Mediaboss Marketing

KABUL (Reuters) - Several senior members of Islamic State's central Asian affiliate were killed in a U.S. air strike in Afghanistan, officials said on Sunday.

The attack on Thursday killed Abdul Rahman, identified by the U.S. military as the Kunar provincial emir for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria-Khorasan, according to a statement from the command in Kabul.

"The death of Abdul Rahman deals yet another blow to the senior leadership of ISIS-K," said General John Nicholson, the senior U.S. commander in Afghanistan.

Three other senior ISIS-K members were also among those killed in the strike in eastern Kunar province.

Nicholson has vowed to defeat Islamic State militants in Afghanistan this year.

The group's emir, Abu Sayed, was reported killed in a strike on his headquarters in Kunar in July, the third Islamic State emir in Afghanistan to be killed since July 2016.

In April, Nicholson deployed a 21,600-pound (9,797 kg) "Massive Ordnance Air Blast" bomb against Islamic State positions in neighboring Nangarhar province, one of the largest conventional weapons ever used by the United States in combat.

On Saturday, Afghan officials said as many as 16 civilians, including women and children, had been killed by a U.S. air strike in Nangarhar, but American officials said only militants were killed.

As part of an increased campaign against both Islamic State and the Taliban, the dominant Islamist militant group in Afghanistan, the U.S. Air Force has dropped nearly 2,000 weapons in the country as of the end of July, compared to fewer than 1,400 in all of last year.

Despite some battlefield successes by Afghan and American special operations troops, Islamic State has continued deadly attacks around Afghanistan, fueling fears that the group is seeking to bring the group's Middle East conflict to Central Asia.

Reporting by Josh Smith; Editing by Kim Coghill

See the rest here:
Senior Islamic State commanders killed in Afghanistan air strike: US military - Reuters

Registered voters are feeling less confident about Americas prospects in Afghanistan as the war there closes in on 16 years, recent Morning Consult/POLITICO polling shows.

Less than a quarter of Americans (23 percent) believe the United States is winning the war there, versus 38 percent who believe its losing, according to the pollof 1,992 voters.

The results echo similar comments from Defense Secretary James Mattis, who himself acknowledged the United States was not winning in Afghanistan right now. The Trump administration is weighing whether to approve a plan for more troops in the country, and Mattis pledged to develop a new strategy by mid-July.

Initial sources said Trump would give Mattis the authority to add thousands more troops to the roughly 8,400 forces there now. But since then, Mattiss plan has hit an impasse amid disagreements among Trump advisers, some of whom are pushing to scale back U.S. involvement.

Last week, Trump told a group of reporters at his club in New Jersey that he is very close to a decision on updated strategy for the war in Afghanistan.

Were getting close. Were getting very close, Trump said, according to pool reports. Its a very big decision for me. I took over a mess and were going to make it a lot less messy.

In the absence of clear administration policy, most voters also did not support higher troop levels. A plurality of 37 percent said the U.S. should decrease the number of troops in Afghanistan, and 24 percent said troop levels should stay the same. One out of 5 voters said troop levels should rise.

Amid the uncertainty, the security situation on the ground continues to deteriorate. The poll was conducted Aug. 3-6, just after the Pentagon confirmed two U.S soldiers had been killed in a suicide bomb attack on a NATO convoy on Aug. 2. At least 2,400 U.S. service members have lost their lives in and around Afghanistan since the war started in 2001, according to figures provided by icasualties.org, an independent website.

The lack of a clear U.S. direction is also adding to pressure on the Afghan security forces, which are counting on Americas military training and troops to regain lost ground. According to U.S. military data released in July, the Afghan government controls or influences only 60 percent of the countrys 407 districts, down from 65 percent the same time last year.

While most voters were against increasing U.S. troop levels, when asked whether the United States needs a new, more aggressive strategy in the country even if it involves more troops, respondents appeared to change their minds, with 40 percent saying they were in support of the option. On the other hand, 32 percent said the U.S. should withdraw all troops, even if it means decreased ability to combat insurgent forces. (Another 28 percent didnt know or had no opinion.)

