Mediaboss Marketing

SOUTHWEST ASIA, July 3, 2017 U.S. and coalition military forces continued to attack the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria yesterday, conducting 19 strikes consisting of 63 engagements, Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve officials reported today.

Officials reported details of yesterday's strikes, noting that assessments of results are based on initial reports.

Strikes in Syria

In Syria, coalition military forces conducted 18 strikes consisting of 21 engagements against ISIS targets:

-- Near Abu Kamal, three strikes destroyed three ISIS front-end loaders, two oil separator tanks and a wellhead.

-- Near Dayr Az Zawr, a strike destroyed an ISIS wellhead.

-- Near Raqqa, 14 strikes engaged 13 ISIS tactical units and destroyed 10 fighting positions and a mortar system.

Strikes in Iraq

In Iraq, coalition military forces conducted a strike consisting of 42 engagements against ISIS targets:

-- Near Mosul, a strike engaged an ISIS tactical unit; destroyed 15 fighting positions, seven medium machine guns and a heavy machine gun; and suppressed an ISIS tactical unit and a mortar team.

July 1 Strikes

Additionally, 12 strikes were conducted in Syria and Iraq on July 1 that closed within the last 24 hours:

-- Near Abu Kamal, Syria, a strike destroyed two ISIS oil tanker trucks, an oil trailer and a road grader.

-- Near Kisik, Iraq, a strike suppressed an ISIS mortar team.

-- Near Mosul, Iraq, a strike destroyed an ISIS-held building and damaged four supply routes.

-- Near Raqqa, Syria, five strikes engaged three ISIS tactical units, destroyed a fighting position and a heavy machine gun and suppressed 27 fighting positions.

-- Near Shadaddi, Syria, four strikes destroyed two ISIS command-and-control nodes, a staging area and a vehicle-borne-bomb facility.

Part of Operation Inherent Resolve

These strikes were conducted as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the operation to destroy ISIS in Iraq and Syria. The destruction of ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria also further limits the group's ability to project terror and conduct external operations throughout the region and the rest of the world, task force officials said.

The list above contains all strikes conducted by fighter, attack, bomber, rotary-wing or remotely piloted aircraft; rocket-propelled artillery; and some ground-based tactical artillery when fired on planned targets, officials noted.

Ground-based artillery fired in counterfire or in fire support to maneuver roles is not classified as a strike, they added. A strike, as defined by the coalition, refers to one or more kinetic engagements that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a single or cumulative effect.

For example, task force officials explained, a single aircraft delivering a single weapon against a lone ISIS vehicle is one strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons against a group of ISIS-held buildings and weapon systems in a compound, having the cumulative effect of making that facility harder or impossible to use. Strike assessments are based on initial reports and may be refined, officials said.

See the rest here:
Coalition Strikes Hit ISIS Terrorists in Syria, Iraq - Department of Defense

OnJuly 14, the nuclear deal with Iran will turn two. This anniversary comes at a time when the United States is reviewing its Iran policy, of which the controversial agreement is a key pillar, and isputting the optionof regime change on the table once again. In doing so, the Trump administration should consider some lessons from one of the defining events in contemporary Iranian history: the Iran-Iraq War.

At first glance, the war doesnt seem to have much to do with the nuclear deal. After all, it took place in the 1980s; it did not officially involve any of the parties to the agreement with Iranthe United States, its European partners, China, and Russiaand it has largely faded from public memory. In Iran, however, the conflict that Iranians know as the Sacred Defense or Imposed War continues to loom large. Today, almost three decades after it ended, the war has a profound influence on decision-making in Iran, especially as it pertains to national security issues.

The end of the war restored the status quo ante, with both regimes still in power and without territorial adjustments. Throughout the last years of the war, missiles flew into major cities and population centers, as combatants dug up trenches, and Baghdad used chemical weapons against Iranians and Iraqs own Kurdish populations.

Although the war was disastrous for Iranians, the Islamic Republic has taken from it two key lessons that continue to condition Tehrans actions and policies today.

First, Iran came out of the war with a deep distrust of the United States and the world order it leads. And an event whose anniversary comes on July 3, just days before that of the nuclear deal, played a critical role in this. On that day in 1988, a U.S. Navy cruiser accidentally shot down an Iranian civilian airliner, killing all 290 people on board.

Second, feeling isolated from and distrustful of the U.S.-led international system, Iran emerged from the war with the conviction that it could not rely on anyone but itself. Throughout the conflict, Iran had difficultly purchasing weapons and updating and upgrading its aging equipment. As a result, in the middle of the war, Tehran began to develop the ballistic missile and nuclear programs that today generate so much tension with the United States.

