin becoming a major investor in the cybersecurity company but also in Lockheed Martin becoming the largest conduit providing Cybereason ’ s software to U.S. federal and military agencies .
Indeed , as Forbes noted at the time , not only did Lockheed invest in the company , it decided to integrate Cybereason ’ s software completely into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ model of both using Cybereason internally , and selling it to both public and private customers.
” Cybereason CEO and former offensive hacker for Israeli military intelligence — Lior Div — said the following of the partnership : Rich Mahler , then-director of Commercial Cyber Services at Lockheed Martin , told Defense Daily that the company ’ s decision to invest in Cybereason , internally use its software , and include the technology as part of Lockheed Martin ’ s cyber solutions portfolio were all “ independent business decisions but were all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How independent each of those decisions actually was is unclear , especially given the timing of Lockheed Martin ’ s investment in Cybereason , whose close and troubling ties to Israeli intelligence as well as the CIA were noted in the previous installment of this investigative series .
Indeed , about a year prior to their investment in the Israeli military intelligence-linked Cybereason , Lockheed Martin opened an office in Beersheba , Israel , where the IDF has its “ cyberhub ” .
The office is focused not on the sales of armaments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hewson , Lockheed Martin ’ s CEO , said the following during her speech that inaugurated the company ’ s Beersheba office : Beersheba not only houses the IDF ’ s technology campus , but also the Israel National Cyber Directorate , which reports directly to Israel ’ s Prime Minister , as well as a high-tech corporate park that mostly houses tech companies with ties to Israel ’ s military intelligence apparatus .
The area has been cited in several media reports as a visible indicator of the public-private merger between Israeli @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Unit 8200 alumni , and the Israeli government and its intelligence services .
Lockheed Martin quickly became a key fixture in the Beersheba-based cyberhub .
Not long before Lockheed began exploring the possibility of opening an office in Beersheba , the company was hacked by individuals who used tokens tied to the company , RSA Security , whose founders have ties to Israel ’ s defense establishment and which is now owned by Dell , a company also deeply tied to the Israeli government and tech sector .
The hack , perpetrated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sparked Lockheed ’ s subsequent interest in Israel ’ s cybersecurity sector .
Soon after opening its Beersheba office , Lockheed Martin created its Israel subsidiary , Lockheed Martin Israel .
Unlike many of the company ’ s other subsidiaries , this one is focused exclusively on “ cybersecurity , enterprise information technology , data centers , mobile , analytics and cloud ” as opposed to the manufacture and design of armaments .
Haden Land , then-vice president of research and technology for Lockheed Martin , told the Wall Street Journal that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at securing contracts with the IDF and that the company ’ s Israel subsidiary would soon be seeking partnership and investments in pursuit of that end .
Land oversaw the local roll-out of the company ’ s Israel subsidiary while concurrently meeting with Israeli government officials .
According to the Journal , Land “ oversees all of Lockheed Martin ’ s information-systems businesses , including defense and civilian commercial units ” for the United States and elsewhere .
Just a few months later , Lockheed Martin partnered and invested in Cybereason , suggesting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so was aimed at securing closer ties with the IDF .
This further suggests that Cybereason still maintains close ties to Israeli military intelligence , a point expounded upon in great detail in the previous installment of this series .
Thus , it appears that not only does Lockheed Martin use Cybereason ’ s software on its own devices and on those it manages for its private and public sector clients , but it also decided to use the company ’ s software in this way out of a desire to more closely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ related to technology and cybersecurity .
The cozy ties between Lockheed Martin , one of the U.S. government ’ s largest private contractors , and the IDF set off alarm bells , then and now , for those concerned with U.S. national security .
Such concern makes it important to look at the extent of Cybereason ’ s use by federal and military agencies in the United States through their contracting of Lockheed Martin ’ s Information Technology ( IT ) division .
This is especially important considering Israeli military intelligence ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ private tech companies against the U.S. government , as detailed here .
While the exact number of U.S. federal and military agencies using Cybereason ’ s software is unknown , it is widespread , with Lockheed Martin ’ s IT division as the conduit .
Indeed , Lockheed Martin was the number one IT solutions provider to the U.S. federal government up until its IT division was spun off and merged with Leidos Holdings .
As a consequence , Leidos is now the largest IT provider to the U.S. government and is also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way Lockheed Martin was .
Even after its IT division was spun off , Lockheed Martin continues to use Cybereason ’ s software in its cybersecurity work for the Pentagon and still maintains a stake in the company .
The Leidos-Lockheed Martin IT hybrid provides a litany of services to the U.S. military and U.S. intelligence .
As investigative journalist Tim Shorrock noted for The Nation , the company does “ everything from analyzing signals for the NSA to tracking down suspected enemy fighters for US Special Forces in the Middle East and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Lockheed and consequential partnership with Cybereason , became “ the largest of five corporations that together employ nearly 80 percent of the private-sector employees contracted to work for US spy and surveillance agencies.
” Shorrock also notes that these private-sector contractors now dominate the mammoth U.S. surveillance apparatus , many of them working for Leidos and — by extension — using Cybereason ’ s software .
Leidos ’ exclusive use of Cybereason software for cybersecurity is also relevant for the U.S. military since Leidos runs a number of sensitive systems for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to manage the entire military telecommunications infrastructure for Defense Information Systems Agency ( DISA ) .
In addition to maintaining the military telecom network , Cybereason is also directly partnered with World Wide Technologies ( WWT ) as of this past October .
WWT manages cybersecurity for the U.S. Army , maintains DISA ’ s firewalls and data storage as well as the U.S. Air Force ’ s biometric identification system .
WWT also manages contracts for NASA , itself a frequent target of Israeli government espionage , and the U.S. Navy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Lockheed/Leidos partnership in that Cybereason ’ s software is now completely integrated into its portfolio , giving the company full access to the devices on all of these highly classified networks .
Many of these new partnerships with Cybereason , including its partnership with WWT , followed claims made by members of Israel ’ s Unit 8200 in 2017 that the popular antivirus software of Kaspersky Labs contained a backdoor for Russian intelligence , thereby compromising U.S. systems .
The Wall Street Journal was the first to report on the alleged backdoor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Unit 8200 in identifying it , a fact revealed by the New York Times a week later .
Notably , none of the evidence Unit 8200 used to blame Kaspersky has been made public and Kaspersky noted that it was actually Israeli hackers that had been discovered planting backdoors into its platform prior to the accusation levied against Kaspersky by Unit 8200 .
As the New York Times noted : Unit 8200 ’ s claims ultimately led the U.S. government to abandon Kaspersky ’ s products entirely in 2018 , allowing companies like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Unit 8200 ) to fill the void .
Indeed , the very agencies that banned Kaspersky now use cybersecurity software that employs Cybereason ’ s EDR system .
No flags have been raised about Cybereason ’ s own collaboration with the very foreign intelligence service that first pointed the finger at Kaspersky and that previously sold software with backdoors to sensitive U.S. facilities .
While its entry into the U.S. market and U.S. government networks is substantial , Cybereason ’ s software is also run throughout the world on a massive scale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into Latin American and European markets in major ways in just the last few months .
It has also seen its software become prominent in Asia following a partnership with the company Trustwave .
Much of this rapid expansion followed a major injection of cash courtesy of one of the company ’ s biggest clients and now its largest investor , Japan ’ s SoftBank .
SoftBank first invested in Cybereason in 2015 , the same year Lockheed Martin initially invested and partnered with the firm .
It was also the year that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Israeli tech start-ups .
SoftBank first injected $ 50 million into Cybereason , followed by an additional $ 100 million in 2017 and $ 200 million last August .
SoftBank ’ s investments account for most of the money raised by the company since it was founded in 2012 ( $ 350 million out of $ 400 million total ) .
Prior to investing , Softbank was a client of Cybereason , which Ken Miyauchi , president of SoftBank , noted when making the following statement after Softbank ’ s initial investment in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s largest telecommunications companies — not only began to deploy Cybereason internally but directly partnered with it after investing , much like Lockheed Martin had done around the same time .
This partnership resulted in SoftBank and Cybereason creating a joint venture in Japan and Cybereason creating partnerships with other tech companies acquired by SoftBank , including the U.K. ’ s Arm , which specializes in making chips and management platforms for Internet of Things ( IoT ) devices .
SoftBank ’ s interest in Cybereason is significant , particularly in light @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 U.S. election , given that SoftBank has significant ties to key allies of President Trump and even the president himself .
Indeed , SoftBank ’ s Masayoshi Son was among the first wave of international business leaders who sought to woo then-president-elect Trump soon after the 2016 election .
Son first visited Trump Tower in December 2016 and announced , with Trump by his side in the building ’ s lobby , that SoftBank would invest $ 50 billion in the U.S. and create 50,000 jobs .
Trump subsequently claimed on Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this investment because Trump had won the election .
Son told reporters at the time that the investment would come from a $ 100 billion fund that would be created in partnership with Saudi Arabia ’ s sovereign wealth fund as well as other investors .
“ I just came to celebrate his new job .