Military commander in Afghanistan General Nicholson said he needs more troops, people respect that opinion; but people are also concerned that neither the Obama administration or the Trump administration have a clear strategy for Afghanistan, and they are not satisfied with that, Christopher Kolenda, a former senior advisor on Afghanistan to the Defense Department and now a senior fellow at the Center for Global Policy, said when asked about the discrepancy in polling in an interview last week

At the same time, there may be valid reasons for Trump to rethink the long-term strategy in Afghanistan after former President Barack Obamas back-and-forth on troop deployment. The Obama administration deployed another 30,000 troops to the country in2009 but then withdrew troops over subsequent years after failing to eliminate the insurgency,leaving remaining U.S. troops more vulnerable and making U.S. allies nervous.

Public opinion on taking a more active approach to Afghanistan is split along party lines, with 58 percent of Republicans supporting a more aggressive strategy, compared to 30 percent of Democrats, according to the poll.

The Obama administration, which is Democrat, favored of a withdrawal from Afghanistan, so you still see the legacy of that administration, Kolenda said about the poll. The Republicans were opposed to Obamas timelines and want to see a different approach to Afghanistan.

See the original post:
Voters Pessimistic on Afghanistan as Trump Weighs Boosting Troops - Morning Consult

Iranian lawmakers voted to raise spending on the nations missile program and elite forces, bolstering twin pillars of the security establishment that are at the center of a growing dispute with the U.S.

Parliament on Sunday overwhelmingly approved a bill sanctioning an additional 20 trillion rials ($609 million) for Irans missile program and the Qods Force arm of the Revolutionary Guards. The legislation cited hostile U.S. policies against Iran and American adventurism in the region, according to Tasnim news agency. President Donald Trump has expanded sanctions on Iran and swung behind its Gulf rivals since taking office, amid signs he might attempt to sink the 2015 nuclear accord that opened the Islamic Republic for business.

The extra funding -- on top of two years of increased defense spending -- serves as amultifaceted message, according to Ariane Tabatabai, a senior associate with the Proliferation Prevention Program at theWashington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The missile program serves to project power and show strength at a time where the region is incredibly volatile and is geared toward Irans regional adversaries like the Gulf Arabs, as well as ISIS and other terrorist groups, she said. It also serves to show the U.S. that the chest-thumping wont intimidate Iran. From their perspective, this is about deterrence.

In another sign of escalating tensions, the U.S. said an Iranian drone operating without navigation lights came within 1,000 feet (305 meters) of U.S. aircraft from the carrier Nimitz that were in flight during night operations in the central Persian Gulf on Sunday. The approach created a dangerous situation with the potential for collision and is not in keeping with international maritime customs and laws, Commander Bill Urban, a spokesman for U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, said Monday in a statement.

The seven-party agreement curbing Irans nuclear program led to increased Iranian oil sales and investor interest in Iran, and was heralded as a basis for talks on easing clashes over Mideast flashpoints where Iran and Sunni powers allied to the U.S. are on opposite sides. But the deal has run into greater turbulence under Trump, who argues that its overgenerous terms have emboldened authorities in Tehran that oppose American interests.

His administration has so far found Iran to be in compliance with the accord after quarterly reviews -- a judgment also made by international monitors -- while saying its missile tests and overseas military interventions are in breach of its spirit.

Irans other malign activities are serving to undercut whatever positive contributions to regional and international peace and security were intended to emerge from the accord, State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said last month.

In June, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson signaled that support for peaceful regime change in Iran may be one option for the U.S. to consider.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, whose diplomatic overtures concluded with the landmark breakthrough, on Sunday again warned against unilateral efforts to undermine it.

Anyone who harms the accord harms himself and his country, Rouhani was quoted as saying by the Iranian Students News Agency. If the U.S. acts against the agreement everyone will side with us and against the person who wants to weaken it, he said in reference to other signatories to the deal, including Germany and France, which strongly support its continuation.

Rouhani has come under growing pressure from conservative opponents at home who want a more assertive response to Trump.

The bill passed on Sunday, which had been before parliament for two months, constitutes a first step, speaker Ali Larijani was quoted as saying by the official Islamic Republic News Agency. If the U.S. applies sanctions that violate the multi-party nuclear deal with Iran, the Iranian government will be bound to react, he said.

Get the latest on global politics in your inbox, every day.

Get our newsletter daily.

