Deal or No Deal: Did The Obama Administration Sell Us Out To The Russians?

By United States Navy photo (http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=36116) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

During a recent discussion with a friend, I came across an article in the Washington Times which reported the Obama administration was going to give away nuclear secrets to Russia.  The President stated, in his signing statement of this fiscal year's National Defense Appropriation Act, his intention to go against legislation written which would require him to report to Congress any deals he made with foreign countries with regards to weapons information and development.  It included instructions he couldn't make such deals without Congress's approval.  While, the President asserted these limitations went against his executive authority to conduct foreign affairs and saw them as "nonbinding", he did promise through Undersecretary of Defense Robert Nabors' letter to Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL), any such information would go through a "vigorous review" and he would seek advice from appropriate members of Congress.

Here's the question of the day: What information would the President be looking to exchange and with who.  Simply put, the limitations were put in place due to the administration's intention to exchange missile defense information with the Russians to reassure them our missile defense system was not offensive nor was it geared towards them.  The information entailed a single data point - the maximum effective range of the missile known as its burnout velocity.  MissileThreat.com defines it as, "The range of a missile is essentially determined by the velocity it reaches when all its propellant has been used up (its ‘burnout velocity’)." The weapon system in question is the SM-3, a ballistic missile shipboard interceptor.  Imagine a Patriot missile launched from a boat for nuclear missiles.

So why would the Obama administration give up such information?  The first thing that should be noted is information exchanges occur with the Russians all the time involving various weapon systems and programs.  On December 1, 2010, the US State Department issued a fact sheet on the then-draft Defense Technology Cooperation Agreement which stated,

"U.S.-Russia and NATO-Russia cooperation on missile defense is intended to help improve our defensive capabilities, strengthen transparency, and reduce Russia’s concerns about the United States’ missile defense efforts by providing it with further insight into the nature of and motivations for U.S. and NATO ballistic missile defense plans and programs"

Most notably, defense information exchanges occur in compliance with our START II treaty requirements as well.  The amount of disclosure which has occurred with the Russians about our most lethal weapons is astounding.  Just because it happens all the time, shouldn't we be protecting our missile defense knowledge any way?  Not really.  This missile defense shield isn't being developed for the Russians entirely.  It was conceived with them in mind initially under the Reagan administration.  However, as our Iranian, Chinese, and Pakistani "friends" develop more sophisticated missile technology which could jeopardize American interests and our homeland eventually, the missile defense shield can no longer afford to be stationary with all its attention on Russia.

We could not afford to appear to the Russians as developing a weapon system directed towards them with offensive intentions.  This was the problem with the follow-up missile defense plan envisioned by the Bush administration.  It was difficult convincing the Russians that was not our intention when we wanted to park a bunch of missiles in their backyard.  So, the Obama administration nixed the idea for a mobile seaborne and airborne option.  The information they will exchange will only give them information about a single interceptor in the entire system.  The idea is to convince the Russians, even though the systems are mobile,  they pose no offensive concern for them absent an overt attack by them against us.

Given the nature of weapons development and testing cycles which are extremely lengthy before anything becomes operational and the Russians only recently (within the last 10 years) becoming active in new weapons technology, it would be a very long time before they developed a suitable countermeasure for this system which could see countless upgrades before then.  Seeing how the Russians, the Pakistanis, the Chinese, nor the Iranians have an SM-3 to test this information on, who says the data we provide has to even be correct?  It should also be noted this exchange goes along with former President Bush's plan that was suspended.  This is an extremely small price to pay when looking at being able to park a missile defense shield in the Persian Gulf or the Yellow Sea.

Here's a datasheet of the SM-3:
www.raytheon.com/newsroom/.../rtn_rms_ps_sm3_datasheet.pdf

Here's video of it in action:

HOW-TO: Spot a Liar

If you're involved in investigations or ever have need to know if someone is deceiving you, then learning to spot a liar and their "tells" is paramount to your success.  "Tells" are those things in which we all do when telling a lie. Deception was man's first camouflage against other human enemies.  Just like camoflage, deception can be detected if you know what you're looking for.  I HIGHLY recommend watching the video below by Pamela Meyer, a lie detection expert.

