Ben Cohen wasn’t talking about ice cream. He was talking about American militarism.
At 72, the co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream is bald and bespectacled. He looks fit, cherubic even, but when he got going on what it was like to grow up during the Cold War, his tone became less playful and more assertive — almost defiant.
“I had this image of these two countries facing each other, and each one had this huge pile of shiny, state-of-the-art weapons in front of them,” he said, his arms waving above his head. “And behind them are the people in their countries that are suffering from lack of health care, not enough to eat, not enough housing.”
“It’s just crazy,” he added. “Approaching relationships with other countries based on threats of annihilating them, it’s just a pretty stupid way to go.”
It wasn’t a new subject for the famously socially conscious ice cream mogul; Cohen has been leading a crusade against what he sees as Washington’s bellicosity for decades. It’s just that with the war in Ukraine, his position has taken on a new — morally questionable — relevance.
Cohen, who no longer sits on the board of Ben & Jerry’s, isn’t just one of the most successful marketers of the last century. He’s a leading figure in a small but vocal part of the American left that has stood steadfast in opposition to the United States’ involvement in the war in Ukraine.
When Russian President Vladimir Putin sent tanks rolling on Kyiv, Cohen didn’t focus his ire on the Kremlin; a group he funds published a full-page ad in the New York Times blaming the act of aggression on “deliberate provocations” by the U.S. and NATO.
Following months of Russian missile strikes on residential apartment blocks, and after evidence of street executions by Russian troops in the Ukrainian city of Bucha, he funded a 2022 journalism prize that praised its winner for reporting on “Washington’s true objectives in the Ukraine war, such as urging regime change in Russia.”
In May, Cohen tweeted approvingly of an op-ed by the academic Jeffrey Sachs that argued “the war in Ukraine was provoked” and called for “negotiations based on Ukraine’s neutrality and NATO non-enlargement.”
Ben Cohen outside the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington this month, before getting arrested | Win McNamee/Getty Images
I set up a video call with Cohen not because I can’t sympathize with his mistrust of U.S. adventurism, nor because I couldn’t follow the argument that U.S. foreign policy spurred Russia to attack. I called to try to understand how he has maintained his stance even as the Kremlin abducts children, tortures and kills Ukrainians and sends thousands of Russian troops to their deaths in human wave attacks.
It’s one thing to warn of NATO expansion in peacetime, or to call for a negotiated settlement that leaves Ukrainian citizens safe from further aggression. It’s another to ignore one party’s atrocities and agitate for an outcome that would almost certainly leave millions of people at the mercy of a regime that has demonstrated callousness and cruelty.
Given the scale of Russia’s brutality in Ukraine, I wanted to understand: How does one justify focusing one’s energies on stopping the efforts to bring it to a halt?
Masters of war
Cohen’s political awakening took place against the background of the Cold War and the political upheaval caused by Washington’s involvement in Vietnam.
He was 11 during the Cuban missile crisis that brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. Part of the reason he enrolled in college was to avoid being drafted and sent to the jungle to fight the Viet Cong.
When I asked how he first became interested in politics, he cited Bob Dylan’s 1963 protest song “Masters of War,” which takes aim at the political leaders and weapons makers who benefit from conflicts and culminates with the singer standing over their graves until he’s sure they’re dead.
“That was kind of a revelation to me,” Cohen said. Behind him, the sun filtered past a cardboard Ben & Jerry’s sign propped against a window. “I hadn’t understood that, you know, there were these masters of war — essentially I guess what we would now call the military-industrial-congressional complex — that profit from war.”
Cohen saw people from his high school get drafted and never come back from a war that “wasn’t justified.” As he graduated in the summer of 1969, around half a million U.S. troops were stationed in ‘Nam. Later that year, hundreds of thousands of protesters marched on Washington, D.C. to demand peace.
It was only much later, while doing “a lot of research” into the “tradeoffs between military spending and spending for human needs,” that Cohen came across a 1953 speech by Dwight D. Eisenhower, which foreshadowed the U.S. president’s 1961 farewell address in which he coined the phrase “military-industrial complex.”
A Republican president who had served as the supreme allied commander in Europe during World War II, Eisenhower warned against tumbling into an arms race. “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed,” he said.
“That is a foundational thing for me, very inspiring for me, and captures the essence of what I believe,” Cohen said.
“If we weren’t wasting all of our money on preparing to kill people, we would actually be able to save and help a lot of people,” he added with a chuckle. “That goes for how we approach the world internationally as well,” he added — including the war in Ukraine.
Pierre Ferrari, a former Ben & Jerry’s board member who was with the company from 1997 to 2020, said Cohen’s view of the world was shaped by the events of his youth.
“We were brought up at a time when the military, the government was just completely out of control,” he said. “We’re both children of the sixties, the Vietnam War and the new futility of war and the way war is used by the military-industrial complex and politics,” Ferrari added, pointing to the peace symbol he wore around his neck.
Jeff Furman, who has known Cohen for nearly 50 years and once served as Ben & Jerry’s in-house legal counsel, acknowledged that his generation’s views on Ukraine were informed by America’s misadventures in Vietnam.
“There’s a history of why this war is happening that’s a little bit more complex than who Putin is,” he said. “When you’ve been misled so many times in the past, you have to take this into consideration when you think about it, and really, really try to know what’s happening.”
Ice-cold activism
Politics has been a part of the Ben & Jerry’s brand since Cohen and his partner Jerry Greenfield started selling ice cream out of an abandoned gas station in 1978.
The company’s look and ethos were pure 1960s; they named one of their early flavors, Cherry Garcia, after the lead guitarist of the Grateful Dead, Jerry Garcia, whose psychedelic riffs formed the soundtrack of the hippy counterculture.
Social justice was one of the duo’s secret ingredients. For the first-year anniversary of the gas station shop’s opening, they gave away free ice cream for a day. On the flyers printed to promote the event was a quote from Cohen: “Business has a responsibility to give back to the community from which it draws its support.”
In 1985, after the company went public, they used some of the shares to endow a foundation working for progressive social change and committed Ben & Jerry’s to spend 7.5 percent of its pretax profits on philanthropy.
In the early years, the company instituted a five-to-one cap on the ratio between the salary of the highest-earning executive and its lowest-paid worker, dropping it only when Cohen was about to step down as CEO in the mid-1990sand they were struggling to find a successor willing to work for what they were offering.
Most companies try to separate politics and business. Cohen and Greenfield cheerfully mixed them up and served them in a tub of creamy deliciousness (the company’s rich, fatty flavors were in part driven by Cohen’s sinus problems, which dulls his taste).
In 1988, Cohen founded 1% for Peace, a nonprofit organization seeking to “redirect one percent of the national defense budget to fund peace-promoting activities and projects.” The project was funded in part through sales of a vanilla and dark-chocolate popsicle they called the Peace Pop.
It was around this time that Cohen opened Ben & Jerry’s in Russia, as “an effort to build a bridge between Communism and capitalism with locally produced Cherry Garcia,” according to a write-up in the New York Times. After years of planning, the outlet opened in the northwestern city of Petrozavodsk in 1992. (The company shut the shop down five years later to prioritize growth in the U.S., and also because of the involvement of local mobsters, said Furman, who was involved in the project.)
Cohen, with co-founder Jerry Greenfield, actress Jane Fonda and other climate activists, in front of the Capitol in 2019 | Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images
Even after Ben & Jerry’s was bought by Unilever in 2000, there were few progressive causes the company wasn’t eager to wade into with a campaign or a fancy new flavor.
The ice cream maker has marketed “Rainforest Crunch” in defense of the Amazon forest, sold “Empower Mint” to combat voter suppression, promoted “Pecan Resist” in opposition to then-U.S. President Donald Trump and launched “Change the Whirled” in partnership with Colin Kaepernick, the American football quarterback whose sports career ended after he started taking a knee during the national anthem in protest of police brutality.
More recently, however, the relationship between Cohen, Greenfield and Unilever has been rockier. In 2021, Ben & Jerry’s announced it would stop doing business in the Palestinian territories. Cohen and Greenfield, who are Jewish, defended the company’s decision in an op-ed in the New York Times.
After the move sparked political backlash, Unilever transferred its license to a local producer, only to be sued by Ben & Jerry’s. In December 2022, Unilever announced in a one-sentence statement that its litigation with its subsidiary “has been resolved.”Ben & Jerry’s ice cream continues to be sold throughout Israel and the West Bank, according to a Unilever spokesperson.
Cohen himself is no stranger to activism: Earlier this month, he was arrested and detained for a few hours for taking part in a sit-in in front of the U.S. Department of Justice, where he was protesting the prosecution of the activist and WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange.
Unilever declined to comment on Cohen’s views. “Ben Cohen no longer has an operational role in Ben & Jerry’s, and his comments are made in a personal capacity,” a spokesperson said.
Ben & Jerry’s did not respond to a request for comment.
The world according to Ben
For Cohen, the war in Ukraine wasn’t just a tragedy. It was, in a sense, a vindication. In 1998, a group he created called Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities published a full-page ad in the New York Times titled “Hey, let’s scare the Russians.”
The target of the ad was a proposal to expand NATO “toward Russia’s very borders,” with the inclusion of Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic. Doing so, the ad asserted, would provide Russians with “the same feeling of peace and security Americans would have if Russia were in a military alliance with Canada and Mexico, armed to the teeth.”
Cohen is by no means alone in this view of recent history. The American scholar John Mearsheimer, a prominent expert in international relations, has argued that the “trouble over Ukraine” started after the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest when the alliance opened the door to membership for Ukraine and Georgia.
In the U.S., this point has been echoed by progressive outlets and thinkers, such as Jeffrey Sachs, the linguist Noam Chomsky, or most recently by the American philosopher, activist and longest-of-long-shots, third-party presidential candidate Cornel West.
“We told them after they disbanded the Warsaw Pact that we could not expand NATO, not one inch. And we did that, we lied,” said Dennis Fritz, a retired U.S. Air Force official and the head of the Eisenhower Media Network — which describes itself as a group of “National Security Veteran experts, who’ve been there, done that and have an independent, alternative story to tell.”
It was Fritz’s organization that argued in a May 2023 ad in the New York Times that although the “immediate cause” of the “disastrous” war in Ukraine was Russia’s invasion, “the plans and actions to expand NATO to Russia’s borders served to provoke Russian fears.”
The ad noted that American foreign policy heavyweights, including Robert Gates and Henry Kissinger, had warned of the dangers of NATO expansion. “Why did the U.S. persist in expanding NATO despite such warnings?” it asked. “Profit from weapons sales was a major factor.”
Cohen andGreenfield announce a new flavor, Justice Remix’d, in 2019 | Win McNamee/Getty Images
When I spoke to Cohen, the group’s primary donor, according to Fritz, he echoed the ad’s key points, saying U.S. arms manufacturers saw NATO’s expansion as a “financial bonanza.”
“In the end, money won,” he said with a resigned tone. “And today, not only are they providing weapons to all the new NATO countries, but they’re providing weapons to Ukraine.”
I told Cohen I could understand his opposition to the war and follow his critique of U.S. foreign policy, but I couldn’t grasp how he could take a position that put him in the same corner as a government that is bombing civilians. He refused to be drawn in.
