May 21, 2013

Tehran silent on Pentagon claim that Iranian jets fired on U.S. drone

a360d7ed5f0b5698264fc15306be0acc Tehran silent on Pentagon claim that Iranian jets fired on U.S. drone
A Predator unmanned aerial vehicle is shown returning from an combat mission.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Iran has not acknowledged allegations that its targeted a Predator
The drone was fired on November 1 over , the Pentagon says
The drone was not damaged, and it was able to return to its base

Washington (CNN) — Iran remained silent Friday amid accusations that two of its warplanes opened fire on a drone over international waters, an incident that further heightens tensions between the two countries over Tehran’s nuclear program.

A day after CNN first reported the incident — later publicly confirmed by the Pentagon — neither Tehran nor its state-run media said anything about the incident, which triggered a formal warning by the United States to Iran through diplomatic channels.

The warning came after two Iranian Su-25 fighter jets fired on an unarmed Predator drone conducting routine surveillance in east of Kuwait, 16 miles off the coast of Iran, secretary George Little told reporters Thursday following CNN’s report.

The drone was not hit in the November 1 incident, and it returned under its own power to its base, he said.

Little stopped short of calling the incident an .

“I’m not going to get into legal labels. The reality is that we have a wide range of options, as I said before, to protect our assets and our forces in the region, and we’ll do so when necessary,” he said.

“The United States has communicated to the Iranians that we will continue to conduct over international waters, over the , consistent with longstanding practices and our commitment to the security of the region.”

Little said the warning was delivered through Swiss diplomats who have acted on behalf of U.S. interests in Iran since Washington and Tehran cut ties in 1980.

“Our aircraft was never in Iranian airspace. It was always flying in international airspace. The recognized limit is 12 nautical miles off the coast, and we never entered the 12-nautical mile limit,” he said.

CNN has been unable to obtain a response from the Iranian Foreign Ministry.

The Obama administration did not disclose the incident before the presidential election.

Three senior officials confirmed the details of the incident to CNN on Thursday. The three spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive intelligence nature of the matter.

Two of the officials said the fighter jets belonged to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps force, which has been more confrontational than regular Iranian military forces.

At least two bursts of gunfire came from the Su-25s’ cannons, they said. The drone started to move away, but the Iranian aircraft chased it, doing aerial loops around it before breaking away and returning to Iran.

The drone’s still and video cameras captured the incident, showing the two Su-25s approaching and firing their onboard guns, the officials said.

The Iranian pilots continued to fire shots that went beneath the Predator but never hit it, according to the officials.

Iran has not addressed the allegations.

U.S. military intelligence analysts are still not sure if the Iranian pilots simply were unable to hit the drone because of a lack of combat skill, or if they deliberately missed and didn’t intend to bring it down.

But as one of the officials said, “it doesn’t matter, they fired on us.”

Little said the United States has to assume that Iran was trying to bring down the Predator.

U.S. weighs how to pressure Iran in wake of alleged plot

b560971039752a5b6e3e2a6be2fa4b77 U.S. weighs how to pressure Iran in wake of alleged plot

U.S. busts assassination
STORY HIGHLIGHTS

The U.S. alleges Iran was behind a plot to kill a Saudi envoy on U.S. soil
The plan is to create a “chorus of ,” a U.S. official says
U.S. diplomats will push others to enforce and enact sanctions, among other measures
Rep. says that all options, including military ones, should be available

Washington (CNN) — With many sanctions already in place, the U.S. government is poised to take an even stronger stance Wednesday against Iran amid allegations that Tehran was behind a plot to assassinate a Saudi envoy on U.S. soil.

A naturalized U.S. citizen holding Iranian and U.S. is in custody, and another — a member of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard — is likewise charged in the alleged murder-for-hire scheme targeting Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States. Attorney General said Tuesday that elements of Iran’s government directed the plan.

The accusations have rankled many throughout Washington.

Rep. Peter King, a New York Republican and chairman of the House Homeland , called carrying out such a scheme an “” five times during a five-minute .

While outlining several other steps that Washington may take, he insisted that no options be ruled out.

“We should not be … automatically saying we’re not going to have ,” King said Tuesday night, saying that this “flagrant and notorious” alleged plot brought already between the United States and Iran to a “very precipitous level.”

“Everything should be left on the table when you are talking about a potential attack (in) the United States, an act of war.”

Khazaee, Iran’s permanent representative to the United Nations, said Tuesday night that he was “shocked to hear such a big lie.”

He said the chain of events outlined by U.S. authorities was an “insult to the common sense” of people everywhere.

A senior U.S. defense official said Tuesday that there has been no change in U.S. military posture in reaction to the alleged terror plot.

No U.S. Navy ships, for example, have been repositioned and there currently are no plans to do so.

“The act is already done,” the official said, noting the plot purportedly has been disrupted and calling it “much more of a law enforcement matter” than a military one.

“One of the people involved is still at large, but the other principal is in custody. So what does changing military posture do?”

Already, the U.S. government has numerous sanctions against Iranian interests, amid continuing concerns about Tehran’s budding nuclear program and its alleged ties to terrorism.

The focus on this front will be to urge other nations to join Washington and get tougher on Iran, a senior State Department official said Tuesday.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other senior diplomatic officials will place calls to foreign leaders and U.N. Security Council representatives, the official said.

That includes reaching out to key figures from countries, such as Russia and China, which have diplomatic relations with both Washington and Tehran.

The United States also plans on getting in touch with leaders from the Gulf Cooperation Council (a coalition of Persian Gulf nations), the Organization of the Islamic Conference (which consists of 56 Islamic states and promotes Muslim solidarity) and the Arab League, said two Obama administration officials.