According to her site, "Pamela Meyer is founder and CEO of Simpatico Networks, a leading private label social networking company that owns and operates online social networks. She holds an MBA from Harvard, an MA in Public Policy from Claremont Graduate School, and is a Certified Fraud Examiner. She has extensive training in the use of visual clues and psychology to detect deception."

Judging from this video, when they say a woman's intuition is almost always spot-on, I'm inclined to believe they may not be too off.

Click here to obtain a copy of her latest book - Liespotting: Proven Techniques to Detect.

Would you hire marijuana grower as your CSO? The Sinaloa cartel did....

Felipe Cabrera Sarabia is shown to the press under the custody of army soldiers at the federal organized crime investigations headquarters in Mexico City, Dec. 26, 2011. (AP Photo/Marco Ugarte)

When I read a headline announcing Felipe Cabrera Sarabia's capture, I was expecting a guy from Scarface not a guy who looks like he should be at a booth for next year's ASIS conference.  The media and the Mexican authorities have dubbed him Joaquin Guzman Loera's "security engineer".  What that means in the security industry and what that means for the guy who protects the assets and safety of the world's biggest drug cartel are two very dissimilar things.

According to Forbes magazine, "Sarabia has allegedly been running operations for the Sinaloa cartel in northern Mexico". Can you imagine if Steve Jobs had left the daily operations of Apple to his chief security officer? I'm not knocking the person but that's one heck of leap. In addition to finding ways to protect the cartel from the Mexican authorities, Sarabia had the somewhat daunting task of dealing with rival cartels. If you've been paying any attention to events south of the U.S. border, you know this is not getting easier.

How and why Mr. Sarabia earned the moniker "security engineer" are what struck me, given his increased responsibilities since his boss went into hiding. Forbes stated, Mexican army spokesman General Ricardo Trevilla said in a press conference on Monday, "Cabrera and three of his brothers began as marijuana growers and that Cabrera rose through the Sinaloa ranks by using violence against his rivals. In recent months, Cabrera waged war against a rival faction of the Sinaloa cartel known as the "Ms", leading to a surge in violence around Durango."

In this June 20, 2011 photo released by Mexico's Attorney General's office, police from the Federal Public Ministry looks at drums of precursor chemicals for methamphetamine that were seized in Queretaro, Mexico. Mexican authorities have made two major busts in as many months in the quiet central state of Queretaro. In one case, they seized nearly 500 tons (450 metric tons) of precursor chemicals. Another netted 3.4 tons (3.1 metric tons) of pure meth, which at $15,000 a pound would have a street value of more than $100 million. Mexico's most powerful drug cartel appears to be expanding methamphetamine production on a massive scale, filling a gap left by the breakdown of a rival gang that was once the top trafficker of the synthetic drug. (AP Photo/Attorney General's office)

Mexican authorities found 14 mass graves with 287 bodies in Durango.  Cabrera was busy.  Killing is one thing but drug dealing is a whole separate part of his job.  Mexican law enforcement  has seized over 550 metric tons of chemicals used to make methamphetamine, in the last 6 to 8 months.

Mexican police excavating a mass grave in Durango

Just in case you're wondering how do you capture someone like this?  The answer is quite simple - snitches.  I just want you to know I have zero verifiable information to back that up.  However, there a few things the Mexicans admitted that bring me to that conclusion.  They stated not a single shot was fired.  That meant they had actionable intelligence on where he was and how vulnerable he would be when they struck.  You don't get that by listening to a wire all day.  You need someone on the inside and clearly the Mexicans did.

What does this mean for his boss and the cartel?  The U.S. currently has a $5 million bounty for Loera, while the Mexicans want him for $7 million.  Not bad for a guy who Forbes listed as a billionaire with over $1 billion in wealth and was listed as #55 out of 100 on their World's Most Powerful People List for 2011.  As far as the cartel is concerned, who knows.  My guess is they'll capture or kill Loera (my money is on the latter) and they'll proclaim a major "victory".  This will put a very small dent in the overall drug trade, as the international appetite for drugs continues to grow at an exponential rate.  Supply and demand is the law of the drug trade.