I said , ‘ This is great .
The US will become great again , ' ” Son said , according to reports .
Then , in March of 2017 , Son sent top SoftBank executives to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s economic team and , according to the New York Times , “ the SoftBank executives said that because of a lack of advanced digital investments , the competitiveness of the United States economy was at risk .
And the executives made the case , quite strongly , that Mr .
Son was committed to playing a major role in addressing this issue through a spate of job-creating investments.
” Many of SoftBank ’ s investments and acquisitions in the U.S. since then have focused mainly on artificial intelligence and technology with military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” firm Boston Dynamics , suggesting Son ’ s interest lies more in dominating futuristic military-industrial technologies than creating jobs for the average American .
After their initial meeting , Trump and Son met again a year later in June 2018 , with Trump stating that “ His [ Son ’ s ] $ 50 billion turned out to be $ 72 billion so far , he ’ s not finished yet.
” Several media reports have claimed that Son ’ s moves since Trump ’ s election have sought to “ curry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the creation of this fund alongside the Saudis , SoftBank has since become increasingly intertwined with Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman ( MBS ) , a key ally of President Trump in the Middle East known for his authoritarian crackdowns on Saudi elites and dissidents alike .
The ties between Saudi Arabia and SoftBank became ever tighter when MBS took the reins in the oil kingdom and after SoftBank announced the launch of the Vision Fund in 2016 .
SoftBank ’ s Vision Fund is a vehicle for investing in hi-tech companies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia .
Notably , Son decided to launch the Vision Fund in Riyadh during President Trump ’ s first official visit to the Gulf Kingdom .
In addition , the Mubadala Investment Company , a government fund of the United Arab Emirates ( UAE ) , gave $ 15 billion to the Vision Fund .
UAE leadership also share close ties to the Trump administration and MBS in Saudi Arabia .
As a consequence , SoftBank ’ s Vision Fund is majority funded by two Middle Eastern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. government , specifically the Trump administration .
In addition , both countries have enjoyed the rapid growth and normalization of ties with the state of Israel in recent years , particularly following the rise of current Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman and Jared Kushner ’ s rise to prominence in his father-in-law ’ s administration .
Other investments in the Vision Fund have come from Apple , Qualcomm and Oracle ’ s Larry Ellison , all tech companies with strong ties to Israel ’ s government .
The Saudi and Emirati @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are so obvious that even mainstream outlets like the New York Times have described them as a “ front for Saudi Arabia and perhaps other countries in the Middle East.
” SoftBank also enjoys close ties to Jared Kushner , with Fortress Investment Group lending $ 57 million to Kushner Companies in October 2017 while it was under contract to be acquired by SoftBank .
As Barron ’ s noted at the time : According to The Real Deal , Kushner Companies obtained the financing from Fortress only after its attempts to obtain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a specific real estate venture were abandoned after the U.S. Attorney and the Securities and Exchange Commission began to investigate how Kushner Companies used the EB-5 investor visa program .
A key factor in the opening of that investigation was Kushner Companies ’ representatives touting Jared Kushner ’ s position at the White House when talking to prospective investors and lenders .
SoftBank also recently came to the aid of a friend of Jared Kushner , former CEO of WeWork Adam Neumann .
Neumann made shocking claims about his ties to both Kushner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even asserting that he had worked with both in creating Kushner ’ s long-awaited and controversial Middle East “ peace plan ” and claimed that he , Kushner and MBS would together “ save the world.
” Neumann previously called Kushner his “ mentor.
” MBS has also discussed on several occasions his close ties with Kushner and U.S. media reports have noted the frequent correspondence between the two “ princelings.
” Notably , SoftBank invested in Neumann ’ s WeWork using money from the Saudi-dominated Vision Fund and later went on to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ IPO collapse and Neumann was pushed out .
SoftBank ’ s founder , Masayoshi Son , had an odd yet very close relationship with Neumann , perhaps explaining why Neumann was allowed to walk with $ 1.7 billion after bringing WeWork to the brink of collapse .
Notably , nearly half of SoftBank ’ s approximately $ 47 billion investments in the U.S. economy since Trump ’ s election , went to acquiring and then bailing out WeWork .
It is unlikely that such a disastrous investment resulted in the level of job @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 .
Given that it is Cybereason ’ s top investor and shareholder by a large margin , SoftBank ’ s ties to the Trump administration and key allies of that administration are significant in light of Cybereason ’ s odd interest in 2020 U.S. election scenarios that end with the cancellation of this year ’ s upcoming presidential election .
It goes without saying that the cancellation of the election would mean a continuation of the Trump administration until new elections would take place .
Furthermore , with Cybereason ’ s close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now well-documented , it is worth asking if Israeli military intelligence would consider intervening in 2020 if the still-to-be-decided Democratic contender was strongly opposed to Israeli government policy , particularly Israel ’ s military occupation of Palestine .
This is especially worth considering given revelations that sexual blackmailer and pedophile Jeffrey Epstein , who targeted prominent U.S. politicians , mostly Democrats , was in the employ of Israeli military intelligence .
Notably , Cybereason ’ s doomsday election scenarios involved the weaponization of deep fakes , self-driving cars and the hacking Internet of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ technologies being pioneered and perfected — not by Russia , China or Iran — but by companies directly tied to Israeli intelligence , much like Cybereason itself .
These companies , their technology and Cybereason ’ s own work creating the narrative that U.S. rival states seek to undermine the U.S. election in this way , will all be discussed in the conclusion of MintPress ’ series on Cybereason and its outsized interest in the U.S. democratic process .

If the networks of the U.S. military, the U.S. intelligence community and a slew of other U.S. federal agencies were running the software of a company with deep ties, not only to foreign companies with a history of espionage against the U.S. but also foreign military intelligence, it would — at the very least — garner substantial media attention. Yet, no media reports to date have noted that such a scenario exists on a massive scale and that the company making such software recently simulated the cancellation of the 2020 election and the declaration of martial law in the United States.
Earlier this month, MintPress News reported on the simulations for the U.S. 2020 election organized by the company Cybereason, a firm led by former members of Israel’s military intelligence Unit 8200 and advised by former top and current officials in both Israeli military intelligence and the CIA. Those simulations, attended by federal officials from the FBI, DHS and the U.S. Secret Service, ended in disaster, with the elections ultimately canceled and martial law declared due to the chaos created by a group of hackers led by Cybereason employees.
The first installment of this three part series delved deeply into Cybereason’s ties to the intelligence community of Israel and also other agencies, including the CIA, as well as the fact that Cybereason stood to gain little financially from the simulations given that their software could not have prevented the attacks waged against the U.S.’ electoral infrastructure in the exercise.
Also noted was the fact that Cybereason software could be potentially used as a backdoor by unauthorized actors, a possibility strengthened by the fact that the company’s co-founders all previously worked for firms that have a history of placing backdoors into U.S. telecommunications and electronic infrastructure as well as aggressive espionage targeting U.S. federal agencies.
The latter issue is crucial in the context of this installment of this exclusive MintPress series, as Cybereason’s main investors turned partners have integrated Cybereason’s software into their product offerings. This means that the clients of these Cybereason partner companies, the U.S. intelligence community and military among them, are now part of Cybereason’s network of more than 6 million endpoints that this private company constantly monitors using a combination of staff comprised largely of former intelligence operatives and an AI algorithm first developed by Israeli military intelligence.
Cybereason, thus far, has disclosed the following groups as lead investors in the company: Charles River Ventures (CRV), Spark Capital, Lockheed Martin and SoftBank. Charles River Ventures (CRV) was among the first to invest in Cybereason and has been frequently investing in other Israeli tech start-ups that were founded by former members of the elite Israeli military intelligence Unit 8200 over the last few years. Spark Capital, based in California, appears to have followed CRV’s interest in Cybereason since the venture capitalist who co-founded Spark and led its investment in Cybereason is a former CRV partner who still has close ties to the firm.
While CRV and Spark Capital seem like just the type of investors a company like Cybereason would attract given their clear interest in similar tech start-ups coming out of Israel’s cyber sector, Cybereason’s other lead investors — Lockheed Martin and SoftBank — deserve much more attention and scrutiny.
Cybereason widely used by US Government, thanks to Lockheed
“A match made in heaven,” trumpeted Forbes at the news of the Lockheed Martin-Cybereason partnership, first forged in 2015. The partnership involved not only Lockheed Martin becoming a major investor in the cybersecurity company but also in Lockheed Martin becoming the largest conduit providing Cybereason’s software to U.S. federal and military agencies.
Indeed, as Forbes noted at the time, not only did Lockheed invest in the company, it decided to integrate Cybereason’s software completely into its product portfolio, resulting in a “model of both using Cybereason internally, and selling it to both public and private customers.”
Cybereason CEO and former offensive hacker for Israeli military intelligence — Lior Div — said the following of the partnership:
Lockheed Martin invested in Cybereason’s protection system after they compared our solution against a dozen others from the top industry players. The US firm was so impressed with the results they got from Cybereason that they began offering it to their own customers – among them most of the top Fortune 100 companies, and the US federal government. Cybereason is now the security system recommended by LM to its customers for protection from a wide (sic) malware and hack attacks.”