“I’m not supporting Russia, I’m not supporting Ukraine,” he said. “I’m supporting negotiations to end the war instead of providing more weapons to continue the war.”
The Grayzone
I tried to get a better answer when I spoke to Aaron Maté, the Canadian-born journalist who won the award for “defense reporting and analysis” that Cohen was instrumental in funding.
Named after the late Pierre Sprey, a defense analyst who campaigned against the development of F-35 fighter jets as overly complex and expensive, the award recognized Maté’s “continued work dissecting establishment propaganda on issues such as Russian interference in U.S. politics, or the war in Syria.”
Maté, who was photographed with Cohen’s arm around his shoulders at the awards ceremony in March, writes for the Grayzone, a far-left website that has acquired a reputation for publishing stories backing the narratives of authoritarian regimes like Putin’s Russia or Bashar al-Assad’s Syria. His reports deny the use of chemical weapons against civilians in Syria, and he has briefed the U.N. Security Council at Moscow’s invitation.
When I spoke to Maté, he was friendly but guarded. (The Pierre Sprey award noted that “his empiricist reporting give the lie to the charge of ‘disinformation’ routinely leveled by those whose nostrums he challenges.”)
He was happy however to walk me through his claims that, based on statements by U.S. officials since the start of the war, Washington is using Kyiv to wage a “proxy war” against Moscow. Much of his information, he said, came from Western journalism. “I point out examples where, buried at the bottom of articles, sometimes the truth is admitted,” he explained.
He declined to be described as pro-Putin. “That kind of ‘guilt-by-association’ reasoning is not serious thinking,” he said. “It’s not how adults think about things.” When I asked if he believed that Russia had committed war crimes in Ukraine, he answered: “I’m sure they have. I’ve never heard of a war where war crimes are not committed.”
Still, he said, the U.S. was responsible for “prolonging” the war and “sabotaging the diplomacy that could have ended it.”
‘Come to Ukraine’
The best answer I got to my question came not from Cohen or others in his circle but from a fellow traveler who hasn’t chosen to follow critics of NATO on their latest journey.
A self-described “radical anti-imperialist,” Gilbert Achcar is a professor of development studies and international relations at SOAS University of London. He has described the expansion of NATO in the 1990s as a decision that “laid the ground for a new cold war” pitting the West against Russia and China.
But while he sees the war in Ukraine as the latest chapter in this showdown, he has warned against calls for a rush to the negotiating table. Instead, he has advocated for the complete withdrawal of Russia from Ukraine and “the delivery of defensive weapons to the victims of aggression with no strings attached.”
“To give those who are fighting a just war the means to fight against a much more powerful aggressor is an elementary internationalist duty,” he wrote three days after Russia launched its attack on Kyiv, comparing the invasion to the U.S.’s intervention in Vietnam.
Achcar said he understood the conclusions being drawn by people like Cohen about Washington’s interventions in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. But, he said, “it leads a lot of people on the left into … [a] knee-jerk opposition to anything the United States does.”
What they fail to account for, however, is the Ukrainian people.
“In a way, part of the Western left is ethnocentric,” said Achcar, who was born in Senegal and grew up in Lebanon. “They look at the whole world just by their opposition to their own government and therefore forget about other people’s rights.”
Cohen, with late-night TV host Jimmy Fallon in 2011 | Mike Coppola/Getty Images for Ben & Jerry’s
His point was echoed in the last conversation I had when researching this article, with Tymofiy Mylovanov, president of the Kyiv School of Economics and a former economy minister.
“It doesn’t really matter who promised what to whom in the 1990s,” Mylovanov said. “What matters is that there was Mariupol and Bucha, where tens of thousands of people were killed.”
Mylovanov taught economics at the University of Pittsburgh until he returned to Ukraine four days before Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
“Things like war are difficult to understand unless you experience them,” he said. “This is very easy to get confused when you are sitting, you know, somewhere far from the facts and you have surrounded yourself by an echo chamber of people and sources that you agree with.”
“In that sense,” he added. “I invite these people to come to Ukraine and judge for themselves what the truth is.”
Projects include the construction of power plants that will reduce Iraq’s reliance on Iran for its energy needs.
Three Qatari companies and Iraq’s National Investment Commission have agreed to develop $9.5bn worth of projects in Iraq, including the construction of a pair of power plants that will generate a total of 2,400 megawatts.
UCC Holding and the investment commission on Thursday signed a 25-year, public-private partnership linked to the two power plants, which will cost $2.5bn to build, according to a statement issued by UCC Holding on Sunday.
The power plants will help reduce Iraq’s reliance on neighbouring Iran for its energy needs.
Iraq imports electricity and gas from Iran, which in total makes up between a third and 40 percent of its power supply, especially crucial in the sweltering summer months when temperatures can top 50C (122F) and power consumption peaks.
Iraq’s investment commission and Doha-based Estithmar Holding also signed deals worth $7bn to manage hospitals, develop two “new comprehensive cities” and build a series of new five-star hotels totalling 10,000 rooms, a statement issued by Estithmar said.
“The cities … will include residential complexes, villas, schools, commercial complexes, entertainment centres, and other facilities and services, in addition to all the infrastructure needed to build these cities,” Estithmar Vice Chairman Ramez Al-Khayyat said in the statement.
It is unclear how much money either the Qatari companies or Iraq’s investment commission will commit to these projects.
The agreements were signed during a visit to Baghdad by Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani on Thursday, when he pledged to make a $5bn investment in Iraq.
As gear reviews go, it was a glowing one: In a 60-second video clip posted on Telegram, a masked sniper sporting the death’s-head insignia of the Wagner mercenary army sings the praises of the Russian-made Orsis T-5000 rifle.
“The equipment comes very well recommended,” the soldier, pictured in the charred interior of a building, tells a war reporter from the Zvezda TV channel run by the Russian Ministry of Defense.
Pulling out the clip of the weapon at his side, he continues: “It uses Western .338 caliber ammunition. It works very well. It can penetrate light cover if the enemy is behind it. And, in the open, it can strike the enemy at a range of up to 1,500 meters.”
Filings obtained by POLITICO indicate that Promtekhnologiya and another Russian firm called Tetis have acquired hundreds of thousands of rounds made by Hornady, a U.S. company that trademarks its wares as “Accurate. Deadly. Dependable.” Hornady, founded in 1949, sums up its philosophy with the phrase: “Ten bullets through one hole.”
The findings add to a growing body of evidence that supplies of lethal and nonlethal military equipment are still reaching Russia despite the West’s imposition of unprecedented sanctions in response to President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine last year. The exigencies of war have exposed Russia’s lack of capacity to manufacture high-end sniper rounds, say defense experts, and that is fueling a flourishing black market for Western ammunition.
Information on the procurement of such gear is hiding in plain sight: Details of deals — importers, suppliers and product descriptions — can be found online by anyone with access to the Russian internet and a grasp of international customs classification codes.
Anything but bulletproof
In a “declaration of conformity” filed with a Russian government registry and dated August 12, 2022, Promtekhnologiya stated that it planned to sourcea batch of 102,200 Hornady lead bullets for the assembly of “hunting cartridges” used in “civilian weapons with a rifled barrel.” The specifications — .338 Lapua Magnum bullets weighing 285 grains — match those of a product in the Hornady catalog.
A second declaration bearing the same date is for a batch of “uncapped cartridge cases for assembling civilian firearms cartridges” made by Hornady with the same .338 Lapua Magnum specification.
The description is misleading: The .338 Lapua Magnum isn’t a “hunting cartridge;” it’s a high-powered, long-range projectile that was developed by Western militaries in the 1980s and used by their snipers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Reached by POLITICO, Steve Hornady, CEO of the family company based in Grand Island, Nebraska, denied selling ammunition to Russia in wartime.
“The instant Russia invaded Ukraine, we were done,” Hornady said in a brief telephone call.
Hornady declined at first to elaborate and, when asked to review the evidence, requested that it be sent by fax or courier as he did not use email. He eventually responded after POLITICO sent written requests for comment with supporting documentation by courier.
“We categorically are NOT exporting anything to Russia and have not had an export permit for Russia since 2014,” he replied. “We do not support any sale of our product to any Russian son-of-a-bitch and if we can find out how they acquire, if in fact they do, we will take all steps available to stop it.”
Hornady added that he had contacted the U.S. authorities following POLITICO’s inquiry. He pointed out that current U.S. law required that customers must obtain permission from the Department of Commerce to re-export articles made in the United States. “To the best of our knowledge, none of our customers violate that law,” he said.
Wagner chief Yevgeny Prigozhin, asked which ammunition his troops used, told POLITICO they had “a huge amount of NATO-issue ammunition left over from the Ukrainian army.” In a sarcastic voice message sent to a POLITICO journalist, the Russian warlord also asked for help procuring F-35 combat jets and U.S.-made sniper rifles, machine guns and grenade launchers.
Promtekhnologiya denied filing any customs declarations to import ammunition; said it had no relationship with Hornady; and that it had the capacity to manufacture its own ammunition. The company also said in emailed comments to POLITICO that the Orsis rifle and the ammunition the company makes are intended for “hunting and sporting” purposes and are freely available on the civilian market.
Both Promtekhnologiya and Alexander Zinovyev, listed as the company’s general director in the filings, have been sanctioned by Ukraine, which cites evidence that its Orsis rifles “have been used in Russian military operations in Eastern Ukraine.”
Promtekhnologiya is also in Washington’s sights: “We take any allegation of sanctions violation or evasion seriously and are committed to ensuring that sanctions are fully enforced,” a spokesperson for the National Security Council said in response to a request for comment from POLITICO.
“We have taken steps to hold Russia accountable for its war in Ukraine and have imposed an unprecedented sanctions regime to disrupt Russia’s ability to access funds and weapons that fuel Putin’s war machine. That includes sanctioning companies like Promtekhnologiya.”
Criminal, or wilful, violations of U.S. sanctions can trigger penalties of up to $1 million per violation, as well as up to 20 years’ imprisonment for individuals. Civil penalties can run to the higher of either twice the value of the underlying transaction or around $350,000 per violation.
Describing military-grade ammunition as for hunting or sporting use, as the filings do, amounts to a thinly veiled ruse to evade targeted “smart” sanctions aimed at starving the Russian military of the means to fight the war, said defense analyst Maria Shagina.
“Strictly speaking, smart sanctions are not supposed to target anything civilian to avoid humanitarian collateral damage,” said Shagina, a research fellow at the U.K.-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. “But the targets in authoritarian countries will really exploit this.”
Steve Hornady, CEO of the family company based in Grand Island, Nebraska, denied selling ammunition to Russia in wartime | Leon Neal/Getty Images
Russia reloaded
Another Russian buyer of Hornady ammunition is a company called Tetis, which has disclosed two shipments since Russia’s full-scale invasionof Ukraine beganon February 24, 2022. The most recent was in April for more than 300,000 “units” comprising a wide range of products that checked out with the Hornady catalog.
The main owners of Tetis, Alexander Levandovsky and Sergey Senchenko — who each own stakes of 41.1 percent — have links to the Russian military.
