Mediaboss Marketing

A new trailer for Zona Hostil (aka Rescue Under Fire) is a reminder that not all military heroes come from Hollywood.

Heading for release in its native Spain on March 10, Zona Hostil is based on events that took place in Afghanistan in August 2012, revolving around military personnel in need of rescue during a time of warfare. Ariadna Gil stars as a medical officer with the Spanish army; she arrives by helicopter and then becomes trapped in a very bad situation. Raul Merida, Robert Alamo, and Antonio Garrido also star.

Adolfo Martinez Perez directed. He's worked as a storyboard artist on Hollywood productions such as The Jungle Book and Oblivion; this is his feature debut and the action looks striking and very fierce.

No word on distribution beyond Spain yet; Latido Films is handling. More information is available at the official site.

Watch the English-subtitled trailer below.

See the article here:
ZONA HOSTIL (RESCUE UNDER FIRE) Trailer: Spanish Military Heroes in Afghanistan - ScreenAnarchy (blog)

Colin Powell didnt sign up with four stars in mind. The New York City native and son of Jamaican immigrants had a much simpler objective.

I came in the Army to be a good soldier. And what I've tried to do every day of my 35-plus years in services is to be a good soldier every day, and let the Army decide how far they wanted me to go.

The first (and so far only) African-American to serve on the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the first African-American to serve as secretary of state, recently shared insights from his incredible career as part of Military Times' Black Military History Month.

The following are highlights from the exclusive interview, edited for space and clarity:

Q. To start, we wanted to hear about your experience in Vietnam, specifically serving as an adviser.

A. I arrived in Vietnam on Christmas Eve in 1962, and I was assigned to be an adviser to a South Vietnamese battalion. I learned a lot about survival out in the forest. It wasnt really a jungle. It was a forest. And I learned a lot about what it is to work with other nationalities, and to not have language exchanges with them, because very few of them spoke English.

Q. Its very common in today's military to go out and work with partner nations. And as you mentioned, you don't speak the same language. Can you offer some advice for service members in that position?

A. Well, you always have to try to put yourself in their position not see everything through your eyes, but get on the other side and look back at yourself, so that you're reflecting their culture and their beliefs. Really, that was the lesson I learned in Vietnam.

Eating rice 21 times a week put me into their culture fully. Just staying up with them and letting them know I was just like them. We all slept on the ground together, and we all trenched up and down those mountains together. And they accepted me as one of them, and I was proud to be one of them.

Q. Can you talk about your time during the Nixon administration? You were a White House fellow.

Beyond that, though, I also traveled and I went to both Russia and China that year. I came back from that having the experiences with the people who were supposed to be our enemies, and could be our enemies if war came. I came away from that with a better understanding of the Soviet Union and a better understanding of the strength that we have in the West.

And it was my experience in the Soviet Union, I think that it allowed me to be a better counterpart to my Russian colleagues. Because they knew I had been in Russia, and I had not only studied how to fight a war if a war came, but how to work for peace. And to make sure that peace came, and not a war.

Q. What can you say to those in uniform today, who read the headlines about Russia and China and who may be anxious about what the future may bring?

A. My feelings about Russia and China were shaped in my White House fellow days and throughout my military and diplomatic career as national security adviser and secretary of state. I think that we have to be on guard with these two countries. But at the same time, I don't think they are seeking war. But they are acting in ways that are not always in our interest.

I think that it is important to make sure that you reach out and keep in close contact with both countries. Understand what theyre trying to do. I found that I could work very pleasantly with both my Chinese colleagues and my now Russian no longer Soviet my Russian colleagues on the basis of respect, and mutual understanding. And interests that sometimes diverged. But I don't think either of those countries is looking for a war with the United States of America.

Q. Can we talk about Desert Storm? I'm curious what kind of lessons you reflect on today.

A. Desert Storm, I think was a very successful operation. And the reason it was so successful is that the first President Bush gave us a very clear mission. And it was a mission that was blessed by Congress. Because it was a clear mission, we could get wide support from around the world. And the mission was to eject the Iraqi army from Kuwait and restore the legitimate government of Kuwait to Kuwait City. And we put 500,000 troops into that operation and another 200,000 allied troops joined us.

It was the only time in my career or in, frankly, most of American military history, where a chairman can say to the president of the United States, I guarantee the outcome. And the reason I could guarantee that outcome is that the president gave us everything we asked for. In a relatively short period of time, the Iraqi army was no longer in Kuwait, and the government had been restored.