For Washington, the nuclear deal was an opportunity to curb Irans nuclear program. It also cleared the path for future negotiations on other aspects of Irans potentially dangerous activities too. But for Tehran, the nuclear deal was a way to remove the threat of war, renormalize its status within the international community, and open up its economy.

However, the Trump administrations erratic and tough talk and its failure to assert clearly that the deal is here to stay have only reinforced the lessons of the war and have convinced Iran that the United States wont allow it to achieve those goals. The resulting uncertainty surrounding the nuclear deal has made businesses and investors even more reluctant to reenter a market whose prospects remain dubious. And the threat of war looms once again, as the administrationopenly admitsto maintaining a policy of regime change.

The re-entrenchment of the lessons of the war have long-term, and largely negative, implications for the United States. These lessons make Iran more inclined to distance itself from America and its allies, which in turn undermines U.S. ability to affect Iranian policies. They also reinforce Irans threat perception and fuel its distrust of the international order and the United States. That in turn will make Tehran less likely to return to the table and engage in negotiations over its other worrisome activities and more likely to pursue policies that challenge and undermine U.S. national interests.

As the nuclear deal enters its second year, it is vital for the United States to clearly communicate its commitment to the agreement. Doing so will afford Washington a much-needed credibility boost at a time when international confidence in American leadership is waning. It will also allow the United States to continue to lead the implementation process, leave the door open for future negotiations on other concerning aspects of Iranian behavior, and promote U.S. national security interests.

Ariane Tabatabai (@ArianeTabatabai) is a Visiting Assistant Professor of Security Studies at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service and a Senior Associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).Annie Tracy Samuel (@ATracySamuel) is an Assistant Professor of history at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga.

The views expressed by this author are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

Read more:
Trump administration should not ignore lessons from Iran-Iraq War - The Hill (blog)

A brave British soldier reportedly drowned an evil ISIS fighter in a puddle after the terror group surrounded a group of Special Boat Service troopers in Iraq.

After the fearless special forces fighters ran out of bullets, they decided to go out fighting and used their knives and bare hands to kill as many brainwashed extremists as possible.

In an extraordinary survival story, another Brit soldier killed three militant thugs using his rifle as a club, reportsThe Daily Star.

An Iraqi fighter in Mosul on July 3. (REUTERS/Ahmed Jadallah)

The heroic members of the Royal Navys Special Boat Service reportedly were convinced they were going to die after being outnumbered and encircled after being ambushed by around 50 ISIS fighters near Mosul.

After killing at least 20 of the terrorists, the elite group realized they had around 10 bullets left between them and were trapped in a small river bed, the report said.

SYRIAN MILITARY DECLARES TEMPORARY CEASE-FIRE

Faced with the prospect of being captured and tortured, the men opted for a soldiers death and decided to fight like crazed warriors to kill as many of the extremists as possible.

Speaking with the Star, the source said: They knew that if they were captured they would be tortured and decapitated.

QATAR CRISIS DEADLINE EXTENDED

Rather than die on their knees, they went for a soldiers death and charged the IS fighters who were moving along the river bed.

They were screaming and swearing as they set about the terrorists.

Click for more from The Sun.

See original here:
British soldier drowns ISIS thug in puddle after being ambushed in Iraq, report says - Fox News

Iraqs June crude exports slipped from from the highest level since December amid decreased outflows from both southern and northern fields.

Ships hauling 113 million barrels of Iraqi crude sailed from ports in the Persian Gulf and Mediterranean Sea in June, according to data from port agents and tracking tracking. That works out at about 3.77 million barrels a day, or 4 percent lower than May.

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and other producers, including Russia, in May agreed to extend production cuts through March to help mop up a glut of crude in the market. Oil is trading at less than $50 a barrel, less than half where prices were three years ago, wreaking financial havoc on the budgets of exporters like Iraq.

The nation shipped 3.91 million barrels a day in October, the month OPEC used as its baseline for those production cuts. The cuts will helpwill re-balance the market,Oil Minister Jabbar Al-Luaibi said in London Monday.

The country aims to reach production capacity of 5 million barrels a day by the end of the year, he said. Iraq pumped 4.45 million barrels a day in May, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. It was to cut its output to 4.351 million barrels a day under the cuts deal.

Iraq has boosted sales to the U.S. this year, delivering 811,000 barrels a day in April, the most since February 2003, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Ten vessels carrying 16 million barrels of crude left Iraq for the U.S. last month, compared with 11 tankers carrying 19 million barrels in May and 10 tankers carrying 17 million barrels of crude in April.