Both were previously listed as shareholders in another company called Kampo, which according to company filings holds licenses to make weapons and military equipment and has done business with the Ministry of Defense and the Special Flight Detachment that operates Putin’s presidential plane.
Although Tetis doesn’t offer Hornady ammo on its website, it does advertise itself as an international distributor for RCBS, a U.S. maker of reloading equipment. This is used to assemble cases, primer, propellants and projectiles into cartridges that can then be fired — as seen in this video posted by a Russian gun enthusiast.
A database check revealed that the most recent declaration of conformity filed by Tetis for RCBS, for electronic weighing scales, predated Russia’s full-scale invasion on February 24 of last year by just over a month.
Russia’s trade bureaucracy allows local firms to vouch for the goods they are importing by filing declarations of conformity, such as those that mention the Hornady products. This means that the supplier listed on the form may not be aware of specific shipments that could have been handled by an intermediary.
Tetis did not respond to an emailed request for comment.
Matt Rice, a spokesman for RCBS owner Vista Outdoor, said Tetis was no longer an international distributor for RCBS. “Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, our business made the decision to end all sales of goods with the country,” Rice said in an email, adding that RCBS would remove the listing for Tetis from its website.
Doing the rounds
Hornady ammunition or its components are freely available in Russia, along with other high-end foreign military gear.
Take the “Sniper Shop” on Telegram, an encrypted messaging app that is popular in Russia: It features a current offer for a full range of Hornady products, with the seller inviting buyers to visit a showroom in Sokolniki, a Moscow district, and offering delivery throughout Russia by courier or post. Contacted by POLITICO, the poster confirmed the Hornady ammo was in stock but declined to comment further on how it was sourced.
Then there is “Anton,” who advertises products from Hornady and RCBS on his profile. He also touts gear from Nightforce, maker of thermal optical sights; Lapua, which helped design the eponymous .338 ammo; MDT, a maker of chassis systems, magazines and accessories for rifles; and precision gunsmith AREA 419. All are American with the exception of Lapua, which is based in Finland and owned by a Norwegian company called Nammo.
Western high-end foreign military gear seems to be freely available in Russia | Leon Neal/Getty Images
“Anton” posted an offer for Hornady cartridges last October 24. Contacted via Telegram to ask whether he was still stocking Hornady, he replied: “We don’t do ammunition.”
POLITICO has, in the course of its research, also found declarations from several other Russian companies for ammunition made in Germany, Finland and Turkey.
The thriving black market reflects a structural deficit in Russia’s war economy. Its military-industrial complex can produce good small arms, like the Orsis rifle, but lacks the capacity to churn out the amount of ammunition needed by an army fighting a war across a front stretching hundreds of miles.
“Despite the quality of the rifles produced, a successful hit directly depends on the components used in the cartridges, and they, unfortunately, are imported,” a correspondent lamented in a post on a Russian military news site a few months into the war. Gunpowder produced in Russia lacks stability, the correspondent added, saying this is “unacceptable in the framework of high-precision shooting.”
The continuing access to specialized rifle cartridges made in the West, such as the .338 Lapua Magnum, by a sanctioned Russian small arms manufacturer like Orsis maker Promtekhnologiya is “egregious,” said Gary Somerville, a research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), a British defense think tank.
“At present, there is only one manufacturer of this cartridge in Russia,” he added. “Preventing the shipment of these types of ammunition from Western countries to Russia is an easy win for those seeking to constrain Russia’s ability to wage war in Ukraine.”
Balkan route
It’s not just ammunition from the U.S. that is reaching the battlefront around Bakhmut in eastern Ukraine, recently captured by Prigozhin’s mercenaries after a bloody, months-long battle.
There also appear to be cartridges from the European Union, which has imposed no fewer than 10 rounds of sanctions against Russia in a so-far inconclusive attempt to starve Putin’s war machine of the means to fight on.
Promtekhnologiya has filed four declarations since October covering shipments of 460,000 units described as “Orsis hunting cartridges” — most are of the .338 Lapua Magnum type. These identify a Slovenian company called Valerian as the supplier.
The first of the filings, dated October 13, 2022, includes an air waybill number whose first three digits — 262 — indicate that the shipper was Ural Airlines, a Russian carrier. It was not immediately possible to trace the route of the flight, however.
Valerian was founded on the eve of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine with paid-in capital of €7,500 by Gašper Heybal, who previously worked for U.S. military outfitter Voodoo Tactical. On its home page, Valerian says: “Our goal is to equip you for your mission, whatever it might be, and wherever you are going.”
In online posts over the past decade — including on a Facebook Group called EU Guns with a declared mission of “easier transfer of weapons between European gun owners” — Heybal has done little to dispel the impression that he is an active small arms dealer.
Bakhmut was recently captured by Prigozhin’s mercenaries, the Wagner mercenary group| Olga Maltseva/AFP via Getty Images
The telephone number Heybal shared publicly in those posts is the same as the one for Valerian, which is registered at an address in a village around 40 minutes’ drive southeast of the Slovenian capital Ljubljana.
Reached at that number, Heybal denied that Valerian had shipped ammunition to Russia: “We don’t sell any … firearms or ammunition, and also there is an embargo on Russia,” said Heybal.
In a follow-up email on the declarations of conformity, Heybal said: “Firstly, we must stress that we do not know, nor do we understand how the name of our company, Valerian d.o.o., appears on the document.”
“Secondly, Valerian is not listed there as a supplier but as the producer, and this is not possible, as we do not produce ammunition. That being said, it still makes absolutely no sense to us as to how our name could appear on it. We are glad you brought this to our attention so we can figure out what is going on.”
A Slovenian diplomat said that, while Valerian had never applied for authorization to export weapons or ammunition to Russia, it had shipped “individual parts” to Kyrgyzstan.
The Central Asian state is one of the countries that the EU has in mind as it discusses an 11th round of measures targeting third countries that are suspected of helping Russia evade sanctions.
“The competent services in the Republic of Slovenia have already initiated the appropriate procedures to investigate the facts concerning the company,” the diplomat told POLITICO, adding that they would verify the possible diversion of goods to the Russian Federation. “Slovenia is firmly committed to supporting Ukraine, we have been supportive of all sanctions packages and especially this anti-circumvention one.”
An official at the European Commission deflected a request for comment, saying the bloc’s member countries were responsible for implementing sanctions. “As this seems like a very specific case, these allegations need to be investigated further by the competent authorities,” the official said.
Sergey Panov reported from Spain, Sarah Anne Aarup from Brussels and Douglas Busvine from Berlin. Additional reporting by Steven Overly in Washington.
[ad_2]
Sergey Panov, Sarah Anne Aarup and Douglas Busvine
Researchers studied cuneiform texts from ancient Mesopotamia in an effort to unlock the secrets behind smooching lips. These texts revealed that romantic kisses have been happening for 4,500 years in the ancient Middle East – not just 3,500 years ago, as a Bronze Age manuscript from South Asia had previously signaled, researchers claim.
Danish professors Troels Pank Arbøll and Sophie Lund Rasmussen found kissing in relation to sex, family and friendship in ancient Mesopotamia – now modern modern-day Iraq and Syria – was an ordinary part of everyday life.
Mothers and children kissed—friends too—but in reviewing cuneiform texts from these times, researchers found mating rituals shockingly similar to our current ones. Like us, our earlier ancestors were on the hunt for romance, and while researchers found kissing “was considered an ordinary part of romantic intimacy,” two texts, in particular, pointed to more complicated interactions.
These 1800 BCE texts show that society tried to regulate kissing activities between unwed people or adulterers. One text shows how a “married woman was almost led astray by a kiss from another man.” The second has an unmarried woman “swearing to avoid kissing” and having “sexual relations with a specific man.”
Texts also showed that since kissing was common, locking lips could have passed infectious diseases such as diphtheria and herpes simplex (HSV-1). Medical texts detailing illness and symptoms in Mesopotamia describe a disease named bu’šānu, in which sores appeared around the mouth and throat—similar symptoms to herpes.
Mesopotamians did not connect the spread of disease to kissing, but religious, social and cultural controls may have inadvertently contributed to lowering outbreaks, researchers found.
When a woman from the palace harem fell ill, people were instructed not to share her cup, sleep in her bed or sit in her chair.
The texts, however, didn’t mention people had to stop kissing.
WASHINGTON, D.C., April 24, 2023 (Newswire.com)
– Chairman of the Iraqi Children Foundation David Collins today saluted the Khudairi Group, saying, “The Iraqi Children Foundation is pleased to recognize the extraordinary corporate philanthropy of the Khudairi Group. For more than a decade, the Khudairi Group of businesses has provided support for education, legal protection, nutrition, medical care, and social support for some of Iraq’s most at-risk children.”
The Khudairi Group’s support includes funding and in-kind donations, like a bus that ICF converted into a “Hope Bus” classroom with food, education, and social services for orphans and street kids. Khudairi corporate leaders have also shouldered leadership responsibilities to ensure delivery of life-changing services to children in a nation suffering from the aftermath of war, violence, and displacement.
Aziz Khudairi, Chairman and CEO of the Khudairi Group, said of the company’s commitment, “The young children of Iraq today will be the leaders of tomorrow, so we need to prepare them for the future as much as we can, regardless of their status and upbringing. It is part of our social responsibility.”
ICF Executive Director Elizabeth McRae highlighted the role of Khudairi Group leaders in navigating the landscape in Iraq. “It is not enough to just want to help Iraqi children. We need the right skills and experience to ensure high-impact results for the children we serve. The Khudairi Group leadership has played a critical role ensuring that outcome.”
ABOUT THE IRAQI CHILDREN FOUNDATION ICF intervenes in the lives of children who are at risk of abuse, neglect, and exploitation by criminals, traffickers, and extremists. With corporate and grant support, ICF has made a life-changing difference for thousands of vulnerable Iraqi children: orphans, street kids, child laborers, child victims of trafficking, and disabled children. ICF is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) charity (EIN 26-1394773). Donations are tax deductible to the extent allowed by law. For more information about corporate sponsorship and grant support, please contact: liz@iraqichildren.org or visit www.iraqichildren.org
Editor’s Note: A version of this story first appeared in CNN’s Meanwhile in the Middle East newsletter, a three-times-a-week look inside the region’s biggest stories. Sign up here.
Abu Dhabi, UAE CNN
—
When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced his decision to delay a controversial plan to weaken the country’s judiciary on Monday, he invoked the biblical story of the Judgement of Solomon, where the king had to rule between two women, both claiming to be the mother of a child. Solomon ordered that the child be cut in two, and the woman who protested the ruling was determined to be the real mother.
Before Netanyahu spoke, supporters of the judicial overhaul had gathered in the streets following calls from right-wing politicians to come out, allowing the prime minister to make his address as protesters from both sides rallied simultaneously for the first time in weeks.
“Even today, both sides in the national dispute claim love for the baby – love for our country,” said Netanyahu. “I am aware of the enormous tension that is building up between the two camps, between the two parts of the people, and I am attentive to the desire of many citizens to relieve this tension.”
The timing of the address was likely intentional and was meant to give Netanyahu’s much-delayed speech a favorable backdrop – two competing camps demonstrating their love for the country, said Aviv Bushinsky, a former media adviser for Netanyahu who served the prime minister for nine years.