“It is a tremendous opportunity for the United States and the world to create pressure (on Iran),” Sen. Robert Menendez, D-New Jersey, said on Tuesday. “We have the opportunity to change the dynamics.”

The idea is to push others to enforce existing sanctions, implement new ones, cut ties with Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guard and generally join the United States in a “chorus of international condemnation,” according to the State Department official.

“(They’ll) go to other countries and say this is a serious escalation of Iran’s use of political violence,” a senior Obama administration official added.

If there is an international debate, Iran fired its first salvo Tuesday night. Khazaee wrote U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to “express our outrage” over what he called “fabricated and baseless allegations.”

“As the Secretary-General of the United Nations you have an important responsibility in enlightening the international public opinion about the dangerous consequences of warmongering policies of the United States government on international peace and security,” the Iranian envoy wrote.

Yet such rhetoric has not appeared to have much of an impact, as of yet, in Washington, with politicians from both major parties insisting that the entire Iranian government be held responsible.

Rep. Mike Rogers, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he believed an act as significant as “committing an act of terror on foreign soil” would likely need top-level approval.

Several other prominent U.S. politicians including Rogers’ Senate counterpart, Dianne Feinstein of California, and King echoed the sentiment that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and/or other leading Iranian officials must have signed off on the plot.

“It would seem to me — and this is just surmising on my part — that before a country would go after an ambassador of another country, in a third country, that they would have the acceptance of the government. I just don’t see how this could be done any other way,” said Feinstein.

While the State Department official stressed sanctions, others suggested other penalties and moves to pressure Iran.

King, for example, said the U.S. military could move around troops and ships “to indicate how seriously we’re taking this.”

And the government could force the removal from the United States of those representing Iranian interests in Washington and at the New York-based United Nations, including Khazaee.

“I think that the United States has to really consider taking very significant actions,” said King. “I don’t think sanctions alone are enough.”

America’s problematic remote control wars

012cff66ec190ef5c5a367557bd4fab5 America’s problematic remote control wars

Bernd Debusmann is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.

( Blog/ Reuters) – The United States is deploying -laden remotely piloted aircraft to kill enemies in six countries, scientists are working on ever more sophisticated military robots, and there are a host of unanswered questions on the future of warfare. Some of the more intriguing ones are asked abroad.

Such as: “Is the Reaper operator walking the streets of his home town after a shift a as a combatant? Would an attack (on him) by a Taliban sympathizer be an under international law or murder under the statutes of the home state? Does the person who has the right to kill as a combatant while in the control station cease to be a combatant on his way home?”

This comes from a study by Britain’s and refers to the waged by U.S. pilots who operate, from bases in the United States, heavily-armed drones flying over Afghanistan or Pakistan 7,500 miles away. The Reaper is the of the fleet, which has grown from around 50 a decade ago to more than 7,000 today. It is increasing at a fast clip, unaffected by cuts in other areas.

Most of the drone missions for the military are flown from Creech Air Force base near Las Vegas. The (CIA) has a separate, covert, program that critics see as targeted assassinations. The CIA’s drones are operated from northern Virginia. The pilots, sitting in in front of television monitors, run no physical risks whatever, a novelty for men engaged in war.

Debate over the remote-control air wars — drones are now in action over Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq, Libya and Somalia – has been largely confined to academia and think tanks, both civilian and military. But reports this week that the CIA had extended drone strikes to Somalia have prompted calls for a closer examination of where war ends and assassinations begin.

It is not an issue, however, that strikes a chord with the public and U.S. politicians are largely in favor of drone strikes. They are seen as an inexpensive way of targeting enemies, with no risk to the lives of American personnel. The downside to the seemingly risk-free elimination of Taliban fighters, al Qaeda militants and assorted other anti-American elements is of little apparent concern in the U.S.

What downside? High technology and precision weapons notwithstanding, the “surgical strikes” drone enthusiasts like to talk about are on occasion anything but, resulting in “collateral damage”, the euphemism for dead civilians.
Collateral damage tends to create more recruits to anti-American causes. Even without civilian casualties, remote-control warfare tarnishes the image of the United States, and the few close allies who use drones, in the countries where they are fighting.

“The West … is seen as a cowardly bully that is unwilling to risk his own troops but is happy to kill remotely,” the British study noted.

SCIENCE AND WISDOM

Such sentiments are unlikely to sway public opinion in the West, nor will they stop weapons developments that bring to mind an observation by the late science fiction writer Isaac Asimov more than four decades ago: “The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than science gathers wisdom.”

Which brings us to aspects of 21st century war that go beyond the pros and cons of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), as drones are also known. While they are frequently referred to as “killer robots,” they are “human-in-the-loop” weapons, so named because a human being navigates the aircraft and pushes the button that fires the missile.

If and when to cut the human out of the loop – and open a new era of warfare – is a matter of debate between scientists. “It … would be only a small technical step to enable an unmanned aircraft to fire a weapon based solely on its own sensors, or shared information, without recourse to a higher, human authority,” according to the British study.

That would mean, in effect, outsourcing life-and-death decisions to computer programs controlling both aerial and ground-based robots. Questions yet to be answered are complex and varied: How do you get a robot to tell an insurgent from an innocent? Can you program the Laws of War and the Rules of Engagement into a robot? Can you imbue a robot with his country’s culture?

If something goes wrong, resulting in the death of civilians, who will be held responsible? The robot’s manufacturer? The designers? Software programmers? The commanding officer in whose unit the robot operates? The U.S. president who gives the green light?

A number of scientists alarmed by such unanswered questions last September formed a group, the International Committee for Robot Arms Control, that is pressing for an international debate on the regulation and control of armed military robots. The prospect of that happening looks remote.

(You can contact the author at Debusmann@Reuters)