The semi-autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq appeared to be shipping its first cargo for three years to the U.S., before the vessel reversed course, according to ship tracking data. As the tanker Neverland approached the coast ofNew England and Nova Scotia, Iraqs federal government asked U.S. and Canadian authorities to block the shipment, a person familiar with the matter said last week.

Visit link:
Iraq's June Crude Exports Decline From Year High in May - Bloomberg

With American-backed ground forces poised to recapture Mosul in Iraq and Raqqah in Syria, Islamic States de facto capitals, U.S. commanders are confident they soon will vanquish the militant group from its self-declared caliphate after three years of fighting.

But the White House has yet to define strategy for the next step in the struggle to restore stability in the region, including key decisions about safe zones, reconstruction, nascent governance, easing sectarian tensions and commitment of U.S. troops.

Nor has the Trump administration set policy for how it will confront forces from Iran and Russia, the two outside powers that arguably gained the most in the bitter conflict and that now are hoping to collect the spoils and expand their influence.

Iran, in particular, is pushing to secure a land corridor from its western border across Iraq and Syria and up to Lebanon, where it supports Hezbollah militants, giving it a far larger foothold in the turbulent region.

Right now everyone is positioned for routing Islamic State without having the rules of the road, said Michael Yaffe, a former State Department envoy for the Middle East who is now vice president of the Middle East and Africa center at the U.S. Institute of Peace. Thats a dangerous situation.

The risk of a broader confrontation was clear in recent weeks when a U.S. F/A-18 shot down a Syrian fighter jet for the first time in the multi-sided six-year war, provoking an angry response from Russia, which supports Syrian President Bashar Assad.

U.S. warplanes also destroyed two Iranian-made drone aircraft, although its not clear who was flying them. The Pentagon said all the attacks were in self-defense as the aircraft approached or fired on American forces or U.S.-backed Syrian fighters.

What I worry about is the muddled mess scenario, said Ilan Goldenberg, a former senior State Department official who now heads the Middle East program at the nonpartisan Center for a New American Security. When you start shooting down planes and running into each other, it quickly goes up the escalation ladder.

The clashes occurred in eastern Syria, where Russian-backed Syrian and Iranian forces are pushing against U.S. special operations forces and U.S.-backed Syrian opposition fighters trying to break Islamic States hold on the Euphrates River valley south of Raqqah and into Iraq.

Except for a few towns, Islamic State still controls the remote area, and U.S. officials fear the militants could regroup there and plan future attacks. Many of the groups leaders and operatives have taken shelter in Dair Alzour province.

As a candidate, President Trump promised to announce in his first month in office a new strategy for defeating Islamic State. As president, he has promised for more than a month to hold a news conference to discuss the effort.

He has yet to do either. But an intense debate is underway among the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House over the way forward. At least in public, Defense Secretary James N. Mattis and national security advisor H.R. McMaster have signaled different priorities.

The Pentagon argues that it only aims to defeat Islamic State and has no intention of being pulled into a conflict with Iran. Mattis, who is wary of what he calls mission creep, has advocated de-confliction zones that would essentially divvy up Syria and keep competing forces apart.

We just refuse to get drawn in to a fight there in the Syria civil war, he told reporters Monday on a visit to Europe for North Atlantic Treaty Organization meetings.

Mattis acknowledged that military planning and operations have grown more difficult in eastern Syria because of the close proximity of Syrian, Iranian and Russian forces on one side, and U.S. troops and American-backed militias on the other.

Youve got to really play this thing very carefully, and the closer we get, the more complex it gets, he said.

Two days later, McMaster offered a different perspective. He called the war against Islamic State one part of a much broader campaign aimed at blocking transnational terrorist groups from taking root.

Speaking at the Center for a New American Security, a Washington think tank, he argued that Iran is a disruptive force and suggested U.S. policy in the post-Islamic State era will focus increasingly on isolating Tehran and preventing it from expanding its influence.

He gave few specifics beyond pulling back the curtain on Tehrans purported malign deeds, including support for Houthi rebels in Yemen and Shiite militias in Iraq, as well as Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Iran is feeding this cycle of sectarian conflict to keep the Arab world perpetually weak, McMaster said. He estimated that 80% of Assads effective fighters in Syria were Iranian proxies.

Russia is fighting in Syria to prop up Assad, a key ally in the region, and to maintain its only foreign naval base, which is on the Syrian coast. Irans goals are more ambitious as Tehran tries to build a Shiite crescent of nations that would extend from the Arabian Sea, across Iraq and into Syria and out to the Mediterranean.

The situation in Syria could not be more complex, McMaster said.