Netanyahu’s strategy has always been based on last-minute decisions, Bushinsky said, which sometimes makes it difficult to predict his next move.
Other analysts say the prime minister’s strategy brings uncertainty to Israel’s future.
“He is playing the game,” said Gideon Rahat, a professor of political science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. “You can never know what will happen, and that’s the problem … There is no certainty in Israel, in the Israeli system, and I am not sure that he’s not happy about this.”
Bushinsky says that if it was up to Netanyahu he would have pumped the brakes on the judicial overhaul a long time ago, as it wasn’t one of the main leadership goals declared at the start of his sixth term as prime minister.
He’s standing by it because the survival of his coalition depends on it. But now, analysts say he’s backed into a corner between appeasing protesters and keeping his government intact.
Before Netanyahu announced the delay, National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir’s Jewish Power party broke the news, noting that part of the delay agreement was to establish a National Guard. That caused alarm, with some speculating on social media that Ben Gvir, who has an extremist past, was being allowed to set up his own militia.
Diana Buttu, a Palestinian-Canadian lawyer and a former spokesperson for the Palestine Liberation Organization, told CNN’s Becky Anderson on Tuesday that putting Ben Gvir in charge of the National Guard is “the equivalent of putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.”
Ben Gvir was quick to address the concerns about the new body. “Let’s put things straight: no private army and no militias,” he said in a statement published on his Telegram page.
Bushinsky downplayed the significance of the National Guard, saying it is “a comfort prize” for Ben Gvir – “a prize for the losers.”
The prime minister is now faced with very few options, analysts say. If he sides with his coalition and votes on the overhaul, crippling protests and strikes would resume. If he pulls the brakes, his coalition could collapse.
The only wiggle room the Israeli leader has, analysts say, is if negotiators reach a moderated judicial overhaul plan bill over the Knesset’s recess period, which ends April 30, and where concessions to his right-wing coalition members need not be too extreme.
Netanyahu may also be hoping for the reform bill to be shelved for the time being.
“I think Netanyahu will try to run away from this thing, hoping that things will gradually ease,” said Bushinsky, noting that the ministers who had threatened to resign should the bill not advance have all remained in their posts.
Analysts say, however, that what could once again unite the fragmented country and have the public rally behind the government is a potential security threat, either from neighboring countries or through conflict with the Palestinians.
A security crisis would reorient the government’s attention, said Yohanan Plesner, president of the Israel Democracy Institute in Jerusalem, whether it arises from conflict with the Palestinians, the Iran-backed Hezbollah group in Lebanon or others.
“Some thought that if there was a security crisis, then Netanyahu would be saved by the bell,” said Bushinsky.
Palestinians are watching the process with unease amid fears that they will pay the price of Netanyahu’s concessions to right-wing coalition members with a history of anti-Palestinian rhetoric.
“We are seeing that Palestinians are once again paying the price for Israel’s electoral choices,” said Buttu. “There may be calm in the streets of Tel Aviv … but for Palestinians, the reality remains the same.”
How Netanyahu will act remains uncertain, and not everyone is optimistic that the recess period will yield any kind of consensus or moderation in his position.
“I have not detected any indication that tells me that the prime minister is actually entering into the negotiations with a keen interest in achieving consensus … including comprises on core aspects of the judicial overhaul,” said Plesner.
Plesner notes, however, that Netanyahu and his Likud party emerged “politically injured” from the last few months, losing not only legitimacy and support in the eyes of the Israeli people, but also in the eyes of his own Likud voters.
“(It was) a dramatic erosion of their political power and political posture,” he said.
Biden, Netanyahu trade barbs over plan to weaken courts; Israel rejects US ‘pressure’
Israel’s embattled prime minister escalated a rare public dispute with US President Joe Biden on Tuesday, rejecting “pressure” from the White House after Biden criticized Netanyahu’s efforts to weaken Israel’s judiciary. Biden said on Tuesday that he won’t invite Netanyahu to the White House “in the near term,” and issued an unusually stinging rebuke of the Israeli leader’s proposed judicial overhaul. Netanyahu responded late on Tuesday, saying, “Israel is a sovereign country which makes its decisions by the will of its people and not based on pressures from abroad, including from the best of friends.”
Background: The prime minister finally paused the legislation on Monday after a general strike and mass protests threw Israel into chaos, but he said he planned to return to the effort in the next legislative term. Critics say Netanyahu is pushing through the changes because of his own ongoing corruption trial, which he denies.
Why it matters: The back and forth thrust into public view a simmering diplomatic dispute that has mostly been kept private over the past several weeks. Biden and other US officials had sought to quietly dissuade Netanyahu from moving ahead with his proposed reforms without creating the appearance of a rift. But now the divide appears to be opening between the two men, who have known each other for decades.
Riyadh joins Shanghai Cooperation Organization as ties with Beijing grow
Saudi Arabia’s cabinet approved on Wednesday a decision to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), as Riyadh builds a long-term partnership with China despite US security concerns, Reuters reported. Saudi Arabia has approved a memorandum on granting the kingdom the status of a dialog partner in the SCO, state news agency SPA said.
Background: Formed in 2001 by Russia, China and former Soviet states in Central Asia, the body has been expanded to include India and Pakistan, with a view to playing a bigger role as counterweight to Western influence in the region. The SCO is a political and security union of countries spanning much of Eurasia. Iran also signed documents for full membership last year. Countries belonging to the organization plan to hold a joint “counter-terrorism exercise” in Russia’s Chelyabinsk region in August.
Why it matters: Riyadh’s growing ties with Beijing have raised security concerns in Washington, its traditional ally. Washington says Chinese attempts to exert influence around the world will not change US policy toward the Middle East. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states have voiced concern about what they see as a withdrawal from the region by the United States, its main security guarantor, and have moved to diversify partners. Washington says it will stay an active partner in the region.
US sanctions Syrian leader Assad’s cousins, others over drug trade
The US on Tuesday imposed new sanctions against six people, including two cousins of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, for their role in the production or export of captagon, a dangerous amphetamine, Reuters cited the Treasury Department as saying. The Treasury said trade in captagon was estimated to be a billion-dollar enterprise and the sanctions highlight the role of Lebanese drug traffickers and the Assad family dominance of captagon trafficking, which helped fund the Syrian government.
Background: Regional officials say the Iranian-backed Hezbollah as well as Syrian armed groups linked to the Damascus government are behind the surging trade of captagon, smuggled either through Jordan to the south or Lebanon to the west. Assad’s government denies involvement in drug-making and smuggling and says it is stepping up its campaign to curb the lucrative trade. Hezbollah denies the accusations.
Why it matters: There is a thriving market for captagon in the Gulf, and United Nations and Western anti-narcotics drug officials say Syria, shattered by a decade of civil war, has become the region’s main production site for a multibillion-dollar drug trade that also exports to Europe.
Saudi Arabia’s oil giant Aramco will acquire a 10% stake in China’s Rongsheng Petrochemical in a strategic deal worth $3.6 billion that would significantly expand its presence in China.
Amena Bakr, deputy bureau chief at Energy Intelligence, spoke to CNN’s Becky Anderson about what this means for Saudi-Chinese cooperation.
She said Saudi interest is in the East as the kingdom does not like “policy that interferes with their internal affairs,” a mantra that China holds sacred.
A Ramadan TV show is in hot water for its offensive depiction of Iraqi women, drawing condemnation from politicians in both Kuwait and Iraq.
The series, “London Class,” is produced by the Saudi state-backed media conglomerate MBC group and depicts Iraqi women working as maids for Kuwaiti women and being accused of theft.
The show follows a group of Arab medicine students at a London university in the 1980s. Much of the anger from Iraqis is directed at Kuwait.
The Kuwaiti Ministry of Information has however said the show has nothing to do with the country and was not shown on any platform there, according to Arabic media.
One Baghdad-based Twitter user condemned what he said was a repeated “stream of hatred and malice from Kuwaiti shows towards our people.”
The show was written by Kuwaiti writer Heba Hamada and directed by Egyptian Mohamed Bakir. Hamada responded to the criticism in an Instagram post, saying: “Iraq is the mother of civilization, and all Arabs lean on its shoulder.”
Mustafa Jabbar Sanad, a member of parliament in Iraq, accused the show of “erasing the value of well-known Iraqi talents … to distort the image of the Iraqi people as a whole, not just women.”
Hamada was the subject of criticism in 2019 because of a similar show she wrote called “Cairo Class,” which caused strife between Kuwaitis and Egyptians due its portrayal of Egypt. That show is being aired on Netflix.
The question of honor, particularly that of Iraqi women, has long been a sensitive issue in Kuwaiti-Iraqi relations. Former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had accused Kuwait of insulting his country’s women, citing it as a reason for his invasion of the country in 1990.
In a 2004 court hearing in Iraq, the former president decried being held accountable for the invasion.
“How could Saddam be tried over Kuwait that said it will reduce Iraqi women to 10-dinar prostitutes?” he asked, referring to himself. “He (Hussein) defended Iraq’s honor and revived its historical rights over those dogs,” Saddam said, referring to the Kuwaitis.
Iraq made its final reparation payment for that invasion last year, having paid the Gulf nation a total of $52.4 billion.
Monday marked 20 years since the U.S.-led ground invasion of Iraq began. CBS News’ Charlie D’Agata joined John Dickerson on “Prime Time” to discuss what has changed in the country in the two decades since the war started.
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
Monday marked 20 years since the beginning of the ground invasion of Iraq by U.S.-led forces, following an overnight bombing campaign. Charlie D’Agata is in Baghdad to reflect on the cost of the war.
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
In this special episode of “Intelligence Matters,” host Michael Morell speaks with five former senior CIA officers about the agency’s work before, during and after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. With personal recollections and reflections, Morell offers a candid walkthrough of what the CIA and other intelligence agencies assessed about Saddam Hussein’s intentions and weapons programs in the lead-up to the invasion, how intelligence was used within the U.S. government throughout this period, and how the consequences of the CIA’s missteps – as well as its successes — continue to reverberate today.
Highlights:
Morell on CIA’s performance: “As many people know, some of our work reflected the worst the Agency had to offer. Few people know, however, that some of our work also reflected the best the Agency had to offer. If there is a theme to this episode, that is it. We are going to talk about the Agency’s work on Iraq with the help of five CIA officers who were either directly involved or who had a front row seat to the war. As a senior agency manager, I had a front seat as well. What you are going to hear are my personal views as well as the personal views of my five colleagues.”
CIA’S assessment of Iraq: “So how wrong were we? We were wrong on the chemical weapons judgment, we were wrong on the biological weapons judgment, and we were wrong on the nuclear weapons judgment. Saddam no longer had these programs. He had stopped them. He had disarmed.”
Intelligence confidence levels: “There is a big difference between saying, on the one hand, ‘Mr. President, we think he has these weapons, and we have high confidence in that view’ and on the other hand, ‘Mr. President, we think he has these weapons, but what you really need to know is that we only have low confidence in that.'”
This month marks the 20th anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and in this episode, we are going to look back at the war. Specifically, we are going to look at the many roles played by CIA during the war, and we are going to talk about the long-term consequences of the conflict.