Iranian officials have asserted that the legislation doesnt violate the agreement and a subsequent United Nations resolution, which discouraged but didnt bar missile development. Tehran considers American actions to have contravened the accord as the extra sanctions have further disrupted efforts to normalize trade. The bill needs to be approved by Irans Guardian Council, a body of Islamic law experts and jurists, in order to take effect.

With assistance by Anthony Capaccio

Excerpt from:
Iran Military Boost Signals Resolve to Resist US Pressure - Bloomberg

The administration is still working on its Iran strategy, but Mr. Trump and his aides have put a few cards on the table, demonizing Iran; backing tough new sanctions related to missiles and human rights violations; and pledging cooperation with Sunni countries that, like Israel, view Iran as a singular menace and demand its isolation.

Irans threatening behavior certainly deserves pushback from the United States and others. But Iran is not the only destabilizing force in the region, and unremitting hostility is not the answer. Even during the Cold War Washington engaged Moscow, when possible, on nuclear weapons, regional conflicts and human rights.

The United States and Iran had almost no contact after the 1979 Iranian revolution until Secretary of State John Kerry and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif formed a working relationship during the nuclear negotiations. Instead of building on that, Mr. Trump and his secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, have refused to even meet the Iranians.

A more imaginative policy would revive the secretary of state channel to resolve conflicts before they grow and explore solutions for Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen and Iraq. There is precedent for cooperation. Iran helped America and others to organize the new Afghan government after the Talibans ouster in 2001 and to forge a unity government in 2014. Iran could be encouraged now to press the Taliban to enter reconciliation talks with Kabul. Iran and the United States could also work together to combat drug trafficking in Afghanistan, another shared concern. And Iran has been helpful in Iraq by fighting the Islamic State.

Last week, 47 national security leaders urged America and Iran to begin discussing with the nuclear deals other signatories a follow-up agreement that could extend the nuclear restraints on Iran further into the future and expand them to other countries in the region that have or are considering nuclear energy programs. In addition, they proposed a new consultative body so that Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United States, Russia, Turkey, China and the European Union could consult on major regional disputes.

There are other constructive ways for the United States to counter Irans influence, like joining with its Sunni allies in helping the regions war-torn countries rebuild. Saudi Arabias recent moves to improve relations with Iraq by opening a land border and resuming air links are a good sign.

Iran is too big to be ignored. And if Washington pursues regime change, as some officials seem to favor, the risks will be huge. This is a crucial moment for Iran as revolutionary leaders die off and competition heats up between hard-liners with a strict anti-Western Islamic ideology and pragmatists who back the nuclear deal and international engagement.

In the balance is a population of 80 million, mostly young, Iranians who have in recent years elected relatively moderate leaders inclined toward evolutionary reform. As it has done with adversaries such as the Russians and the Chinese, America can make progress by engaging the Iranians and avoiding the kind of escalation that empowers hard-liners.

A version of this editorial appears in print on August 14, 2017, on Page A18 of the New York edition with the headline: Before You Rip Up That Iran Deal ...

Originally posted here:
Before You Rip Up That Iran Deal ... - New York Times

TEHERAN Iran's Parliament has voted to allocate US$520 million (S$708 million) to develop its missile programme to fight the US' "adventurism" and sanctions, and to boost the foreign operations of the country's Revolutionary Guards.

Sunday's vote follows a spike in tensions between Teheran and Washington since US President Donald Trump took office in January with a vow to get tough on the Islamic republic - and after the United States imposed fresh sanctions against Iran last month, targeting its missile programme.

"The Americans should know that this was our first action," said Speaker Ali Larijani, after announcing an overwhelming majority vote for a package "to confront terrorist and adventurist actions by the United States in the region".

A total of 240 lawmakers voted for the Bill, out of the 244 parliamentarians present.

It mandates the government allocate an additional US$260 million for missile development and the same amount to the Revolutionary Guards' foreign operations wing, the Quds Force, state news agency IRNA said.

The Quds Force leads Iran's military role in Syria and Iraq.

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the Bill had the support of the government.

The Bill is "very smart, particularly because it doesn't violate the nuclear deal and doesn't allow the other side to make excuses," he added.

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

See the rest here:
Iran raises budget for missiles, troops after US curbs - The Straits Times