If you have any information about the whereabouts of Mr. Loera, call:

1-877-WANTED2 (1-877-926-8332)

Terrorist of the week: Yasi al-Suri

In 2005, Yasin al-Suri made al-Qaeda's
"Top 30 under 30." According to Uncle Sam,
his head is worth $10  million.

Have you seen this guy?  If you have, the United States government would like to have a chat with him.  In the age of the Global on Terror, what that really means is "If you have and would be so kind to let the United States government know, they will pay you a very large reward fee for being able to put him in the crosshairs of a drone pilot."

What did he do?  According to the State Department,

Ezedin Abdel Aziz Khalil, more commonly known as Yasin al-Suri, is a senior al-Qaida facilitator based in Iran. Al-Suri moves money and recruits from across the Middle East into Iran, and then on to Pakistan, to support al-Qaida’s senior leadership. Iranian authorities maintain a relationship with al-Suri and have permitted him to operate within Iran’s borders since 2005.

Al-Suri facilitates the movement of recruits for al-Qaida from the Gulf to Pakistan and Afghanistan via Iran. He is also an important fundraiser for al-Qaida and has collected money from donors and fundraisers throughout the Gulf. Al-Suri funnels significant funds via Iran for onward passage to al-Qaida’s leadership in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Working with the Iranian government, al-Suri arranges the release of al-Qaida personnel from Iranian prisons. When al-Qaida operatives are released, the Iranian government transfers them to al-Suri, who then facilitates their travel to Pakistan.

As you might imagine, our "friends" in Iran flat out deny any connection. According to the Iranian news agency, Fars, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said, "The American government's recent unwise scenario regarding Iran's involvement in the September 11, 2001 attacks and the presence of an al Qaeda member in Iran is completely baseless. The US endangers international peace and security through repeating such false claims which are raised to meet Washington's political goals."


What's amazing about the reward and Yasin is the admission that he's been a liaison between al Qaeda and Iran since 2005 when he was 23 years old.  I know of drug dealing thugs who murder people every day and don't even have a sum this high on their heads.  Yasin's bounty is only $15 million less than Ayman Zawhiri, the new chief of al Qaeda.  What does this make Yasin?  I'll tell you what it makes him a high value target.  My guess is if captured or killed, Yasin's disappearance from the global terrorism scene would be a huge victory for American intelligence agencies as well as put a dent in the number of foreign fighters who appear to be growing exponentially.  Another reason you offer this kind of cash is because you know someone out there wants this money more than they care about Yasin.

So this leads me to wonder as to what happens if the government has actionable intelligence on his whereabouts possibly in Iran.  Do we send in Joint Special Operations assets to render him? Do we send in our drones? Do we apply "diplomatic pressure" (i.e. apply another series of ineffective sanctions with a country who does business with other countries not affected by our sanctions)?  Any covert actions, once discovered, could provoke the Iranians into more overt acts of aggression against the United States.

It is highly doubtful the US government expects to actually capture or kill him in Iran.  Why put up the reward then?  Perhaps it's a message for Iran to let them know we know who Yasin is and who he works for.  Whatever their reasons, the government is taking this guy very seriously.

To leave a tip (tell them The Security Dialogue sent you), click on the link below:
https://www.rewardsforjustice.net/index.cfm?page=tip&language=english

Here's a link to Yasin's wanted page:
http://www.rewardsforjustice.net/index.cfm?page=suri

Here's the Treasury Department's Press Release in July 2011 about Yasin's network:
http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/tg1261.aspx

UPDATE: Lost Drone or Trojan Horse?