In playing those roles, the Agency’s performance was mixed. As many people know, some of our work reflected the worst the Agency had to offer. Few people know, however, that some of our work also reflected the best the Agency had to offer. If there is a theme to this episode, that is it.
We are going to talk about the Agency’s work on Iraq with the help of five CIA officers who were either directly involved or who had a front row seat to the war. As a senior agency manager, I had a front seat as well. What you are going to hear are my personal views as well as the personal views of my five colleagues.
We will be right back with that discussion after a break.
I’m Michael Morell. And this is a special episode of Intelligence Matters.
“CBS Evening News” — March 19, 2003
VOG: This is the CBS Evening News with Dan Rather reporting from CBS News Headquarters in New York.
RATHER: Good evening. He said he wouldn’t. There’s no indication he did. No indication Saddam Hussein left Iraq tonight – the deadline for avoiding a U.S. invasion. An invasion that could come as soon as tonight.
The invasion of Iraq began on March 20, 2003, and it was just the start of what would become a years-long, complex mix of military operations, intelligence activities, and political initiatives to stabilize post-war Iraq and to deal with the consequences.
CIA’s work on the Iraq War included analysis and operation both before and after the invasion. We’re going to walk through it all.
Let’s start pre-invasion, and let’s start with the most well-known issue – CIA’s deeply flawed assessment that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had an active weapons of mass destruction program.
The Early Show – October 8, 2002
FRANKEL: President Bush is calling Saddam Hussein a homicidal dictator who poses a clear threat to the United States. Mr. Bush gave his reasons for confronting Iraq in a speech last night in Cincinnati.
President GEORGE W. BUSH: Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
FRANKEL: The president says these satellite photos show two operational nuclear installations inside Iraq and he argues the time to act is now.
Pres. BUSH: Saddam Hussein must disarm himself or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.
CIA’s views on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction were outlined in an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate or NIE. An NIE is the most authoritative product of the U.S. Intelligence Community. It is coordinated across the many agencies that make up the Intelligence Community, and it is approved by the head of each one.
In this NIE, which was titled “Iraq’s Continuing Programs of Weapons of Mass Destruction,”
CIA made four judgments about Iraq’s WMD programs – (1) that Saddam had chemical weapons, (2) that he had biological weapons, (3) that he was pursuing a nuclear weapon, and (4) that he was expanding his missile force in order to be able to deliver these weapons.
MAKRIDIS: Sadly, we were wrong on most of them.
MAKRIDIS I’m Andy Makridis and I was the president’s briefer from 2002 to 2004. And then after that, I ran the nuclear group. At the agency.
So how wrong were we? We were wrong on the chemical weapons judgment, we were wrong on the biological weapons judgment, and we were wrong on the nuclear weapons judgment. Saddam no longer had these programs. He had stopped them. He had disarmed.
For what it’s worth, we were mostly right on the missile judgment.
There were many reasons CIA was wrong on the WMD judgments, and those included both collection and analytic failures.
On collection, CIA and NSA, the National Security Agency, did not penetrate Saddam’s inner circle to the point where the United States would have known what Saddam had really done, what Saddam was really up to:
–that he had given up his WMD programs but did not want the Iranians to know, so he kept the disarmament a secret;
–that he thought the CIA was so good that it would see through that secret and know that the weapons were gone;
–that, once this happened, the U.S. would lift the sanctions against Iraq that were strangling his economy; and
–that once sanctions were lifted, Saddam would be free to re-arm.
We know this because Saddam told us this during his captivity. There is, of course, reason to be skeptical of Saddam, but we believed him because his mindset at that point was that he was certain to be executed, and he wanted his life story told. He was not dissembling. And, what he told us also fit the facts.
The collection failure is significant because had collectors seen what Saddam had done, the analytic failure on WMD could not, and would not, have happened.
Without good collection, however, the analysts were left on their own. And the analysts made their own mistakes. The causes of those mistakes were numerous, and I want to touch on just some of them, the ones I see as most important.
One resulted from the fact that Saddam in the 1980s, prior to the first Gulf War in the early 90s, did have chemical and biological weapons. And he did have a program to build nuclear weapons.
We knew that Saddam had WMD in the 80s. After all, he had used chemical weapons against the Iranians and against his own people in the 1980s. And, we monitored his nuclear program for years.
After the Gulf War, we even learned that Saddam’s nuclear program, at that point dismantled, was further along than we had known before the war. We had missed aspects of it.
This history colored the analysts’ approach to the question of whether he had WMD in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
Andy Makridis shares with us the analysts’ mentality.
MAKRIDIS: The idea that he would sort of withdraw or pull back from his WMD programs just wasn’t in the cards. Of course, he’s trying to keep those things because they create regime stability. It’s his defense against the West. We won’t mess with you if you have WMD.
MAKRIDIS: It’s hard to think about. That someone will voluntarily stop the WMD programs, and certainly he was under extreme UN sanctions.
This first analytic mistake was a failure to be open to all possibilities.
This led to another analytic mistake: confirmation bias.
MAKRIDIS: We were looking for stuff that confirmed our hypotheses as opposed to looking at everything.
The analysts took confirmation bias to the extreme, even when considering what they were not seeing.
In the second paragraph of the paper’s summary, the analysts wrote what is in retrospect an amazing sentence. They said quote “We lack specific information on many key aspects of Iraq’s WMD programs.” Unquote.
MAKRIDIS: So right away, we’re telling the reader there’s a lot that we don’t know. However, we make relatively authoritative judgments, definitive judgments in the rest of the body of the key judgments.
MAKRIDIS: You’re left with this cognitive dissonance thing where one part of your brain saying, well, we don’t know. And then you read the rest saying, Yes, we do know.
Instead of asking, is it possible that we’re not seeing more because we are wrong, the analysts explained the lack of information by saying Saddam was practicing, quote “vigorous denial and deception efforts” Unquote. In making this point, the analysts pointed to something they knew – that Saddam had practiced extensive denial and deception of his WMD programs before the first Gulf War.
But history turned out to be a bad guide.
MAKRIDIS: For the first war, we underestimated across the board how far along Saddam was. And you can’t unknow that. And so when you come in and you say, we know he’s denying, because, clearly he was further along the first time. So there must be more we’re not seeing.
So, it turned out that Saddam was also undertaking denial and deception in the late 1990s and early 2000s, but this time it was working in reverse. He was pretending to have the weapons when he really did not. He was bluffing.
MAKRIDIS: He began to withdraw from his WMD programs in 91, 92, that timeframe after the after the Desert Storm. And he didn’t really make it public.
He continued to try to obfuscate all the things that he was doing. He was almost hiding weakness. He didn’t tell all the members of his regime. He created a lot of smoke.
Another analytic mistake that was made was what intelligence experts call “layering.”
MAKRIDIS: What you can see in some of these is a layering effect, and that’s sort of layering judgments one on top of other without carrying forward the uncertainties of each layer.
You’re left with a judgment that has a lot of uncertainty surrounding it, but you don’t see it.
A final error to mention is that the analysts did not put rigor into thinking about the level of confidence they claimed that they had in their judgments. On all the weapons judgments, the analysts said they had high confidence. But these confidence levels were an afterthought. They were not the result of rigorous critical thinking. They were based on the history we just discussed.
In fact, the text of the NIE included caveats, not a lot of them, but enough to notice. Had the analysts taken those caveats into account and had they rigorously assessed the dated nature of the information underlying their judgments and the poor quality of the sourcing behind that information, I believe their confidence would have been lower. I believe they would have had only “low” confidence — on a scale of low, medium, and high.
That would have led to a very different message to the President. There is a big difference between saying, on the one hand, “Mr. President, we think he has these weapons, and we have high confidence in that view” and on the other hand, “Mr. President, we think he has these weapons, but what you really need to know is that we only have low confidence in that.”
I think it is important to note here that, while I keep saying the analysts did this and did not do that, I do not mean to put responsibility only on the analysts. We mentioned the collection failure earlier. And by analysts, I mean anyone who did the work and anyone who was in the chain of command of that work. And that includes many senior people, including me. The analysts are not alone here.
One final point on the WMD analysis: There is a myth about the weapons judgment that still persists today.
The myth is that, within the Intelligence Community, only CIA got this wrong, that other parts of the Intelligence Community got the WMD story right. The two examples often given are the analysts at the State Department and the analysts at the Energy Department.
But the State Department analysts came to the same conclusions as their CIA colleagues on chemical and biological weapons. They only differed on nuclear weapons. The State Department analysts said there was not enough evidence to make a judgment that the Iraqis had restarted their nuclear weapons program. But they were with everyone else on chemical and biological weapons.
For their part, the analysts at Energy shared all of CIA’s judgments, including the nuclear weapons judgment. They too believed Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Their only issue was that they did not believe one of the pieces of data that everyone else saw as supporting the nuclear weapons narrative.
MAKRIDIS: So, the idea that this was just CIA is wrong. And it’s demonstrably wrong because there was a lot of pieces of the intelligence community that jumped in and agreed. We were all fooled.
They all fell prey to the same mistake CIA made, as did every foreign intelligence service with whom we worked, as did the United Nations, and as did academics who seriously looked at the issue.
“The Early Show” — December 23, 2022
SMITH: ‘Show us the proof’ – that’s Iraq’s message to the U.S. and Britain in a new denial that it has weapons of mass destruction.
COWAN: The government’s chief science advisor wasted little time, arguing that Iraq has given the UN every shred of information it has about its weapons program. But if that’s still not enough, he offered to let the CIA into Iraq to see for itself
CSA: What we gave, is accurate. We know the full story. If you have another story, tell us.
The WMD story is where many commentators end the CIA and Iraq narrative. That CIA got WMD wrong. End of story.
But the story is much more complex than that, and the rest of the story is one in which CIA largely shined, with a few stumbles.
Let’s start with CIA’s pre-war assessment of Iraq’s links to Usama Bin Ladin and Al Qaeda.
This was critically important because the primary concern of President Bush was that Saddam might someday give his weapons of mass destruction to terrorists, most concerningly to Bin Ladin and Al Qaeda.
This was just a possibility, but when you are the president of the U.S. who just suffered the worst attack on the Homeland in the history of the country, you pay attention to possibilities, particularly when they are about the worst weapons ever developed by man.
WOOD My name is Kristin Wood, and I was the chief of the Iraq terrorism branch and the Office of Terrorism Analysis in the Counterterrorism Center prior to the war with Iraq.
WOOD: It’s very rare that a judgment has the consequence of potentially being a reason to go to war with another country.
For Kristin and her team of analysts working on Iraq’s links to terrorism, making judgments was not just important – it was also difficult.
WOOD: The biggest challenge in intelligence analysis is not there are ten facts to be found. There are ten data points to be found. We have all ten of them, and we put them all together and decide what it means. In the case of Iraq, there was a 10,000 piece puzzle to be solved to create the whole big picture. We had 100 pieces, but they weren’t all necessarily for the same puzzle.
There were two key questions on Iraq and terrorism: One, did Iraq have anything to do with 9/11. And two, did Iraq have a relationship with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of an ultra-extremist terrorist group called Ansar al-Islam.
Here is what the analysts said on each. On Iraq’s links to 9/11:
WOOD: There was no evidence that Saddam Hussein or Iraq had a link to 911.