Hawks in the White House are eager to block or rein in Iran, while the State Department and the Pentagon are trying to apply the brakes to avoid a direct confrontation, one official involved in the debate said.

Diplomats and some at the Pentagon warn that fighting Iran in Syria could prove futile or disastrous. They also warn of blowback in Iraq, where U.S. diplomats and soldiers are working in a delicate balance with local Shiite leaders to contain Iranian influence.

Is eastern Syria where the Trump administration wants to draw the line on Iran? asked Robert S. Ford, who left Syria in 2014 as the last U.S. ambassador there. The question for the administration is how to confront Iran in eastern Syria, and is that the right place?

Equally unclear is whether the White House will back Assad, whose hold on power now seems all but assured. Unlike the Obama administration, Trump has not called on the Syrian autocrat to hand power to a transition government or made a major diplomatic effort to persuade warring parties into negotiations.

I've seen no evidence that theyve given much thought to how you would bring the Syria conflict to resolution and how you would achieve a durable ceasefire, said Ford, now a fellow at the Middle East Institute, a Washington think tank.

Unlike in Iraq, the State Department has no government partner in Syria to help remove mines, restore electricity and otherwise help the stricken country recover after a war that has leveled ancient cities and left an estimated 400,000 dead so far.

Current and former U.S. officials say a strategy is needed to maintain peace among rival tribal leaders, to promote reform, to stamp out radical ideology even just to pay police and get schools and hospitals working again.

The next Syria may look a lot like the emerging Iraq, where diplomats are forced to accept a de facto partition of the country along sectarian and tribal lines, while Islamic State reverts to a violent insurgency rather than a quasi-state.

Syria will continue to exist as one country on a map, said Derek Chollet, a former senior Pentagon official who is now an expert on security and defense policy at the German Marshall Fund. But it is hard to imagine it being governed from Damascus.

The growing concern about the next step comes as U.S.-backed Iraqi forces appear within days of ejecting the last few hundred Islamic State fighters from their redoubt in the crowded warren of Mosuls Old City.

On Thursday, Iraqi troops retook the iconic Nuri mosque, which militants destroyed last month and where Islamic State leader Abu Bakr Baghdadi proclaimed the caliphate, or religious empire, three years ago.

In Syria, a U.S.-backed alliance of Syrian Kurds and Arab militias has steadily closed in on Raqqah, encircling the city after heavy fighting. Much of Islamic States leadership already has fled east, U.S. officials say.

While the battle wont end once Mosul and Raqqah fall, the White House must decide whether to continue to arm and protect its proxy forces as Syria and Iran seek to consolidate their gains.

U.S. commanders say thousands of American troops should stay in Iraq to bolster the Iraqi army, which collapsed and fled when the militants first arrived on pickup trucks in 2014, three years after President Obama withdrew most U.S. troops from the country.

A tougher challenge lies in Syria, where the U.S. military has not been invited by the government and has no large fixed bases. The Pentagon has deployed hundreds of special operations forces and conventional troops to support the Syrian Democratic Forces, a coalition of Kurdish and Arab rebel groups that oppose Assad.

If the U.S. military pulls out, it could give a green light to Assad and Irans forces to turn their firepower on the U.S.-backed militias, potentially a nightmare scenario.

Pressure is growing on Capitol Hill for the White House to articulate a longer-term strategy for when the Islamic State threat has been neutralized.

In a surprise vote Thursday, the House Armed Services Committee approved an amendment from Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Oakland) that would repeal a 2001 authorization for use of military force, or AUMF, that three administrations have used as the basis for continued military action in the region.

A small cadre of lawmakers has argued for years that U.S. involvement now goes beyond what was authorized in the post-9/11 AUMF. Until now, leaders in both parties showed little appetite to sunset the measure or amend it for the current war.

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), a former Air Force pilot in Iraq and Afghanistan, said any post-Islamic State strategy must go beyond military calculations. He was critical of a White House proposal to slash funding for the State Department and international development.

We have to understand that its not just about winning todays war on terror, he said at an event hosted by the Heritage Foundation. Its about winning the next-generational war on terror.

tracy.wilkinson@latimes.com

Twitter: @TracyKWilkinson

william.hennigan@latimes.com

Twitter: @wjhenn

michael.memoli@latimes.com

Twitter: @mikememoli

ALSO

GOP's Plan B for Obamacare -- repeal first, replace later -- began with quiet push from Koch network

Las Vegas adds a new lure to its repertoire as Nevada legalizes pot. Here come the tourists

Democrats see California's new budget as an answer, and an antidote, to President Trump's plans

View post:
'The closer we get, the more complex it gets.' White House struggles on strategy as Islamic State nears defeat in ... - Los Angeles Times