So if you've been keeping tabs on the lost UAV in Iranian hands, you've probably read recently the Iranian claims that they brought the bird down with "electronic warfare".  Many experts have pondered on what techniques could have been used to bring down a "stealth" drone.  A popular theory has consistently been that the Iranians have spoofed the Global Positioning Satellite link between the UAV and its base and used that technology to "guide" the aircraft to their base in Iran.    It's even supported by a report done by the US Air Force on UAV vulnerabilities.  In a nutshell, the Iranians and these experts are claiming the Iranians tricked the UAV into believing the Iranians were the American base in Afghanistan in which it was supposed to be landing at.  What would this entail?  One theory I came across, via a comment on Bruce Schneier's original article on the lost UAV, was the Iranians could have used a mixture of high-gain antennas, a microwave link, and two aircraft following at the same speed as the UAV.

I have some issues with this theory from an intelligence standpoint, as it supposes a lot about the Iranians and their capabilities.

1. It would lead you to believe the Iranians have a need to bring down a drone which is simply taking pictures that any high-resolution satellite could pick up albeit not in real-time.  The Iranians have known for quite some time that we've been using our technology to spy on them and what areas we would be "curious" about.  Heck, any fourth grade student whose ever played Call of Duty knows that as well.
2. Second, it presumes the Iranians have the intelligence to know when exactly a UAV is flying and over which area.  Where would they get this type of information?  We have captured ZERO moles inside our government who would/could link sensitive drone technology/intelligence to Iran.  They would require an immense amount of verifiable data for such a project to be undertaken undetected and implemented almost flawlessly such as flight patterns (remember this is a "stealth" aircraft SEVERAL years in the making), satellite data which no other foreign government has used as of yet, real-time drone locations, and types of drones being flown.  Keep in mind the Beast of Khandahar wasn't "discovered" until 2009 at a base in Afghanistan. 
3. Third, that it would have the time to detect and dispatch the necessary equipment to those areas.  Even if it had the intelligence necessary, it has little in the ways of "stealth" technology to test this against let alone test it without raising eyebrows in Washington or Tel Aviv. 
4. Lastly, the Iranians never once thought to employ or use this in their campaign against the United States in Iran.  Seriously, why is this the first time the Iranians have showcased such a bird?  This presumes this is the first "stealth" UAV to fly over Iranian territory.  Surely, if they were as good as some pundits would have you believe, where are the other "stealth" drones?  I know - Iran, now claims to have seven other US drones.  What we know for a FACT is they have one verifiable drone in their custody.  How hard would it be to recreate a mock-up and say they "captured" the others?  Why now has the President requested just this one particular drone?  Because they only had this one and he already got what he wanted when it crashed.
5. Just because something is possible does not make it plausible.  It is possible I could one day become the CEO of Microsoft, but given my lack of experience as the CEO of a major corporation, it is not plausible.  The same can be said of the Iranians.  They are great at many things.  And are a very good adversary.  However, this is a country that had a 7 year war with a country that took us a few months to overrun (barring the pseudo-quagmire that later ensued with the help of our Iranian "friends").  Having such technology could be useful, in many arenas and operational theaters for Iran, yet it only provides "fruit" for them now?

If I were in the business of punditry and consulting for major media networks, I would stick to the "massive intelligence failure" story.  However, I'm just a guy with a blog so I'll stick with what's plausible and wonder how a multi-million dollar "stealth" aircraft flown by the largest intelligence apparatus has a "mechanical failure" over an enemy's territory whose nuclear development program was brought to its knees by a computer virus invented probably by the aforementioned intelligence agency.

Lost UAV or Trojan Horse?

I'm sure you've read all the hoopla about the Iranians capturing a U.S. spy drone.  The news media has asked just about every intelligence "expert" they have on their rosters.  Most have taken the bait and sensationalized the story almost beyond belief.  The other day I heard someone call it a "massive intelligence failure". Others have claimed the Iranians will reverse engineer  this aircraft (actually the Iranians said this) and use its "stealth" technology.  Some have even lauded the "success" of Iran's first unmanned bombing drone also supposedly equipped with "stealth" technology.  You would think these guys were Romulans.