WOOD: No ties to 9/11 in terms of either direction, control or even foreknowledge.
There appeared to be early contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda, but the analysts judged that those never evolved into an operational relationship.
WOOD: There wasn’t a formal arrangement between AQ and Iraq.
WOOD: After the war, we did learn we were right about the lack of a relationship between Iraq and AQ.
And some of those early contacts? We learned after the war that many of the most worrisome had never happened.
WOOD: We had senior military trainer who’d said they’d sent operatives to Iraq, that they’d provided chemical weapons training. They recanted it all. It turned out he lied about it.
The question about the Iraqi government’s relationship with Zarqawi and Ansar al-Islam was, analytically, a tougher one.
WOOD: Abu Musab al Zarqawi. He’d been a jihadist since the early nineties. He was involved in Al Qaeda’s failed millennium plotting. Targeting hotels and landmarks in Amman. We described him as loosely affiliated with al Qaeda. he went to Afghanistan, tried to meet with bin Laden in 99, it never happened. What reporting we had from the detainees said that he that Zarqawi himself thought al Qaeda was too moderate and too much focused on the United States. And bin Laden’s team thought that Zarqawi was a thug, maybe even a Jordanian intelligence plant , and way too extreme because he also believed that the Shia needed to be exterminated.
Whether tied directly to Al Qaeda or not, Zarqawi and his men, since the group was formed in 2001, were living in northern Iraq. There, they had contact with an Iraqi intelligence officer. And, Zarqawi had gone to Baghdad for medical treatment for a few months in 2002. For some in the Administration, these two data points were enough to prove a link between Saddam and Zarqawi.
But that is not the way the analysts saw it.
On the issue of the Iraqi intelligence officer meeting with the group, the analysts noted that they thought that Iraq’s interest was in monitoring the group, not collaborating with it. Iraq did not want Zarqawi and his followers to become a threat to Iraq, nor did it want them to commit a terrorist attack against the West and therefore draw American attention to Iraq.
The analysts noted correctly that the Iraqis could do no more than watch Zarqawi, as he and his Ansar al-Islam followers were in a location in northern Iraq where Saddam’s military or security services could not go, because of the no-fly and no-drive zones imposed on Iraq by the United Nations.
Likewise, on Zarqawi’s trip to Baghdad, the analysts did not believe that the trip was coordinated with the Iraqis.
WOOD: We really thought because he and about ten of his fellow terrorists were in Baghdad for several months that the Iraqis had to know. And that was further boosted by the fact that a foreign service said they told the IIS where they were. But the II S came back and said they couldn’t find them. So we thought, okay, they know they’re there, but there’s no reporting to us that says they’re directing them, that they’re involved with them, no control, no direction, and that there was not any sense that the Iraqi leadership was in any way. Authorizing their actions.
And like the Iraq-Al Qaeda link itself, we learned after the war that there was no Iraqi support for Zarqawi and his group. CIA was right on this aspect of the terrorism question too.
One consequence, though, is that after the invasion, after the collapse of a functioning Iraqi government, Zarqawi built a powerful terrorist group, Al Qaeda in Iraq, which would go on to kill many U.S. servicemen and which would eventually, after the US withdrawal from Iraq in 2011, become ISIS, which we continue to have to deal with today.
I want to make two other points about CIA’s work on the Iraq-terrorism link.
One, some of the terrorism analysts felt they were being pressured by some policymakers to see a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
WOOD: Absolutely. I know you probably got many phone calls. I know I did. I know that at the time, Director Tenet, deputy director, our beloved John McLaughlin, we had some all had some difficult conversations with members of the administration I felt like they cherry picked the information. And by cherry pick, I mean selectively picked reports that were provided to them by folks who had similar views. And they built a a pile of reports that said the same thing. But if you pulled them apart. Coming back to our 100 puzzle pieces. Right. They didn’t all fit to the same puzzle. The administration was definitely trying to get us to describe things in a different way.
And, two, the analysts felt that senior policymakers were saying things publicly that were inconsistent with the intelligence.
WOOD: President Bush told the press corps in November 2002 that Saddam Hussein is the threat because he’s dealing with al Qaeda. Vice President Cheney and September 2003 set of were successful in Iraq then will have struck a major blow at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 911. And there were many more comments from Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz. And it was short-handing what the intelligence said in the service of – I think their beliefs, at least that’s my opinion.
We are going to take a quick break. When we come back, we will discuss the important presentation to the United Nations by Secretary of State Colin Powell.
CBS News Special Report — February 5, 2003
RATHER: This is a CBS News special report – Dan Rather reporting from CBS News World Headquarters in New York. The secretary of state for the United States Colin Powell is appearing before the United Nations Security Council here in New York City to prevent, to present evidence Saddam Hussein is violating the council resolution.
Secretary Powell’s speech to the United Nations occurred in early February 2003. He tried to make the case for why the U.S. needed to go to war in Iraq and why the rest of the world should support us.
The speech covered both Iraq’s WMD programs and its ties to terrorism. Let’s look at how intelligence was handled in that speech.
CBS News Special Report — February 5, 2003
POWELL: I cannot tell you everything that we know, but what I can share with you, when combined with what all of us have learned over the years, is deeply troubling. The facts and Iraqis’ behavior, Iraq’s behavior, demonstrate that Saddam Hussein and his regime have made no effort, no effort, to disarm, as required by the international community.
Indeed, the facts and Iraq’s behavior show that Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction.
On the WMD portion of Powell’s speech, the Secretary’s presentation omitted the analysts’ caveats, although, to be fair, the caveats were not numerous. Nonetheless, they were lost. There was pressure from policymakers for those caveats not to be in the speech.
Here is Andy Makridis again, talking about the National Intelligence Estimate and the Powell speech.
MAKRIDIS: If I look at the body of the NIE, which had some mild caveats about some of the judgments, some of those caveats then got lost or just weren’t fully articulated in the key judgments. And now you take it up another level and you have a speech to the UN and more of that gets lost. So what strikes me in listening to the Powell speech, when I did and then and then looking at these other documents, is that he’s more definitive in his speech than if you read the whole NIE and you say, well, wait a second, that’s not exactly what was said here. But then again, I said the caveats were mild. They got milder or disappeared in the key judgments. And then by the time of the speech, they were sort of gone. And so it was a it was a much more declarative, declarative statement.
CBS News Special Report – February 5, 2003
POWELL: From his terrorist network in Iraq, Zarqawi can direct his network in the Middle East and beyond. Iraqi officials protest they are not aware of the whereabouts of Zarqawi or of any of his associates. Again, these protests are not credible.
On Iraq and terrorism, the Powell presentation was not about Al Qaeda and 9/11. It was about Zarqawi, and it implied a strong, dangerous link between Iraq and Zarqawi. It painted the contacts with the Iraqi intelligence officer and the medical visit to Baghdad as proof of a relationship. It was not what the analysts had assessed.
Kristin Wood again.
WOOD: We were listening to it and we were stunned because we had been intimately involved in the preparation for that in the days leading up to the speech. And we had to analysts full time doing fact checking, turning things back, editing. But it became direct statements of fact. Iraq harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Zarqawi, an associate and collaborator of bin Laden. Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of Ansar al strong Islam. This agent offered al Qaeda a safe haven in the region, something we didn’t have anything about. He traveled to Baghdad, staying in the capital for two months while he recuperated to fight another day. While it is true he was in the capital, we don’t know that that was in any cooperation with the Iraqis at all.
The terrorism text was finalized in New York City in the last hours before the speech, and it was not sent to the analysts for them to comment on it. It should have been. Taking the analysts out of the process almost always ends in a mistake, and it did so in this case.
One final point about Iraq and terrorism: The last two paragraphs of the 2002 Iraq WMD NIE say that if Saddam were sufficiently desperate – that is, if his regime were at risk – that he might provide his weapons of mass destruction to Al Qaeda to attack the US homeland.
This was critical because it made the very link the President was concerned about.
But, in fact, there was quite an analytic debate within CIA about these two paragraphs that many senior officials at the Agency did not know about. I just learned about this in putting this episode together.
GREEN: My name is Jane Green. Before the invasion, I was the chief of the group of analysts who focused on Iraq.
GREEN: Most of my analysts were very experienced Iraq hands. They had studied all aspects of Iraq for years. Every one of them assessed that he would never we give WMD to terrorists or anyone else. Saddam was ruthless and cautious with a touch of paranoia. He did not believe in long term alliances. He assumed that any one of that weapons that anyone who received weapons from him would one day use them against Iraq.
Now here’s the other side to the argument.
Here is Kristin Wood again, the head of Iraq Terrorism team.
WOOD: The WMD community was so certain he had weapons of mass destruction and being in the terrorism shop. It seemed to me and to my analysts that it would be a poor. Analytic judgment to say that there’s something Saddam wouldn’t do. That he had a principle. He used to gassed his own people.
In the end, the analysts compromised and the NIE said Saddam might share WMD with Al Qaeda if his regime and his own existence were on the line. The analysts chose those two words carefully — “might” and “if.“
In retrospect, the analysts should have crafted the language to clearly state the existence of analytic differences and the reason behind those differences rather than to settle on a weak judgment that Saddam might do something if he found himself in extremis. Words like “might” and “if” get lost when policymakers read them. Policy officials likely saw this as the IC confirming the President’s worst fears. We could and should have done better in writing these two paragraphs.
CBS Morning News – February 5, 2004
ANCHOR: CIA Director George Tenet is going on the offensive. This morning, he’ll answer charges that his agency botched the estimates of Iraq’s weapons.
PLANTE: Sources tell CBS News that Tenet will point to intelligence successes not previously made public, and try to correct what they call ‘inaccuracies’ about what the CIA did and did not say about weapons of mass destruction.
Beyond Iraq and WMD and Iraq and terrorism, there was one other important analysis done prior to the war, this time about what post-war Iraq might look like.
Here’s Jane Green again.
GREEN: To quote Director Tenet from his book. He said, “Our prewar analysis of post-war Iraq was prescient.”
Jane highlighted for us one pre-war CIA analytic paper, written in August of 2002, titled: “The Perfect Storm: Planning for Negative Consequences of Invading Iraq.”
GREEN: Some of those consequences that we assessed could happen: Anarchy in Iraq. Regime threatening instability in Arab states. A surge of global terrorism against U.S. interests.
And another CIA assessment in January of 2003, we said Iraq would be unlikely to split apart, that a post-Saddam authority would face a deeply divided society with a significant chance that domestic groups would engage in violent conflict with each other unless an occupying force prevented them from doing so.
It was very difficult to get our message heard. Perhaps we should have said it louder, but it was certainly something that we were trying to get across – that the risks of this effort were substantial, both to the stability of Iraq and to the Middle East, as well as to our own troops.
Other CIA analysts shared the concerns of Jane’s analysts.
NAKHLEH: My name is Emile Nakhleh.
Emile studied the Middle East in great depth as an academic before coming to the Agency, including spending significant time in the region. At CIA, Emile established and ran the Political Islam Strategic Analysis Program. He also ran the Regional Analysis program dealing with the Middle East at large.
NAKHLEH: I had serious concerns and several of my analysts shared those concerns.