Rich Mahler, then-director of Commercial Cyber Services at Lockheed Martin, told Defense Daily that the company’s decision to invest in Cybereason, internally use its software, and include the technology as part of Lockheed Martin’s cyber solutions portfolio were all “independent business decisions but were all coordinated and timed with the transaction.”
How independent each of those decisions actually was is unclear, especially given the timing of Lockheed Martin’s investment in Cybereason, whose close and troubling ties to Israeli intelligence as well as the CIA were noted in the previous installment of this investigative series. Indeed, about a year prior to their investment in the Israeli military intelligence-linked Cybereason, Lockheed Martin opened an office in Beersheba, Israel, where the IDF has its “cyberhub”. The office is focused not on the sales of armaments, but instead on technology.
Marilyn Hewson, Lockheed Martin’s CEO, said the following during her speech that inaugurated the company’s Beersheba office:
The consolidation of IDF Technical Units to new bases in the Negev Desert region is an important transformation of Israel’s information technology capability…We understand the challenges of this move. Which is why we are investing in the facilities and people that will ensure we are prepared to support for these critical projects. By locating our new office in the capital of the Negev we are well positioned to work closely with our Israeli partners and stand ready to: accelerate project execution, reduce program risk and share our technical expertise by training and developing in-country talent.”
Beersheba not only houses the IDF’s technology campus, but also the Israel National Cyber Directorate, which reports directly to Israel’s Prime Minister, as well as a high-tech corporate park that mostly houses tech companies with ties to Israel’s military intelligence apparatus. The area has been cited in several media reports as a visible indicator of the public-private merger between Israeli technology companies, many of them started by Unit 8200 alumni, and the Israeli government and its intelligence services. Lockheed Martin quickly became a key fixture in the Beersheba-based cyberhub.
Not long before Lockheed began exploring the possibility of opening an office in Beersheba, the company was hacked by individuals who used tokens tied to the company, RSA Security, whose founders have ties to Israel’s defense establishment and which is now owned by Dell, a company also deeply tied to the Israeli government and tech sector. The hack, perpetrated by still unknown actors, may have sparked Lockheed’s subsequent interest in Israel’s cybersecurity sector.
Soon after opening its Beersheba office, Lockheed Martin created its Israel subsidiary, Lockheed Martin Israel. Unlike many of the company’s other subsidiaries, this one is focused exclusively on “cybersecurity, enterprise information technology, data centers, mobile, analytics and cloud” as opposed to the manufacture and design of armaments.
Haden Land, then-vice president of research and technology for Lockheed Martin, told the Wall Street Journal that the creation of the subsidiary was largely aimed at securing contracts with the IDF and that the company’s Israel subsidiary would soon be seeking partnership and investments in pursuit of that end. Land oversaw the local roll-out of the company’s Israel subsidiary while concurrently meeting with Israeli government officials. According to the Journal, Land “oversees all of Lockheed Martin’s information-systems businesses, including defense and civilian commercial units” for the United States and elsewhere.
Just a few months later, Lockheed Martin partnered and invested in Cybereason, suggesting that Lockheed’s decision to do so was aimed at securing closer ties with the IDF. This further suggests that Cybereason still maintains close ties to Israeli military intelligence, a point expounded upon in great detail in the previous installment of this series.
Thus, it appears that not only does Lockheed Martin use Cybereason’s software on its own devices and on those it manages for its private and public sector clients, but it also decided to use the company’s software in this way out of a desire to more closely collaborate with the Israeli military in matters related to technology and cybersecurity.
The cozy ties between Lockheed Martin, one of the U.S. government’s largest private contractors, and the IDF set off alarm bells, then and now, for those concerned with U.S. national security. Such concern makes it important to look at the extent of Cybereason’s use by federal and military agencies in the United States through their contracting of Lockheed Martin’s Information Technology (IT) division. This is especially important considering Israeli military intelligence’s history of using espionage, blackmail and private tech companies against the U.S. government, as detailed here.
While the exact number of U.S. federal and military agencies using Cybereason’s software is unknown, it is widespread, with Lockheed Martin’s IT division as the conduit. Indeed, Lockheed Martin was the number one IT solutions provider to the U.S. federal government up until its IT division was spun off and merged with Leidos Holdings. As a consequence, Leidos is now the largest IT provider to the U.S. government and is also directly partnered with Cybereason in the same way Lockheed Martin was. Even after its IT division was spun off, Lockheed Martin continues to use Cybereason’s software in its cybersecurity work for the Pentagon and still maintains a stake in the company.
The Leidos-Lockheed Martin IT hybrid provides a litany of services to the U.S. military and U.S. intelligence. As investigative journalist Tim Shorrock noted for The Nation, the company does “everything from analyzing signals for the NSA to tracking down suspected enemy fighters for US Special Forces in the Middle East and Africa” and, following its merger with Lockheed and consequential partnership with Cybereason, became “the largest of five corporations that together employ nearly 80 percent of the private-sector employees contracted to work for US spy and surveillance agencies.” Shorrock also notes that these private-sector contractors now dominate the mammoth U.S. surveillance apparatus, many of them working for Leidos and — by extension — using Cybereason’s software.
Leidos’ exclusive use of Cybereason software for cybersecurity is also relevant for the U.S. military since Leidos runs a number of sensitive systems for the Pentagon, including its recently inked contract to manage the entire military telecommunications infrastructure for Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA). In addition to maintaining the military telecom network, Cybereason is also directly partnered with World Wide Technologies (WWT) as of this past October. WWT manages cybersecurity for the U.S. Army, maintains DISA’s firewalls and data storage as well as the U.S. Air Force’s biometric identification system. WWT also manages contracts for NASA, itself a frequent target of Israeli government espionage, and the U.S. Navy. WWT’s partnership is similar to the Lockheed/Leidos partnership in that Cybereason’s software is now completely integrated into its portfolio, giving the company full access to the devices on all of these highly classified networks.
Many of these new partnerships with Cybereason, including its partnership with WWT, followed claims made by members of Israel’s Unit 8200 in 2017 that the popular antivirus software of Kaspersky Labs contained a backdoor for Russian intelligence, thereby compromising U.S. systems. The Wall Street Journal was the first to report on the alleged backdoor but did not mention the involvement of Unit 8200 in identifying it, a fact revealed by the New York Times a week later.
Notably, none of the evidence Unit 8200 used to blame Kaspersky has been made public and Kaspersky noted that it was actually Israeli hackers that had been discovered planting backdoors into its platform prior to the accusation levied against Kaspersky by Unit 8200. As the New York Times noted:
Investigators later discovered that the Israeli hackers had implanted multiple back doors into Kaspersky’s systems, employing sophisticated tools to steal passwords, take screenshots, and vacuum up emails and documents.”
Unit 8200’s claims ultimately led the U.S. government to abandon Kaspersky’s products entirely in 2018, allowing companies like Cybereason (with its own close ties to Unit 8200) to fill the void. Indeed, the very agencies that banned Kaspersky now use cybersecurity software that employs Cybereason’s EDR system. No flags have been raised about Cybereason’s own collaboration with the very foreign intelligence service that first pointed the finger at Kaspersky and that previously sold software with backdoors to sensitive U.S. facilities.
SoftBank, Cybereason and the Vision Fund
While its entry into the U.S. market and U.S. government networks is substantial, Cybereason’s software is also run throughout the world on a massive scale through partnerships that have seen it enter into Latin American and European markets in major ways in just the last few months. It has also seen its software become prominent in Asia following a partnership with the company Trustwave. Much of this rapid expansion followed a major injection of cash courtesy of one of the company’s biggest clients and now its largest investor, Japan’s SoftBank.
SoftBank first invested in Cybereason in 2015, the same year Lockheed Martin initially invested and partnered with the firm. It was also the year that SoftBank announced its intention to invest in Israeli tech start-ups. SoftBank first injected $50 million into Cybereason, followed by an additional $100 million in 2017 and $200 million last August. SoftBank’s investments account for most of the money raised by the company since it was founded in 2012 ($350 million out of $400 million total).
Prior to investing, Softbank was a client of Cybereason, which Ken Miyauchi, president of SoftBank, noted when making the following statement after Softbank’s initial investment in Cybereason:
SoftBank works to obtain cutting edge technology and outstanding business models to lead the Information Revolution. Our deployment of the Cybereason platform internally gave us firsthand knowledge of the value it provides, and led to our decision to invest. I’m confident Cybereason and SoftBank’s new product offering will bring a new level of security to Japanese organizations.”
SoftBank — one of Japan’s largest telecommunications companies — not only began to deploy Cybereason internally but directly partnered with it after investing, much like Lockheed Martin had done around the same time. This partnership resulted in SoftBank and Cybereason creating a joint venture in Japan and Cybereason creating partnerships with other tech companies acquired by SoftBank, including the U.K.’s Arm, which specializes in making chips and management platforms for Internet of Things (IoT) devices.