But the best part from my perspective is the way in which the American people saw this operation. And they had been told that tens of thousands might be killed. They were worried about this volunteer army that had never been in this level of combat before. And they were absolutely joyful at the results. And they threw parades for our troops. And it just refreshed my memory that a classic military theory says, make sure you know what you're getting into.

And then, when you've decided on that political objective, then you put decisive force in to achieve it. And that's what we did in Desert Storm. Some people argue that we ended the war too soon. And there others who say we should have gone to Baghdad. We didn't end it too soon. We ended it when the president wanted to end it, because we were killing people that didn't need to be killed, because the mission had really been accomplished. And we didn't want to inflict too many casualties on our own troops, and especially also on the other side.

So I think it was a great success. But the biggest thing was the American people just absolutely fell in love with their armed forces once again.

Q. Can you talk about your tenure as secretary of state?

A. I was very proud to be appointed as secretary of state and in that first year of course, we had 9/11. And I was in Peru that day. I wasn't in Washington. And I'll never forget the handwritten note by my assistant saying that a plane had hit one tower, and we thought it was a small plane. And it looked like an accident. And it was like, 10 minutes later, he came in with another note saying a plane had hit the other tower, and I immediately knew it was a terrorist attack.

I told my plane to get ready, my pilots to get ready. We had to fly back to Washington as soon as possible. It was a long flight, but when I got back, I immediately joined the president. After a lot of discussion, we realized we had to respond to this attack in a forceful way. And that's what we did.

One of the challenges facing our young men and women now is that this conflict in there and in Iraq, both them have been going on for, like, 15 or 16 years with a volunteer force that represents a small part of the American population 1 percent. And they're the ones who have to keep going back and keep going back. And we are asking an awful lot of our young men and women in uniform, and a lot of their families. And it is also very expensive.

So I think one of the challenges coming up for the new administration is how to find a solution to these problems in Iraq and Afghanistan, and really turn it over to the people. And to the their governments while at the same time providing assistance aid so they can do what is necessary to provide peace and security for their people.

Q. We write about this where the cities, for example, that were once overtaken by U.S. troops, have fallen again. You know, from an emotional standpoint for some of these troops, it's been hard to rectify that in their minds. What would you say to them directly, those who are having trouble?

A. Well, I would say that we are enormously proud of their willingness to serve repeated tours in these places. And don't feel in any way that your service is unrewarded, or your service has no value to it. And it's very much rewarded and respected by the American people, and it has value. Al-Qaida, ISIS, cannot be allowed to prevail, or else we will be chasing the world back to the bad period of constant conflict. And so, it's important that we understand their service is necessary and valuable.

But it places an enormous demand upon them and of their families. And that sacrifice is greatly appreciated by those of us who used to be uniform, and I think all of the American people.

Q. February is Black History Month.

I've always gone in my life as a soldier who happens to be black, but I would not ever call myself a black soldier, or a black general, or a black secretary of state. I was very proud of my race and I never failed to give credit to those soldiers and statesman who went before me, and kind of paved the way for me. But at the same time, I don't want someone to think, well, it's a black secretary, is there a white secretary somewhere. No, there's not. There's only one. And so, I've always seen myself first and foremost as an American and as a leader of all of the people. And a representative of all of the people of the United States, and I happen to be black.

Continue reading here:
Q-and-A: Colin Powell on Vietnam service, Iraq and Afghanistan, and Black History Month - Military Times

Tension between the Trump administration and Iran continued to rise Wednesday when National Security Adviser Michael Flynn said the White House was putting Tehran "on notice," an apparent threat of retaliation for a recent ballistic missile test.

Flynn said in a statement that the launch defied a U.N. Security Council resolution aimed at keeping Iran from developing nuclear-armed missiles.

Related: Iran Test-Fires Medium Range Ballistic Missile: U.S. Officials

Flynn, a retired Army general and former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, delivered his remarks in a surprise appearance at the daily White House press briefing. He cited other examples of what he called Iran's "destabilizing behavior across the Middle East," including reported attacks on U.S. allies by Iran-backed Houthi rebels.

He pointed out President Trump's disapproval of a multinational agreement with Iran that lifts economic sanctions in exchange for a promise not to develop nuclear weapons.