Many of these concerns had to do with plans by some in Administration to remove from their positions any Iraqis who were members of Saddam’s Baath Party – so called, de-Baathification.
NAKHLEH: The whole issue of de-Baathification. They were talking about ultimately de-Baathification after the war. And they I must admit, they had no idea of the role of the Baath Party in Iraqi society that, for example, everybody had to have a party card membership card in order to get a job. You could not get a job in Iraq from a taxi driver to a university professor without getting having a Baath Party card.
And the issue that really concerned me was the interest and influence generations, centuries old interest and influence of Iran in Iraq, particularly southern Iraq, where Shia Islam started in the first place in the 7th century.
Emile did not think the Administration had enough Iraq policy experts, and he was worried about the lack of planning for what would come after combat.
34 NAKHLEH: For example, what tribes should we deal with? How should we engage? The Shia leadership, especially the Grand Ayatollah is in in southern Iraq, in Najaf and Karbala, whether to bring an indigenous leader or a leader from the outside, how to deal with the Sunnis after they lose power and prestige and stature in the country, how to distribute oil revenues among the ethnic sectarian groups Arabs, Sunni, Shia and Kurds.
In one of my last briefings I gave the vice president, I said, Mr. Vice President, you make the decisions. I don’t make policy. You were elected to make policy. I’m just giving you what our analysts bring to the table in terms of expertise from the field, and that if those questions are not answered, we will have serious problems on our hands.
Jane’s and Emile’s analysts turned out to be right about what Iraq would look like after the war.
CBS Evening News – June 17, 2003
MARTIN: As temperatures in Iraq climb higher and tempers grow shorter, senior officials in Washington admit the reconstruction program – which is supposed to put the country back on its feet – is at best sporadic and at worst chaotic. According to one official, J Paul Bremer, the American in charge of rebuilding Iraq, is making it up as he goes along.
Let me now switch from pre-invasion to post-invasion.
There are two stories here – one, the collection and analysis done by CIA on the deteriorating situation in Iraq and two, CIA’s support of the eventual stabilization of Iraq.
CIA officers on the ground in Iraq and the Iraq analysts in Washington were the first to see what was happening to post-war Iraq.
Both saw the emergence of the insurgency and then its growth. And they saw it almost immediately, within weeks of the end of combat operations in April 2003.
My name is Luis Rueda. During the time period, I was chief of EOG, which is the Iraq Operations Group.
Luis was responsible for all of CIA’s operations in country.
REUDA: Our officers were seeing a very rapid deterioration of the situation. U.S. forces were were not big enough to hold the country. Remember that the coalition administration inside Iraq had demobilized the army and they had told the army, go home. And they did. But all of a sudden, we had 450,000 armed men unemployed, which became very fertile recruiting ground for an insurgency. Services had been at least degraded significantly. So electricity, running water, things like that were not functioning, which creates an unhappy population. The coalition authority had de-Baathification, the government, which meant getting rid of anybody who belonged to the Baath Party. And as we had articulated, the vast majority of members of the Baath Party had to be Baath Party members to hold the job. It was like the Communist Party in Russia. So you had teachers, policemen. They weren’t committed bases. They just had to have the job. But all of a sudden they were out of jobs and law and order started to break down. And we started seeing this get worse and worse.
Jane Green again.
GREEN: In June 2003, I went to Iraq to serve the intelligence advisor to the leader who was Jerry Bremer. And I was also his briefer. I met with Bremer and with coalition ground forces Chief General Ricardo Sanchez, six days a week. During the six months I was there.
GREEN: We saw it right away. We saw looting of factories and other heavy industry, not just the taking of parts and equipment, but the dismantling of the facilities themselves, which was the equivalent of dismantling the Iraqi economy. It was astounding to see when we would see imagery of, you know, significant factories reduced to, you know, a few pieces of sheet metal, and then that sheet metal would be gone the next day.
The situation was becoming more and more dangerous.
GREEN: Soon we saw that weapons and ammunition storage depots were being emptied. We saw the rise of Shia militias with support from Iran. In some cases, the goal of some of these militias was to take revenge on the Sunnis and to make sure they never had the ability to subjugate the Shia populace again. We saw the Sunni tribes arming themselves. Sunni Shia shrines were being attacked and groups of Shia civilians were attacked.
GREEN: All the Sunnis then had left were the weapons and ammunitions that they had looted from the from the depots. And a deep resentment of coalition activities. The new Iraqi government faced fierce opposition in Sunni areas, and especially in strong Fallujah and Ramadi.
While the CIA’s assessment of the situation in Iraq was getting worse, some policymakers – and other government agencies, namely the Pentagon – pushed back.
GREEN: The Iraqis, in DOD’s eyes, were supposed to be rejoicing that Saddam’s regime was gone. And it took them a long time to accept our analyst judgment that the Iraqi people were devolving into civil war.
Here is Luis Reuda again.
REUDA At the end of the day, I remember there was a situation where Secretary Rumsfeld confronted agency briefers and said, what makes you use the term insurgency? We don’t think there’s an insurgency. And the briefer said, well, we’re using the Defense Department definition of insurgency and outlined that definition.
Once the Administration, led by President Bush, recognized that Iraq was descending into chaos, policy caught up. But several important months were lost.
CIA would ultimately support the administration’s efforts to stabilize Iraq.
REUDA: And one of the things they did was turn to the agency and and say we need additional assistance in trying to stabilize the country. So the CIA was tasked with working with with Bremer’s office, with the US military, with Central Command, to sort of bring together Iraqi leadership and work with them and support them in creating some type of stable government.
CIA was tasked with finding moderate Iraqi forces who could work together and then CIA supported them.
REUDA: We were not tasked with picking people. We were not tasked with deciding what the government was going to be like. We wanted that to be an Iraqi endeavor. The Iraqis had to decide. But we had to bring enough people, give them the wherewithal, whether it was, you know, training, advice or guidance to come together and form some kind of governing authority, then where they would choose, how they would run the country, who would run the country and this sort of thing.
One of the biggest CIA contributions to the stabilization was forming an Iraqi intelligence service.
And we also worked to develop a security apparatus, an intelligence service that would collect information on the terrorists, on Iranians, on efforts to destabilize any further, destabilize Iraq. And, you know, we realized that the Iraqis are much better at interacting with the Iraqis than the U.S. would be. So we helped to create a security apparatus to help the government stabilize.
CIA played a significant role in the stabilization of Iraq, a success that many to this day do not know.
What about the consequences? What were the consequences for the United States, for Iraq for the region, and for the CIA. Let’s turn to that discussion.
The most important consequences were two – one, the impact the war had on what Americans think of their own government and two, the impact it had on America’s credibility on the world stage.
I spend a great deal of time on college campuses, and I can’t tell you how often students question whether America’s role in the world has been for good or not. And, for those students who say no, they point first to the Iraq War and second to the 2008 financial crisis. These two events have led many Americans to question the competency and credibility of their own government.
Regarding America’s credibility in the world, some have argued that the Iraq War was the moment the U.S. ceded its global leadership role.
The consequences for the region were even worse.
Here’s Emile Nakleigh again.
NEKHLEH: And so after the invasion, we see the rise of Iran as a major player because of Iraq.
This is very, very huge. For the first time following the invasion, we saw the rise of what we call or what one academic friend of mine called the Shia Crescent in the region. So for the first time, you have the two largest Shia states in the world, Iran and Iraq, almost in an alliance that they did not have before ever,
That was the biggest regional implication.
Significant gains for Iranian influence, as predicted by Emile and his analysts before the invasion.
“CBS Evening News” — October 22, 2011
CORRESPONDENT: The war in Iraq may be over, but the politics of leaving have begun. The concern is the regime in Iran. Experts say the more the United States moves out of Iraq, the more Iran moves in.
The other significant consequence, which we discussed earlier, was the rise of Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Emile explains how all of this affected, and still is affecting, our strategic position in the region.
NEKHLEH: After we removed Saddam, we got bogged down with the insurgency and the civil war. And the Arab states began to express serious concern about the efficacy of our presence there, that our presence there was contributing to the rise in in terrorism, contributing to the rise of Shia terrorism.
Finally, what were the consequences for CIA? Damage to its credibility for sure, which took some time to repair. But there was also a positive change for the Agency. Jami Miscik, who was the head of analysis, deserves immense credit for this, immense credit for saying “We made a mistake, let’s figure out why, and let’s learn from it.”
Jami created a task force to study what happened and then she ordered a multi-day stand down to teach every analyst in the organization the lessons learned. In my view, this had the most positive impact on the rigor by which analysts do their work at CIA than any other single moment in the history of the organization.
Here’s Andy Makridis again
MAKRIDIS: Some of the things that were put into place after afterwards were in particular sort of this alternative analysis issue where we really did try on big judgment to to come up with a variety of analytic techniques to sort of tease out, you know, the uncertainties. And there are a variety of techniques that people can read about. There’s pre mortems that’s sort of one of my favorite ones. But red teaming, double advocacy, brainstorming, alternative futures, competing hypotheses, these are all ways to sort of get at. Let’s take a look at this. And, you know, where are the weaknesses in our argument and lay those out for the policymakers. So, you know, today, when we’re making a big analytic judgment, we include how could we be wrong?
That’s the narrative I wanted to share. There is obviously much more to the story, but only so much can fit into a 40-minute podcast.
Let me end with one final thought:
I think the lessons of the Iraq War for both intelligence and policymakers are enormous.
For policymakers, it is to understand the inherent limitations of intelligence and to never put pressure on the IC to see things a certain way. Doing so leads to jumbled messages that do not serve the interests of the country.
For intelligence officers, it is also important to understand the inherent limitations of intelligence and to apply that understanding to the confidence one has in any judgment.
It is to be humble. And it is to know that, if you lose focus for any reason, the next big intelligence failure will be right around the corner.
Thanks for listening. I’m Michael Morell. Please join us again next week for another epidosde of Intelligence Matters.
BEIRUT (AP) — The Islamic State group has carried out its deadliest attacks in more than a year, killing dozens of civilians and security officers in the deserts of central Syria, even as people of northern Syria have been digging out of the wreckage from the region’s devastating earthquake.
The bloodshed was a reminder of the persistent threat from IS, whose sleeper cells still terrorize populations nearly four years after the group was defeated in Syria.
The attacks also underscored the extremists’ limitations. IS militants have found refuge in the remote deserts of Syria’s interior and along the Iraqi-Syrian border. From there, they lash out against civilians and security forces in both countries. But they are also hemmed in by opponents on all sides: Syrian government troops as well as Kurdish-led fighters who control eastern Syria and are backed by U.S. forces. American raids with their Kurdish-led allies have repeatedly killed or caught IS leaders and, earlier this month, killed two senior IS figures.
The IS attacks this month were largely against a very vulnerable target: Syrians hunting truffles in the desert.
The truffles are a seasonal delicacy that can be sold for a high price. Since the truffle hunters work in large groups in remote areas, IS militants in previous years have repeatedly preyed on them, emerging from the desert to abduct them, kill some and ransom others for money.
On Feb. 11, IS fighters kidnapped about 75 truffle hunters outside the town of Palmyra. At least 16 were killed, including a woman and security officers, 25 were released and the rest remain missing.