SoftBank’s interest in Cybereason is significant, particularly in light of Cybereason’s interest in the 2020 U.S. election, given that SoftBank has significant ties to key allies of President Trump and even the president himself.
Indeed, SoftBank’s Masayoshi Son was among the first wave of international business leaders who sought to woo then-president-elect Trump soon after the 2016 election. Son first visited Trump Tower in December 2016 and announced, with Trump by his side in the building’s lobby, that SoftBank would invest $50 billion in the U.S. and create 50,000 jobs. Trump subsequently claimed on Twitter that Son had only decided to make this investment because Trump had won the election.
Son told reporters at the time that the investment would come from a $100 billion fund that would be created in partnership with Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund as well as other investors. “I just came to celebrate his new job. I said, ‘This is great. The US will become great again,'” Son said, according to reports.
Then, in March of 2017, Son sent top SoftBank executives to meet with senior members of Trump’s economic team and, according to the New York Times, “the SoftBank executives said that because of a lack of advanced digital investments, the competitiveness of the United States economy was at risk. And the executives made the case, quite strongly, that Mr. Son was committed to playing a major role in addressing this issue through a spate of job-creating investments.” Many of SoftBank’s investments and acquisitions in the U.S. since then have focused mainly on artificial intelligence and technology with military applications, such as “killer robot” firm Boston Dynamics, suggesting Son’s interest lies more in dominating futuristic military-industrial technologies than creating jobs for the average American.
After their initial meeting, Trump and Son met again a year later in June 2018, with Trump stating that “His [Son’s] $50 billion turned out to be $72 billion so far, he’s not finished yet.” Several media reports have claimed that Son’s moves since Trump’s election have sought to “curry favor” with the President.
Through the creation of this fund alongside the Saudis, SoftBank has since become increasingly intertwined with Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman (MBS), a key ally of President Trump in the Middle East known for his authoritarian crackdowns on Saudi elites and dissidents alike. The ties between Saudi Arabia and SoftBank became ever tighter when MBS took the reins in the oil kingdom and after SoftBank announced the launch of the Vision Fund in 2016. SoftBank’s Vision Fund is a vehicle for investing in hi-tech companies and start-ups and its largest shareholder is the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia. Notably, Son decided to launch the Vision Fund in Riyadh during President Trump’s first official visit to the Gulf Kingdom.
In addition, the Mubadala Investment Company, a government fund of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), gave $15 billion to the Vision Fund. UAE leadership also share close ties to the Trump administration and MBS in Saudi Arabia.
As a consequence, SoftBank’s Vision Fund is majority funded by two Middle Eastern authoritarian governments with close ties to the U.S. government, specifically the Trump administration. In addition, both countries have enjoyed the rapid growth and normalization of ties with the state of Israel in recent years, particularly following the rise of current Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman and Jared Kushner’s rise to prominence in his father-in-law’s administration. Other investments in the Vision Fund have come from Apple, Qualcomm and Oracle’s Larry Ellison, all tech companies with strong ties to Israel’s government.
The Saudi and Emirati governments’ links to the Vision Fund are so obvious that even mainstream outlets like the New York Times have described them as a “front for Saudi Arabia and perhaps other countries in the Middle East.”
SoftBank also enjoys close ties to Jared Kushner, with Fortress Investment Group lending $57 million to Kushner Companies in October 2017 while it was under contract to be acquired by SoftBank. As Barron’s noted at the time:
When SoftBank Group bought Fortress Investment Group last year, the Japanese company was buying access to a corps of seasoned investors. What SoftBank also got is a financial tie to the family of President Donald Trump’s senior advisor and son-in-law, Jared Kushner.”
According to The Real Deal, Kushner Companies obtained the financing from Fortress only after its attempts to obtain funding through the EB-5 visa program for a specific real estate venture were abandoned after the U.S. Attorney and the Securities and Exchange Commission began to investigate how Kushner Companies used the EB-5 investor visa program. A key factor in the opening of that investigation was Kushner Companies’ representatives touting Jared Kushner’s position at the White House when talking to prospective investors and lenders.
SoftBank also recently came to the aid of a friend of Jared Kushner, former CEO of WeWork Adam Neumann. Neumann made shocking claims about his ties to both Kushner and Saudi Arabia’s MBS, even asserting that he had worked with both in creating Kushner’s long-awaited and controversial Middle East “peace plan” and claimed that he, Kushner and MBS would together “save the world.” Neumann previously called Kushner his “mentor.” MBS has also discussed on several occasions his close ties with Kushner and U.S. media reports have noted the frequent correspondence between the two “princelings.”
Notably, SoftBank invested in Neumann’s WeWork using money from the Saudi-dominated Vision Fund and later went on to essentially bail the company out after its IPO collapse and Neumann was pushed out. SoftBank’s founder, Masayoshi Son, had an odd yet very close relationship with Neumann, perhaps explaining why Neumann was allowed to walk with $1.7 billion after bringing WeWork to the brink of collapse. Notably, nearly half of SoftBank’s approximately $47 billion investments in the U.S. economy since Trump’s election, went to acquiring and then bailing out WeWork. It is unlikely that such a disastrous investment resulted in the level of job creation that Son had promised Trump in 2016.
Given that it is Cybereason’s top investor and shareholder by a large margin, SoftBank’s ties to the Trump administration and key allies of that administration are significant in light of Cybereason’s odd interest in 2020 U.S. election scenarios that end with the cancellation of this year’s upcoming presidential election. It goes without saying that the cancellation of the election would mean a continuation of the Trump administration until new elections would take place.
Furthermore, with Cybereason’s close and enduring ties to Israeli military intelligence now well-documented, it is worth asking if Israeli military intelligence would consider intervening in 2020 if the still-to-be-decided Democratic contender was strongly opposed to Israeli government policy, particularly Israel’s military occupation of Palestine. This is especially worth considering given revelations that sexual blackmailer and pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, who targeted prominent U.S. politicians, mostly Democrats, was in the employ of Israeli military intelligence.
Notably, Cybereason’s doomsday election scenarios involved the weaponization of deep fakes, self-driving cars and the hacking Internet of Things devices, with all of those technologies being pioneered and perfected — not by Russia, China or Iran — but by companies directly tied to Israeli intelligence, much like Cybereason itself. These companies, their technology and Cybereason’s own work creating the narrative that U.S. rival states seek to undermine the U.S. election in this way, will all be discussed in the conclusion of MintPress’ series on Cybereason and its outsized interest in the U.S. democratic process.


russiainsider--2020-01-21--Russia's Lead Over the US in Hypersonic Weapons Gives them No Practical Strategic Advantage in Geopo

Russia's Lead Over the US in Hypersonic Weapons Gives them No Practical Strategic Advantage in Geopolitics

`` Does being “ ahead ” have any practical meaning , however ?
Is there a genuine contest for advantage that translates into their gaining an upper hand in some sense or other ?
The clear answer is “ NO !
” It is strategically meaningless .
Why ?
Because it in no way alters the logic of Mutual Assured Destruction . ''
Deployment of Russia ’ s hyper-sonic missiles is causing heartburn in the West .
Media headline the news as a dramatic breakthrough on a par with the first Sputnik .
“ Experts ” are rushed into play @ @ @ @ @ @ @ initial exit polls appear on Election Day .
Pentagon officials assure us that the United States is at the top of the nuclear game and able to respond to ( if not exactly match ) anything that the Russians can put out there .
Ninety eight percent of all this instant reaction is “ fog-horning.
” It simply signals that something big and important is out there even though we don ’ t have a clear picture of its actual shape or dimensions — or its significance .
That ’ s normal .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ searchlight ” stage of close observation and hard thinking .
Whether analysts , official or otherwise , get there is problematic .
We ’ re out of practice when it comes to serious strategic appraisal .
After all , we ’ ve been flailing about in Afghanistan for almost two decades with no realistic aim or evaluation of the chances of achieving it by whatever means at whatever cost .
The disorientation on Syria is even greater .
There , we haven ’ t as much as figured out who are the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ good guys ” — except for ISIS .
If you can ’ t differentiate friend from foe for want of rigorous strategic analysis , your actions are predictably erratic — little more than the expression of mental fibrillations .
The same can be said for the rest of the Missile East .
The Washington consensus is sure about one thing : Russia is a mortal enemy .
We sanction the Russians , we denounce the Russia , we coerce our European partners into ostracizing them , we conjure frightful images of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he says ( as if they were Hitlerian rants ) .
Still , no one seems able to provide a crisp formulation of what the Russian threat is — other than getting in our way in places where we demand to have full sway : Syria , Libya , Iran , Turkey , Ukraine , Georgia .
Of course , we also accuse them of working relentlessly to undermine American democracy .
Yet , that remains debatable as does everything that bears the dubious label of “ Washington consensus.
” Anyway , whatever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the accelerated unravelling of the American Republic , it barely registers amidst the hammer blows struck by the craziness of President Donald Trump , his enablers and a largely compromised , abject resistance .
Understandably , it is not that easy to overlook nuclear weapons .