"Instead of being thankful to the United States for these agreements, Iran is now feeling emboldened," Flynn said. "As of today, we are officially putting Iran on notice."

What exactly that means is unclear.

Flynn did not take questions after delivering his warning. White House spokesman Sean Spicer declined to elaborate in an afternoon press briefing.

It could mean the Trump administration is seeking ways to undo the nuclear deal.

Last week, Trump included Iran on a list of seven majority-Muslim countries whose citizens would be temporarily banned from entering the United States.

Iran used to be prohibited from test-firing ballistic missiles under previous U.N. resolutions. However, these were superseded by a new resolution passed alongside the nuclear deal.

This only "called upon" Iran not to test-fire missiles that could be used to deliver nuclear weapons. Critics of the deal say this wording is effectively a loophole meaning the missile-testing restrictions are not obligatory.

The government in Tehran says that because it doesn't have a nuclear-weapons program, its missile tests are not violations of this clause.

Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif didn't confirm or deny the launch during a press conference Tuesday but said, "The missiles aren't part of the nuclear accords," Reuters reported. "Iran will never use missiles produced in Iran to attack any other country."

Flynn's remarks Wednesday followed assertions Tuesday by Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, that the Trump administration would not "show a blind eye" to Iran's actions.

"We're gonna act, we're gonna be strong, we're gonna be loud and we're gonna do whatever it takes to protect the American people and the people across the world, because that's what the goal is supposed to be," she said.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a statement that he planned to press Trump to renew sanctions against Iran and "take care of this failed nuclear agreement."

He added, "Iran's aggression must not go unanswered."

More:
White House Puts Iran 'On Notice' for Missile Test - NBCNews.com

By Dan Sullivan By Dan Sullivan February 1 at 2:36 PM

Dan Sullivan, a Republican, represents Alaska in the Senate.

As a candidate, Donald Trump said he would tear up the Iran nuclear deal once elected. Many of us in the Senate strongly opposed this deal on substance it provides the worlds largest state sponsor of terrorism a pathway toward to nuclear weapons inside of a decade and also on process. The Obama administration sought the approval of the U.N. Security Council, but essentially ignored the constitutional role of the Senate in seeking to finalize the deal as an executive agreement, not a treaty. As a result, President Trump would be within his rights and authority to undo the deal through executive action, particularly as Iran continued to show that it has no intention of abiding by the deal by launching yet another ballistic missile on Sunday.

But there is a potentially better alternative than unilaterally disavowing the deal: Let it fail on its own by vigorously enforcing it.

Since the enactment in 2015 of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the United States, China, France, Russia, Britain and Germany, known as the P5+1, have, for their own political and economic reasons, studiously looked the other way as at least four key provisions of the deal have been violated.

First, Annex 1 of the JCPOA limits Irans stock of heavy water a catalyst for nuclear weapons. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, there are at least two instances of Iran knowingly exceeding its heavy water limit in February and November of last year. Instead of holding Iran to account for the violations, the Obama administration bought up the illicit material for $8.6 million.

Second, Annex B of U.N Security Council Resolution 2231 which serves as the implementing resolution for the JCPOA and its legal framework calls on Iran not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles for eight years. However, Iran has conducted five ballistic missile tests since the deal was finalized.

Third, Annex B of the implementing resolution also bans certain individuals from travel to foreign countries. Yet nothing was done when it was discovered that Irans Quds Force commander, Qasem Soleimani, who is on that list, traveled to Russia to meet with President Vladimir Putin after the deal was signed. As recently as December, Soleimani was seen visiting Aleppo.

Finally, Annex B also states that the Security Council must approve services, advice, other services or assistance, related to the sale of conventional weapons. Its been widely reported that Russia is in talks to sell Iran $10 billion worth of conventional weapons, including advanced tanks, artillery systems, planes and helicopters. Iran has not asked for such approval.

No member of the P5+1 has done anything about these violations. Russia is complicit in them; China needs Irans oil and gas; Europe wants business deals; and the Obama administration didnt want to undermine what it saw as a major foreign policy legacy.

But Trumps interest is in protecting Americans and our allies in the Middle East. And that could be done by stating that the United States will abide by the terms of the deal, while also making clear that those terms are already being systematically violated. He could give all the parties to the agreement 60 days to remedy the situation. If they fail to do so, he should take the next step, pursuant to the agreement: reapply sanctions against Iran.