It wasn ’ t that long ago that many of us were tormented by the dread of a prospective Armageddon , when the Cold War carried manifest dangers , when the air was thick with hostility and menace .
In October 1962 , Americans were terrified over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ newspaper map showing distances between Cuba and major North American cities demonstrates .
Those acute fears gradually faded over the 40 years of the nuclearized Cold War .
We came to live with the Bomb — if not to love it .
Subsequently , concerns shifted to the risks associated with nuclear weapons proliferation among less stable states in more fraught places .
The reasons for this sedating were three-fold .
• None Above all was the “ balance of terror.
’ ’ Leaders among the major nuclear powers absorbed the fundamental truth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ winning ” a nuclear war an oxymoron — but also that any use of nuclear weapons inexorably would escalate into acts of collective suicide .
The survivors would envy the dead — as Nikita Khrushchev one said .
That conviction became formalized in the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction .
• None Second , it was reified by a number of treaties and understandings : START I , II ( Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty ) , the Anti-BallisticMissile Treaty ( ABMT ) , the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty , introduction of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the Kremlin , and the several arms reduction accords signed when Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in Moscow .
Their collective purpose was to ensure that no conceivable advantage might be gained that would jeopardize — however slightly — the balance of nuclear power , i.e .
the assurance that any resort to nuclear weapons was tantamount to the death of civilization .
• None Finally , a number of technological developments reinforced Mutual Assured Destruction : the deployment of submarine launched ballistic missiles — SLBM ( immune to location and possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — thereby , guaranteeing a retaliatory capability ) ; improved controls that reduced the chances of an “ accidental ” or miscalculated launch ; and the moratorium in placing ballistic missile defenses around major population centers that could have the effect of removing their “ hostage ” status .
The last has turned out to be a largely redundant measure since the strenuous efforts of the Pentagon/NASA as well as their Soviet/Russian counterparts to devise a workable BMD all have come up well short of producing anything meaningful .
U.S. President Gerald Ford @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communiqué to limit strategic offensive arms , 1974 .
( Wikimedia ) Unfortunately , two policy developments have awakened the nuclear issue from its somnambulant state .
One is Washington ’ s abandonment of arms control treaties that were important parts of the nuclear stability package .
George Bush removed us from the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty ( while observing its provisions ) , and effectively voided restrictions on ballistic missile defense in the vain hope of countering remote threats from prospective nuclear powers ( Iran ) , bolstering the sense of security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a non-problem ) and – frankly – to get under the Russians ’ skin .
Barack Obama had neither the conviction nor political courage to reverse those retrograde moves .
Under Donald Trump , there has been a comprehensive plan to break free of all manner of restrictive commitments — military , diplomatic or economic .
Deployment of regional BMD systems directed at Russian , Chinese and North Korean forces has been expanded despite their demonstrated efficiencies ( one version could not even protect Saudi oil complexes or U.S. air bases in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The other troubling development concerns the modernization of nuclear arsenals by both the United States and Russia .
President Barack Obama committed us to a trillion-dollar program to refine and upgrade American warheads and delivery systems over the next 20 years .
The strategic rationale is obscure .
The Russian hypersonic missile development is a parallel development .
In a purely technical sense , they obviously are “ ahead ” of us .
And that irritates the hell out of the American security establishment .
Does being “ ahead ” have any practical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ genuine contest for advantage that translates into their gaining an upper hand in some sense or other ?
The clear answer is “ NO !
” It is strategically meaningless .
Why ?
Because it in no way alters the logic of Mutual Assured Destruction .
Theoretically , there are only two imaginable ways to do that .
The most significant would be development/deployment of a massive , truly effective BMD system that shields population centers and other critical , high value sites from retaliatory attack .
That has shown itself to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an attack succeeded in reducing the other side ’ s retaliatory forces by some significant fraction .
A totally disarming first strike in principle could be the second method logically to qualify MAD .
It can not be done , though.Fortunately .
The combination of SLBMs , cruise missiles , and increased warhead lethality makes the idea of a disarming first strike a pipe dream of military strategists disengaged from reality .
Hypersonic weapons do not change that calculus .
Accuracies of MIRVed warheads were lowered to 100 feet many years ago .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ = 50 percent chance of landing within radius . )
Reducing that to 20 feet , therefore , is pointless – the silo is destroyed either way unless its missile has been “ launched on warning ” ( tripwire automaticity as ultimate assurance of retaliatory strike ) .
Similarly for missile defense .
Then , there is the question of an incoming missile ’ s speed .
Current ICBMs that may give 18 minutes warning do not permit any defensive measures to be taken .
If they arrive on target within six minutes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the attacker .
Today ’ s missiles that follow a straight trajectory can not be intercepted — with or without their distracting decoys .
The fact that “ swerve ” capable hypersonic missiles can mambo their way to the target adds nothing to their effectiveness .
Anyone who tells you that the Russians gain a strategic advantage thereby is lying — either in order to extract larger sums for R & D from the Treasury or to accentuate irrational fears of Russia .
President Vladimir Put visiting an exhibit of advanced weapons before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Board , December 2019 .
( The Kremlin ) Finally , no reasonably sane leader would risk national suicide for a 1 percent chance of getting away with a first strike and surviving retaliation .
There is no stake worth even contemplating it .
Indeed , that logic holds even were there an impossible 50 percent chance of pulling it off .
Today , the United States and Russia are not engaged in a life-or-death struggle for world domination or for ideological vindication .
Ascribing anything like that notion to Vladimir Putin is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ours , not his .
The same holds for the super-power competition between the United States and China .
So , if this line of reasoning is compelling , why did Russia ’ s leaders bother with investment of great sums to produce hyper-sonic missiles ?
The answer is a matter of speculation .
Doubtless , technological and bureaucratic momentum has much to do with it .
These sorts of long-term programs take on a life of their own — just as they do in Washington .
The is no more reason for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dollars in refining our nuclear arsenal as two successive administrations have committed us to doing .
In Russia ’ s case , there likely is another factor at work .
Historically , Moscow leaders have exaggerated American technical capabilities ; they have something of an inferiority complex on this score despite their own remarkable accomplishments .
It is particularly acute in the nuclear realm — most especially in regard to ballistic missile defense .
This goes back to Nixon ’ s proposed Safeguard system , followed two decades later by Reagan ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of which in actuality had the potential to alter the strategic balance .
This free-floating strategic anxiety should be placed in historical perspective .
There is a touch of paranoia in the Russian strategic mind — engraved by the events of the 20th century .
Some of this sentiment is conveyed by Putin ’ s remarks in announcing the deployment of hypersonic missiles : “ We ’ re used to being in the position of catching up .
That no longer is the case .
Russia is the only country that has hypersonic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neuralgic points in the Russian psyche have been stimulated by the aggressive American program to surround Russia with BMD systems .
Informed analysis suggests that the answer is negative to all these questions .
The alternative explanation : U.S. leaders are inclined to do feckless things ; they are strategically obtuse .
The broader lesson is that there is truth to the old adage : “ Russia never is as strong as it seems ; Russia is never as weak as it seems.
” We wrote it off as a world power in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proper adjustment .
That perception may have contributed to the glaring failure of the United States ’ intelligence community in missing Russia ’ s remarkable break-throughs in weaponry .
It ’ s intelligence that counts more than Intelligence .

"Does being “ahead” have any practical meaning, however? Is there a genuine contest for advantage that translates into their gaining an upper hand in some sense or other? The clear answer is “NO!” It is strategically meaningless. Why? Because it in no way alters the logic of Mutual Assured Destruction."
Deployment of Russia’s hyper-sonic missiles is causing heartburn in the West. Media headline the news as a dramatic breakthrough on a par with the first Sputnik. “Experts” are rushed into play like those self-styled pundits pronouncing when the initial exit polls appear on Election Day. Pentagon officials assure us that the United States is at the top of the nuclear game and able to respond to (if not exactly match) anything that the Russians can put out there.
Ninety eight percent of all this instant reaction is “fog-horning.” It simply signals that something big and important is out there even though we don’t have a clear picture of its actual shape or dimensions — or its significance. That’s normal. What counts is moving swiftly to the “searchlight” stage of close observation and hard thinking.
Whether analysts, official or otherwise, get there is problematic. We’re out of practice when it comes to serious strategic appraisal. After all, we’ve been flailing about in Afghanistan for almost two decades with no realistic aim or evaluation of the chances of achieving it by whatever means at whatever cost. The disorientation on Syria is even greater. There, we haven’t as much as figured out who are the “bad guys” and who are the “good guys” — except for ISIS.
If you can’t differentiate friend from foe for want of rigorous strategic analysis, your actions are predictably erratic — little more than the expression of mental fibrillations. The same can be said for the rest of the Missile East.
The Washington consensus is sure about one thing: Russia is a mortal enemy. We sanction the Russians, we denounce the Russia, we coerce our European partners into ostracizing them, we conjure frightful images of Vladimir Putin while ignoring just about everything he says (as if they were Hitlerian rants). Still, no one seems able to provide a crisp formulation of what the Russian threat is — other than getting in our way in places where we demand to have full sway: Syria, Libya, Iran, Turkey, Ukraine, Georgia.