The conventional wisdom, as spun by the Obama administration officials who negotiated this ill-advised deal, is that only a re-imposition of sanctions by the entire international community would be effective against Iran. But, as so often was the case in 2016, the conventional wisdom is wrong. Even unilateral U.S. sanctions could be significantly destabilizing to the Iranian regime and its economy.

Ive seen this work first hand. As an assistant secretary of state in charge of economics, energy, terrorist finance and sanctions during President George W. Bushs second term, I served with other senior members of the State and Treasury departments to encourage allies and businesses around the world to quit doing business with Iran or risk secondary sanctions from the U.S. Congress.

Working with Congress, both the Bush and Obama administrations were able to impose sanctions that targeted states and individuals who conduct business with Irans central bank. We also were able to ensure significant restriction of Iranian access to the U.S. financial system, including those that are conducted in dollars, which need to be cleared through a U.S. financial institution, even if the money isnt staying in the United States. We also encouraged countries and companies to divest from the Iranian oil and gas sector.

Many of our allies only reluctantly agreed to economically isolate Iran, largely due to this pressure.

Even acting unilaterally, we still have leverage to put pressure on Iran and the international community to yield results. Our power over the international financial system remains, and with regard to energy, U.S. leverage has increased dramatically. The United States is once again the worlds energy superpower. As such, we could give countries and companies a choice: Invest in Irans oil and gas sector or invest in Americas. I believe that most companies would choose the United States.

With strong, principled U.S. leadership, others countries will follow. If they dont, the Trump administration will be able to say that the United States abided by the spirit and letter of the agreement, and it was the other members of the P5+1 who chose to turn a blind eye to Irans violations and walk away from the deal.

Read the original post:
Don't 'tear up' the Iran deal. Let it fail on its own. - Washington Post

The Trump administration said Wednesday it was officially putting Iran on notice that it is paying attention to what it called defiance of nuclear agreements with its test launch of a ballistic missile.

The launch, along with Tuesdays attack by Houthi rebels on a Saudi warship off the coast of Yemen, underscore what should have been clear to the international community all along about Irans destabilizing behavior across the Middle East, said Michael T. Flynn, President Trumps national security adviser.

Flynn read the Iran statement at the regular White House press briefing and did not take questions.

In his first media appearance since the inauguration, Flynn recalled that Trump during his campaign criticized the nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration with world powers, Iran and the United Nations as being weak and ineffective.

Instead of being thankful to the United States for these agreements, he said, Iran now feels emboldened. The brief statement, calling the missile launch provocative, did not outline any actions the administration intends to take.

Irans launch Sunday of a medium-range Khorramshahr missile ended in failure, with the missile reportedly traveling about 600 miles before exploding in the air.

The United States called for an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council. Following the Tuesday session, Nikki Haley, the new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said the world should be alarmed by the test and called for unspecified U.N. action.

In a Tehran news conference Tuesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif did not confirm the launch but said that the missile issue is not part of the nuclear deal. Iranian missiles are not designed for the capability of carrying a nuclear warhead, he said. Our ballistic missile was designed to carry a normal warhead in the field of legitimate defense.

The agreement, which took effect a year ago, prohibits development of ballistic missiles as part of a nuclear weapons program that the accord was designed to prevent. Differences of opinion on whether the launch is a violation of the agreement rest on interpretation of the strength of the nuclear deal and of Irans intentions.

Although a number of Republican presidential primary candidates, and some members of Congress, have called for tearing up the agreement, Trump has not taken that position. He has called it a bad deal and said his administration would review it to determine whether it should be renegotiated.

U.S. partners in the negotiations, including Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia, have warned against a renegotiation of the deal, under which severe restrictions on a nuclear program Iran insisted was solely for energy production were put in place in exchange for the lifting of nuclear-related U.S. and international sanctions.

Flynn also referenced the Saudi warship that was attacked Tuesday by Houthi rebels in Yemen. A rebel suicide boat exploded after striking the ship, which was patrolling off the Yemeni coast. Two Saudi sailors were killed.

Saudi Arabia is fighting Yemeni rebels from the Houthi tribe who have taken over broad swaths of the neighboring country. Its actions include offshore naval patrols to intercept what it has said are Iranian arms supplies to the rebels.

Read more here:
Trump administration says it's putting Iran 'on notice' following missile test - Washington Post