Of course, we also accuse them of working relentlessly to undermine American democracy. Yet, that remains debatable as does everything that bears the dubious label of “Washington consensus.” Anyway, whatever minuscule role the Kremlin might have in the accelerated unravelling of the American Republic, it barely registers amidst the hammer blows struck by the craziness of President Donald Trump, his enablers and a largely compromised, abject resistance.
Cold War Dread
Understandably, it is not that easy to overlook nuclear weapons. It wasn’t that long ago that many of us were tormented by the dread of a prospective Armageddon, when the Cold War carried manifest dangers, when the air was thick with hostility and menace.
In October 1962, Americans were terrified over Soviet missiles in Cuba, as this newspaper map showing distances between Cuba and major North American cities demonstrates.
Those acute fears gradually faded over the 40 years of the nuclearized Cold War. We came to live with the Bomb — if not to love it. Subsequently, concerns shifted to the risks associated with nuclear weapons proliferation among less stable states in more fraught places.
The reasons for this sedating were three-fold.
Above all was the “balance of terror.’’ Leaders among the major nuclear powers absorbed the fundamental truth that not only was the notion of “winning” a nuclear war an oxymoron — but also that any use of nuclear weapons inexorably would escalate into acts of collective suicide. The survivors would envy the dead — as Nikita Khrushchev one said. That conviction became formalized in the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction.
Second, it was reified by a number of treaties and understandings: START I,II (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), the Anti-BallisticMissile Treaty (ABMT), the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, introduction of the Hot Line between the White House and the Kremlin, and the several arms reduction accords signed when Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in Moscow. Their collective purpose was to ensure that no conceivable advantage might be gained that would jeopardize — however slightly — the balance of nuclear power, i.e. the assurance that any resort to nuclear weapons was tantamount to the death of civilization.
Finally, a number of technological developments reinforced Mutual Assured Destruction: the deployment of submarine launched ballistic missiles — SLBM (immune to location and possible destruction in a “first strike” — thereby, guaranteeing a retaliatory capability); improved controls that reduced the chances of an “accidental” or miscalculated launch; and the moratorium in placing ballistic missile defenses around major population centers that could have the effect of removing their “hostage” status.
The last has turned out to be a largely redundant measure since the strenuous efforts of the Pentagon/NASA as well as their Soviet/Russian counterparts to devise a workable BMD all have come up well short of producing anything meaningful.
U.S. President Gerald Ford and Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev sign joint communiqué to limit strategic offensive arms, 1974. (Wikimedia)
Unfortunately, two policy developments have awakened the nuclear issue from its somnambulant state. One is Washington’s abandonment of arms control treaties that were important parts of the nuclear stability package. George Bush removed us from the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty(while observing its provisions), and effectively voided restrictions on ballistic missile defense in the vain hope of countering remote threats from prospective nuclear powers (Iran), bolstering the sense of security of some East Europeans (a non-solution to a non-problem)and – frankly – to get under the Russians’ skin. Barack Obama had neither the conviction nor political courage to reverse those retrograde moves.
Under Donald Trump, there has been a comprehensive plan to break free of all manner of restrictive commitments — military, diplomatic or economic. Deployment of regional BMD systems directed at Russian, Chinese and North Korean forces has been expanded despite their demonstrated efficiencies (one version could not even protect Saudi oil complexes or U.S. air bases in Iraq from primitive Iranian missiles).
Modernization of Nuclear Arsenals
The other troubling development concerns the modernization of nuclear arsenals by both the United States and Russia. President Barack Obama committed us to a trillion-dollar program to refine and upgrade American warheads and delivery systems over the next 20 years. The strategic rationale is obscure.
The Russian hypersonic missile development is a parallel development. In a purely technical sense, they obviously are “ahead” of us. And that irritates the hell out of the American security establishment.
Does being “ahead” have any practical meaning, however? Is there a genuine contest for advantage that translates into their gaining an upper hand in some sense or other? The clear answer is “NO!” It is strategically meaningless. Why? Because it in no way alters the logic of Mutual Assured Destruction.
Theoretically, there are only two imaginable ways to do that. The most significant would be development/deployment of a massive, truly effective BMD system that shields population centers and other critical, high value sites from retaliatory attack. That has shown itself to be impossible – even if the initiator of an attack succeeded in reducing the other side’s retaliatory forces by some significant fraction.
A totally disarming first strike in principle could be the second method logically to qualify MAD. It cannot be done, though.Fortunately. The combination of SLBMs, cruise missiles, and increased warhead lethality makes the idea of a disarming first strike a pipe dream of military strategists disengaged from reality. Hypersonic weapons do not change that calculus.
Accuracies of MIRVed warheads were lowered to 100 feet many years ago.(CEP, or Circular Error Probability = 50 percent chance of landing within radius.) Reducing that to 20 feet, therefore, is pointless – the silo is destroyed either way unless its missile has been “launched on warning” (tripwire automaticity as ultimate assurance of retaliatory strike). Similarly for missile defense.
Then, there is the question of an incoming missile’s speed. Current ICBMs that may give 18 minutes warning do not permit any defensive measures to be taken. If they arrive on target within six minutes, there is no additional benefit to the attacker. Today’s missiles that follow a straight trajectory cannot be intercepted — with or without their distracting decoys.
The fact that “swerve” capable hypersonic missiles can mambo their way to the target adds nothing to their effectiveness. Anyone who tells you that the Russians gain a strategic advantage thereby is lying — either in order to extract larger sums for R & D from the Treasury or to accentuate irrational fears of Russia.
President Vladimir Put visiting an exhibit of advanced weapons before meeting with Russia’s Defence Ministry Board, December 2019. (The Kremlin)
Finally, no reasonably sane leader would risk national suicide for a 1 percent chance of getting away with a first strike and surviving retaliation. There is no stake worth even contemplating it. Indeed, that logic holds even were there an impossible 50 percent chance of pulling it off.
Today, the United States and Russia are not engaged in a life-or-death struggle for world domination or for ideological vindication. Ascribing anything like that notion to Vladimir Putin is simply a sign of mental derangement – ours, not his. The same holds for the super-power competition between the United States and China.
So, if this line of reasoning is compelling, why did Russia’s leaders bother with investment of great sums to produce hyper-sonic missiles? The answer is a matter of speculation. Doubtless, technological and bureaucratic momentum has much to do with it. These sorts of long-term programs take on a life of their own — just as they do in Washington. The is no more reason for the United States to squander a trillion dollars in refining our nuclear arsenal as two successive administrations have committed us to doing.
In Russia’s case, there likely is another factor at work. Historically, Moscow leaders have exaggerated American technical capabilities; they have something of an inferiority complex on this score despite their own remarkable accomplishments. It is particularly acute in the nuclear realm — most especially in regard to ballistic missile defense.
This goes back to Nixon’s proposed Safeguard system, followed two decades later by Reagan’s Star War’s plans. Neither of which in actuality had the potential to alter the strategic balance. This free-floating strategic anxiety should be placed in historical perspective. There is a touch of paranoia in the Russian strategic mind — engraved by the events of the 20th century.
Some of this sentiment is conveyed by Putin’s remarks in announcing the deployment of hypersonic missiles: “We’re used to being in the position of catching up. That no longer is the case. Russia is the only country that has hypersonic weapons.”
To some unknowable degree these neuralgic points in the Russian psyche have been stimulated by the aggressive American program to surround Russia with BMD systems.
“Might it just be conceivable that the United States could perfect them, make it work, and somehow jeopardize the credibility of our nuclear deterrent? Why are they expending so much money and effort? Why do those BMD sites make Poland and the Baltics feel more secure when they are in fact militarily useless and it makes no sense for us to attack them?”
Informed analysis suggests that the answer is negative to all these questions. The alternative explanation: U.S. leaders are inclined to do feckless things; they are strategically obtuse.
The broader lesson is that there is truth to the old adage: “Russia never is as strong as it seems; Russia is never as weak as it seems.” We wrote it off as a world power in the 1990s and never since made the proper adjustment. That perception may have contributed to the glaring failure of the United States’ intelligence community in missing Russia’s remarkable break-throughs in weaponry.


russiainsider--2020-01-23--ADL and SPLC Target Random Whites with Fake Accusations of 'Hate!': The Poor, Children and the Elder

ADL and SPLC Target Random Whites with Fake Accusations of 'Hate!': The Poor, Children and the Elderly

The silence of conservative , philo-semitic accomplices like The Daily Caller and Breitbart has kept many Americans ignorant about the out-of-control trend of convicting random whites of `` hate crimes '' where there is neither `` hate '' nor crime .
Hate crime numbers have been stagnant over the last few years .
White people in particular are heavily underrepresented in this field , committing only about 25 % of all hate crimes per year .
High profile hoaxes , from the wave of bomb threats to Jewish centers to Jussie Smollett , have severely undermined the fictitious narrative intended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Israel and globalization .
The challenge Zionist organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League have before them is figuring out how to fully suppress the continued rise of a young , white , politically incorrect and largely law-abiding counter-culture after more passive means of shutting down political speech ( ostracization , doxing , anarchist paramilitary violence , surveillance , subversion ) have failed .
The real agenda is to instate policies that would make it dangerous and expensive for white people to participate in conversations about the direction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ADL 's Jonathan Greenblatt is deploying seeks to blur the line between Constitutionally protected speech and crime , knowing that the ACLU will never defend an accused white `` racist '' in this gray minefield .
The goal is to conflate speech with violence , an unpopular idea that just a few years ago was limited to campus extremists but is now elite consensus .
`` Data drives policy '' Greenblatt said last June in regards to hate crime statistics .
Organized Jewry , in fear of losing their cultural and financial stranglehold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pressure a large network of career oriented politicians , activists and law enforcement figures to manufacture the `` data '' they otherwise lack .
There is a small circle of people who claim engaging in nationalist resistance has `` ruined their life , '' but the reality is that all whites - political or not - can be targeted by the system , tried by the media , and convicted in kangaroo courts .
The silence of conservative accomplices like The Daily Caller and Breitbart as this happens has kept many Americans ignorant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whites of `` hate crimes '' where there is neither `` hate '' nor crime .
The recent hate crime conviction of Timothy Trybus by a disproportionately Jewish jury in Skokie , Illinois has not been covered at all by Breitbart .
Trybus was accused and convicted of non-violently expressing views common in Breitbart 's own comment section .
He is facing a potential sentence of 3-5 years !
In New York , an 11-year-old white girl is being charged with third degree assault as a hate crime after winning a school bus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other white people , including the bus monitor , are also being charged despite no involvement .
Governor Andrew Cuomo has predictably weighed in to support the witch hunt , even as child behavioral experts warn that trying pre-pubescent children like they 're adult criminals is a dangerous and cruel precedent that ruins their lives .
In Florida , the FBI has utilized a number of rarely-used statutes to selectively prosecute Daniel McMahon , a blogger who exposes criminal activity by supporters of Antifa , for `` hate crimes . ''
A court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cullen 's demand that McMahon be denied bond in spite of the non-violent nature of his charges and lack of criminal history because he once coined the term `` diversity of tactics . ''
This was obvious satire of Antifa discourse that is never treated as criminal .
In Illinois , a teenage boy named Jeremy C. Lloyd was filmed being jumped by a group of black kids as he tried to get away .
During the fight , Lloyd slashed one of the attackers on the knee with a razor blade in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mob , Dekalb prosecutor Rick Amato is charging Lloyd with a `` hate crime '' because he allegedly used a racial slur as he was being brutalized !
In the same county , a 78-year-old white grandma is being charged with a hate crime for saying `` you people ... '' to a non-white who cut her off in traffic .
The volume of cases like this is too high to document here .
Anti-white prosecutors are capitalizing on the chaotic post-truth political climate and lack of organized white advocates to stack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the poor and the elderly for incidents that previously would maybe get you a ticket from a particularly zealous cop , if anything at all .
As this is happening , white people are being murdered at random across the country by non-white criminals `` playing '' the knockout `` game . ''
Hate crime charges are seldom if ever used in these cases .
The black teenagers who recently killed a 59-year-old man in Frederick County , Maryland are only being charged with first and second degree assault .
Journalist Colin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are far more likely to be a victim than a perpetrator , but these facts are never factored into the equation by policy makers .
While it is tempting to blame blacks alone for this injustice , politically they are powerless .
It is important to keep in mind that it is Zionist entities like the ADL who have designed these anti-white legal mazes and imposed them on the nation from their perches in Washington and New York .
White advocacy , particularly legal advocacy , is vital to support .
This tendency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across the country are rewarded with good publicity from the ADL affiliates in the Jewish media and continue to get away with their racially discriminatory actions .

The silence of conservative, philo-semitic accomplices like The Daily Caller and Breitbart has kept many Americans ignorant about the out-of-control trend of convicting random whites of "hate crimes" where there is neither "hate" nor crime.
Hate crime numbers have been stagnant over the last few years. White people in particular are heavily underrepresented in this field, committing only about 25% of all hate crimes per year. High profile hoaxes, from the wave of bomb threats to Jewish centers to Jussie Smollett, have severely undermined the fictitious narrative intended to stifle discussions on immigration, finance, Israel and globalization.
The challenge Zionist organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League have before them is figuring out how to fully suppress the continued rise of a young, white, politically incorrect and largely law-abiding counter-culture after more passive means of shutting down political speech (ostracization, doxing, anarchist paramilitary violence, surveillance, subversion) have failed. The real agenda is to instate policies that would make it dangerous and expensive for white people to participate in conversations about the direction of our country.
The ADL's Grand Inquisitor, Jonathan Greenblatt
The strategy the ADL's Jonathan Greenblatt is deploying seeks to blur the line between Constitutionally protected speech and crime, knowing that the ACLU will never defend an accused white "racist" in this gray minefield. The goal is to conflate speech with violence, an unpopular idea that just a few years ago was limited to campus extremists but is now elite consensus.
"Data drives policy" Greenblatt said last June in regards to hate crime statistics. Organized Jewry, in fear of losing their cultural and financial stranglehold over America, has set out to pressure a large network of career oriented politicians, activists and law enforcement figures to manufacture the "data" they otherwise lack.
Whites Under Siege
There is a small circle of people who claim engaging in nationalist resistance has "ruined their life," but the reality is that all whites - political or not - can be targeted by the system, tried by the media, and convicted in kangaroo courts.
The silence of conservative accomplices like The Daily Caller and Breitbart as this happens has kept many Americans ignorant about the out-of-control trend of convicting random whites of "hate crimes" where there is neither "hate" nor crime.
The recent hate crime conviction of Timothy Trybus by a disproportionately Jewish jury in Skokie, Illinois has not been covered at all by Breitbart. Trybus was accused and convicted of non-violently expressing views common in Breitbart's own comment section. He is facing a potential sentence of 3-5 years!
In New York, an 11-year-old white girl is being charged with third degree assault as a hate crime after winning a school bus fight against a black girl. Multiple other white people, including the bus monitor, are also being charged despite no involvement. Governor Andrew Cuomo has predictably weighed in to support the witch hunt, even as child behavioral experts warn that trying pre-pubescent children like they're adult criminals is a dangerous and cruel precedent that ruins their lives.
In Florida, the FBI has utilized a number of rarely-used statutes to selectively prosecute Daniel McMahon, a blogger who exposes criminal activity by supporters of Antifa, for "hate crimes." A court in Tampa acquiesced to US Attorney Thomas Cullen's demand that McMahon be denied bond in spite of the non-violent nature of his charges and lack of criminal history because he once coined the term "diversity of tactics." This was obvious satire of Antifa discourse that is never treated as criminal.
In Illinois, a teenage boy named Jeremy C. Lloyd was filmed being jumped by a group of black kids as he tried to get away. During the fight, Lloyd slashed one of the attackers on the knee with a razor blade in order to escape. Instead of charging the mob, Dekalb prosecutor Rick Amato is charging Lloyd with a "hate crime" because he allegedly used a racial slur as he was being brutalized!
In the same county, a 78-year-old white grandma is being charged with a hate crime for saying "you people..." to a non-white who cut her off in traffic.
The volume of cases like this is too high to document here. Anti-white prosecutors are capitalizing on the chaotic post-truth political climate and lack of organized white advocates to stack serious politically motivated criminal charges on children, the poor and the elderly for incidents that previously would maybe get you a ticket from a particularly zealous cop, if anything at all.
As this is happening, white people are being murdered at random across the country by non-white criminals "playing" the knockout "game." Hate crime charges are seldom if ever used in these cases. The black teenagers who recently killed a 59-year-old man in Frederick County, Maryland are only being charged with first and second degree assault.
Journalist Colin Flaherty meticulously documents interracial crime. Whites are far more likely to be a victim than a perpetrator, but these facts are never factored into the equation by policy makers.
While it is tempting to blame blacks alone for this injustice, politically they are powerless. It is important to keep in mind that it is Zionist entities like the ADL who have designed these anti-white legal mazes and imposed them on the nation from their perches in Washington and New York.
White advocacy, particularly legal advocacy, is vital to support. This tendency will only become more egregious as prosecutors across the country are rewarded with good publicity from the ADL affiliates in the Jewish media and continue to get away with their racially discriminatory actions.


russiainsider--2020-01-23--Trump Threatened Euro-Poodles With 25% Car Tarrifs If They Didn’t Blow Up the Iran Nuclear Treaty

Editor ’ s note : The “ best ” part about this story are the European assurances that the threat was unnecessary and shocking because they know their place and were going to do the poodle thing anyway .
A week before Germany , France and Britain formally accused Iran of breaching the 2015 nuclear deal , the Trump administration issued a private threat to the Europeans that shocked officials in all three countries .
If they refused to call out Tehran and initiate an arcane dispute mechanism in the deal , the United States would impose a 25 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials warned , according to European officials familiar with the conversations .
Within days , the three countries would formally accuse Iran of violating the deal , triggering a recourse provision that could reimpose United Nations sanctions on Iran and unravel the last remaining vestiges of the Obama-era agreement.The U.S. effort to coerce European foreign policy through tariffs , a move one European official equated to “ extortion , ” represents a new level of hardball tactics with the United States ’ oldest allies , underscoring the extraordinary tumult in the transatlantic relationship.President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a 25 percent tariff on automobiles to win more-favorable terms in the country ’ s trade relationship with the Europeans , but not to dictate the continent ’ s foreign policy.It remains unclear if the threat was even necessary , as Europeans had been signaling their intention to trigger the dispute resolution for weeks .
While the United States views the mechanism as critical to reimposing sanctions on Iran in as little as 65 days , the Europeans see the measure as a last chance to salvage a deal they view as vital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s nuclear program.
“ The tariff threat is a mafia-like tactic , and it ’ s not how relations between allies typically work , ” said Jeremy Shapiro , research director at the European Council on Foreign Relations .
When asked about the tariff warning , a senior U.S. official said , “ We ’ ve been very clear that the JCPOA was a horrible deal , ” referring to the Iran nuclear deal .
The U.S. official conceded that Europeans were already moving toward triggering the dispute resolution before the threat was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among the Europeans about the need to hold Tehran accountable took form weeks ago and was driven by Iran ’ s escalatory behavior and violations of the nuclear deal , ” the official said .
European officials complained privately that Trump ’ s threat only complicated their decision Tuesday to invoke the mechanism , which starts the clock on 65 days of negotiations with Iran about returning to full compliance with the deal .
If the dispute isn ’ t settled , U.N. sanctions could be reimposed on Iran , including a blanket @ @ @ @ @ @ @ France and Germany say that they had planned to initiate the mechanism but that Trump ’ s threat nearly caused them to backtrack , out of concern that they could be viewed as stooges of Washington if word of the threat leaked .
“ We didn ’ t want to look weak , so we agreed to keep the existence of the threat a secret , ” a European official said .
U.S. officials conveyed the threat directly to officials in London , Paris and Berlin rather than through their embassies in Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive negotiations .
Following the U.S. killing of Iran ’ s top commander , Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani , Iran said it was no longer bound by the limitations of the deal but would continue to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency .
In the absence of a deal , Trump administration officials have struggled to explain how they will prevent Iran from getting closer to a nuclear weapon as it expands its enrichment of uranium .
Trump , however , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that to happen .
“ IRAN WILL NEVER HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON !
” he tweeted last week .
Major difficulties in the transatlantic relationship began after Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018 and reimposed sanctions on Iran that had been lifted in exchange for limitations on its nuclear program .
The Europeans remained in the deal , noting that Iran had continued to comply with its side of the agreement according to the International Atomic Energy Agency .
Last year , Iran began taking gradual steps to exceed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Europeans to make good on their promises of sanctions relief .
The 2015 agreement limited the number of centrifuges Iran could deploy for uranium enrichment and restricted how much uranium it could stockpile , among other requirements .
In a joint statement Tuesday , Britain , France and Germany initiated the dispute mechanism , saying they did so “ in good faith , with the overarching objective of preserving the JCPOA and in the sincere hope of finding a way forward through constructive diplomatic dialogue.
” The nations also distanced themselves from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” campaign and said they opposed the U.S. withdrawal from the agreement in 2018 .
“ Our hope is to bring Iran back into full compliance , ” they said .
Some supporters of the Iran nuclear deal believe the Europeans made a mistake in triggering the mechanism Tuesday even if their intention was to preserve the accord .
Ali Vaez , an Iran nuclear expert at the International Crisis Group , said the measure could hurt Europe ’ s ability to mediate between the United States and Iran and is unlikely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iran.
” It might “ provoke a crisis that they claim they are trying to prevent unless the time and space created by intense diplomatic engagement is used to provide Iran with some economic reprieve as a means of returning it into JCPOA compliance , ” he tweeted .
Following the Europeans ’ announcement Tuesday , the State Department praised the triggering of the mechanism , saying “ we fully support the decision.
” “ We agree with our allies that the goal is to stand with the Iranian people while exposing Tehran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ State Department spokesman said .

Editor’s note: The “best” part about this story are the European assurances that the threat was unnecessary and shocking because they know their place and were going to do the poodle thing anyway.
A week before Germany, France and Britain formally accused Iran of breaching the 2015 nuclear deal, the Trump administration issued a private threat to the Europeans that shocked officials in all three countries.
If they refused to call out Tehran and initiate an arcane dispute mechanism in the deal, the United States would impose a 25 percent tariff on European automobiles, the Trump officials warned, according to European officials familiar with the conversations.
Within days, the three countries would formally accuse Iran of violating the deal, triggering a recourse provision that could reimpose United Nations sanctions on Iran and unravel the last remaining vestiges of the Obama-era agreement.The U.S. effort to coerce European foreign policy through tariffs, a move one European official equated to “extortion,” represents a new level of hardball tactics with the United States’ oldest allies, underscoring the extraordinary tumult in the transatlantic relationship.President Trump has previously used the threat of a 25 percent tariff on automobiles to win more-favorable terms in the country’s trade relationship with the Europeans, but not to dictate the continent’s foreign policy.It remains unclear if the threat was even necessary, as Europeans had been signaling their intention to trigger the dispute resolution for weeks. While the United States views the mechanism as critical to reimposing sanctions on Iran in as little as 65 days, the Europeans see the measure as a last chance to salvage a deal they view as vital to reducing tensions and limiting Iran’s nuclear program.“The tariff threat is a mafia-like tactic, and it’s not how relations between allies typically work,” said Jeremy Shapiro, research director at the European Council on Foreign Relations.
When asked about the tariff warning, a senior U.S. official said, “We’ve been very clear that the JCPOA was a horrible deal,” referring to the Iran nuclear deal.
The U.S. official conceded that Europeans were already moving toward triggering the dispute resolution before the threat was issued last week.
“The consensus among the Europeans about the need to hold Tehran accountable took form weeks ago and was driven by Iran’s escalatory behavior and violations of the nuclear deal,” the official said.
European officials complained privately that Trump’s threat only complicated their decision Tuesday to invoke the mechanism, which starts the clock on 65 days of negotiations with Iran about returning to full compliance with the deal. If the dispute isn’t settled, U.N. sanctions could be reimposed on Iran, including a blanket arms embargo.
Officials in Britain, France and Germany say that they had planned to initiate the mechanism but that Trump’s threat nearly caused them to backtrack, out of concern that they could be viewed as stooges of Washington if word of the threat leaked.
“We didn’t want to look weak, so we agreed to keep the existence of the threat a secret,” a European official said.
U.S. officials conveyed the threat directly to officials in London, Paris and Berlin rather than through their embassies in Washington, said a senior European official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive negotiations.
Following the U.S. killing of Iran’s top commander, Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, Iran said it was no longer bound by the limitations of the deal but would continue to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency.
In the absence of a deal, Trump administration officials have struggled to explain how they will prevent Iran from getting closer to a nuclear weapon as it expands its enrichment of uranium. Trump, however, has declared that he will not permit that to happen. “IRAN WILL NEVER HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON!” he tweeted last week.
Major difficulties in the transatlantic relationship began after Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018 and reimposed sanctions on Iran that had been lifted in exchange for limitations on its nuclear program. The Europeans remained in the deal, noting that Iran had continued to comply with its side of the agreement according to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Last year, Iran began taking gradual steps to exceed the limitations of the deal to pressure the Europeans to make good on their promises of sanctions relief. The 2015 agreement limited the number of centrifuges Iran could deploy for uranium enrichment and restricted how much uranium it could stockpile, among other requirements.
In a joint statement Tuesday, Britain, France and Germany initiated the dispute mechanism, saying they did so “in good faith, with the overarching objective of preserving the JCPOA and in the sincere hope of finding a way forward through constructive diplomatic dialogue.”
The nations also distanced themselves from the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign and said they opposed the U.S. withdrawal from the agreement in 2018. “Our hope is to bring Iran back into full compliance,” they said.
Some supporters of the Iran nuclear deal believe the Europeans made a mistake in triggering the mechanism Tuesday even if their intention was to preserve the accord.
Ali Vaez, an Iran nuclear expert at the International Crisis Group, said the measure could hurt Europe’s ability to mediate between the United States and Iran and is unlikely to “add much more economic pressure on Iran.”
It might “provoke a crisis that they claim they are trying to prevent unless the time and space created by intense diplomatic engagement is used to provide Iran with some economic reprieve as a means of returning it into JCPOA compliance,” he tweeted.
Following the Europeans’ announcement Tuesday, the State Department praised the triggering of the mechanism, saying “we fully support the decision.”
“We agree with our allies that the goal is to stand with the Iranian people while exposing Tehran’s lawless behavior,” a State Department spokesman said.