Six days later, on Friday, they attacked a group of truffle hunters outside the desert town of Sukhna, just up the highway from Palmyra, and fought with troops at a security checkpoint close by. At least 61 civilians and seven soldiers were killed. Many of the truffle hunters in the group work for three local businessmen close to the Syrian military and pro-government militias, which may have prompted IS to target them, according to the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an opposition war monitor, and the Palmyra News Network, an activist collective that covers developments in the desert areas.
Smaller attacks around the area killed 12 other people, including soldiers, pro-government fighters and civilians.
The area is far from the northern regions devastated by the Feb. 6 earthquake that killed more than 46,000 people in Turkey and Syria. Still, IS fighters “took advantage of the earthquake to send a message that the organization is still present,” said Rami Abdurrahman, who heads the Observatory.
Friday’s attack in Sukhna was the group’s deadliest since January 2022, when IS gunmen stormed a prison in the northeastern city of Hassakeh that held some 3,000 militants and juveniles. Ten days of battles between the militants and U.S.-backed fighters left nearly 500 dead.
The prison attack raised fears IS was staging a comeback. But it was followed by a series of blows against the group, which reverted to its drumbeat of smaller-scale shootings and bombings.
It’s too early to say if the new spate of attacks marks a new resurgence, said Aaron Y. Zelin, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
“It’s the biggest attack in a while. So the question is if it’s just a one-off attack or if they are reactivating capabilities,” said Zelin, who closely follows militant Islamic groups and founded Jihadology.net.
He said IS fighters have been less active every year since 2019 and noted that the recent attacks hit civilians, not tougher security targets.
In 2014, IS overran large swaths of Syria and Iraq and declared the entire territory a “caliphate,” where it imposed a radically brutal rule. The U.S. and its allies in Syria and Iraq, as well as Syria’s Russian-backed government troops, fought against it for years, eventually rolling it back but also leaving tens of thousands dead and cities in ruins. The group was declared defeated in Iraq in 2017, then in Syria two years later.
In 2019, many thought that IS was finished after it lost the last sliver of land it controlled, its founder Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was killed in a U.S. raid and an international crackdown on social media pages linked to the extremists limited its propaganda and recruitment campaigns.
The newest IS leader, Abu al-Hussein al-Husseini al-Qurayshi, may be trying to show his strength with the latest attacks, said Abdullah Suleiman Ali, a Syrian researcher who focuses on jihadi groups. The leaders’ names are pseudonyms and don’t refer to a family relation.
“The new leader has to take measures to prove himself within the organization … (to show) that the group under the new leadership is capable and strong,” Ali said.
American troops and the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces eliminated a series of senior IS figures this month, according to the U.S. military. On Feb, 10, they killed Ibrahim Al Qahtani, suspected of planning last year’s prison attack, then eight days later they captured an IS official allegedly involved in planning attacks and manufacturing bombs. Last week, a senior IS commander, Hamza al-Homsi, was killed in a raid that also left four American service-members wounded.
But IS remains a threat, according to U.N., U.S. and Kurdish officials.
It is estimated to have 5,000 to 7,000 members and supporters – around half of them fighters — in Iraq and Syria, according to a U.N. report this month. IS uses desert hideouts “for remobilization and training purposes” and has spread cells of 15 to 30 people each to other parts of the country, particularly the southern province of Daraa.
SDF spokesman Siamand Ali said IS persistently plots attacks in Kurdish-run eastern Syria. He pointed to an attempted attack by IS fighters on SDF security headquarters in the city of Raqqa in December. SDF sweeps since then have captured IS operatives and weapons caches, he said. This is a sign the group was close to carrying out large operations, he said.
IS in particular aims to storm SDF-run prisons to free militants, he said. Some 10,000 IS fighters, including about 2,000 foreigners, are held in the more than two dozen Kurdish-run detention facilities.
Gen. Michael “Erik” Kurilla, commander of the U.S. Central Command or CENTCOM, said in a statement this month that IS “continues to represent a threat to not only Iraq and Syria, but to the stability and security of the region.”
Senior members of Biden’s national security team who helped arrange the travel at the end of last year were heartened — and pleasantly surprised — by how powerful and positive the reaction to Zelenskyy’s trip seemed to be among the American people, said the sources, who, like others in this article, were granted anonymity to discuss internal planning. It was Zelenskyy’s first travel outside Ukraine since the start of the war.
Hoping to sustain momentum for efforts to keep the fragile Western alliance together in support of Ukraine, the officials began discussions about using the anniversary of Russia’s invasion to make a similarly bold gesture.
Publicly, the planning would play out in the trip officials formally announced 10 days ago — that Biden would make a second trip to Poland, Ukraine’s neighbor, to meet with its president and other NATO allies who have most to lose from any weakening of Western resolve.
But privately, among a small universe of senior officials, the thinking was that this might be the moment to realize a long-held hope among some officials for an even more potent demonstration of U.S. solidarity: having Biden visit Ukraine.
“Discussions about possibly going have been underway for months and really accelerated in recent weeks,” a senior administration official said.
Officials across the government had long made it clear that it was nearly impossible to guarantee Biden’s safety heading into a war zone in which the U.S. is not an active partner.
Other leaders of NATO and the G-7 group of major industrial nations, senior members of Congress and the secretaries of defense and state had all made the long, secretive journey to Kyiv. First lady Jill Biden made a surprise Mother’s Day visit to western Ukraine, spending two hours in the border town of Uzhhorod to meet first lady Olena Zelenska.
But the level of security needed for the president of the U.S. had long been considered incompatible. Even until the end, discussions about security measures were “intense,” as another official put it. They even included a call to Russian officials hours before Biden departed for “deconfliction” purposes, national security adviser Jake Sullivan would later tell reporters.
“[It] required a security, operational and logistical effort from professionals across the U.S. government to take what was an inherently risky undertaking and make it a manageable level of risk,” Sullivan told reporters after Biden left Kyiv on Monday afternoon local time. “But, of course, there was still risk and is still risk in an endeavor like this.”
Biden spent about five hours in the capital, meeting with Zelenskyy and other Ukrainian officials. The two leaders visited St. Michael’s Golden-Domed Monastery and then walked to the nearby Wall of Remembrance, which honors those who have died in the war.
Sullivan and his deputy, Jon Finer, said that while planning involved officials from across the government, it was a very closely held among every agency involved.
At a White House news briefing Friday, National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby flatly denied that Biden would detour to Ukraine on his Poland trip.
Typically, it would be Sullivan who briefed reporters ahead of a Biden foreign trip, but he did not this time so he would not be in the position of misleading reporters, two sources familiar with the matter said.
As planning reached the late stages, aides to Vice President Kamala Harris were told that her itinerary for the Munich Security Conference needed to be trimmed to ensure that she returned to U.S. soil by Saturday night. They were not given a reason, only that it was “nonnegotiable,” according another administration officials.
On Sunday, the White House released a public schedule that had Biden scheduled to depart for Poland late Monday — well after he had already quietly left Washington.
Instead, a handful of officials gathered at the White House before dawn, along with others in Europe, to track his journey every step of the way, two officials said.
Sullivan was among the small number of staff members who traveled with Biden on Monday; others who were due to travel to Poland will still travel, without Biden, as scheduled Monday night.
White House officials did not immediately provide additional details of the precautions taken to minimize the security risks. But one obvious hurdle was how to provide security without committing U.S. air assets in the region.
Biden took a 10-hour train ride from the Polish border into Kyiv. A source familiar with the matter said that while Biden could have gone to other locations in Ukraine that would have been easier to reach, he chose Kyiv to highlight that the capital is still standing after Ukraine’s forces proved to Russian President Vladimir Putin that the country would be more different to topple than anticipated.
For Jill Biden’s visit to Ukraine in May, military aircraft tracked her motorcade as it made its way from a Slovakian airport up to the border but did not follow along as she drove across Ukraine’s border. The first lady’s trip was made public only as she prepared to cross back into Slovakia hours later.
When Joe Biden, then the vice president, last traveled into a war zone, a trip to Baghdad and Erbil, Iraq, in April 2016, his arrival was disclosed after he had safely arrived in the Green Zone, with subsequent movements covered by the traveling media pool.
Biden noted that Monday’s trip was his eighth to Ukraine, and his first words after he stepped off the train were, “It’s good to be back in Kyiv,” according to the media pool.
Biden last visited the country in his final days as vice president.
This time, he “was very focused on making sure that he made the most of his time on the ground, which he knew was going to be limited,” Sullivan said.
The U.S. military said Friday a helicopter raid led by its forces in northeast Syria left senior ISIS leader Hamza al-Homsi dead and four American service members and a working dog wounded.
A U.S. official said the four Americans and the dog were injured when Homsi detonated a suicide vest. The servicemembers are being flown to Landstuhl in Germany. The dog is reported to be in stable condition.
The military said in its brief statement that the operation was conducted Thursday night in partnership with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, which is allied with the U.S.
It did not say in which part of northeast Syria the raid was conducted.
Despite their defeat in Syria in March 2019, ISIS sleeper cells still conduct attacks around Syria and Iraq where they once declared a “caliphate.”
Joint operations between the U.S. military and SDF fighters are common in northeast and eastern Syria along the border with Iraq.
The statement said the service members and working dog are receiving treatment in a U.S. medical facility in neighboring Iraq.
The U.S. military killed two IS leaders in Syria over the past few years.
In February 2021, Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurayshi, was killed in a U.S. raid in northwest Syria. IS founder Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was hunted down by the Americans in a raid in October 2019.
In October, the leader of IS, Abu al-Hassan al-Hashimi al-Qurayshi, was killed in battle with Syrian rebels in southern Syria.
David Martin contributed to this report.
Thanks for reading CBS NEWS.
Create your free account or log in for more features.
Christopher Miller, who was acting secretary of defense under President Donald Trump, joined Major Garrett for this week’s episode of “The Takeout.” Miller said he thinks the defense budget could be cut in half. He also called the war in Iraq an “unjust war,” and he said the U.S. pullout from Afghanistan was “tragic.”
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
“I am wicked and scary with claws and teeth,” Vladimir Putin reportedly warned David Cameron when the then-British prime minister pressed him about the use of chemical weapons by Russia’s ally in Syria, Bashar al-Assad, and discussed how far Russia was prepared to go.
According to Cameron’s top foreign policy adviser John Casson — cited in a BBC documentary — Putin went on to explain that to succeed in Syria, one would have to use barbaric methods, as the U.S. did in Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq. “I am an ex-KGB man,” he expounded.
The remarks were meant, apparently, half in jest but, as ever with Russia’s leader, the menace was clear.
And certainly, Putin has proven he is ready to deploy fear as a weapon in his attempt to subjugate a defiant Ukraine. His troops have targeted civilians and have resorted to torture and rape. But victory has eluded him.
In the next few weeks, he looks set to try to reverse his military failures with a late-winter offensive: very possibly by being even scarier, and fighting tooth and claw, to save Russia — and himself — from further humiliation.
Can the ex-KGB man succeed, however? Can Russia still win the war of Putin’s choice against Ukraine in the face of heroic and united resistance from the Ukrainians?
Catalog of errors
From the start, the war was marked by misjudgments and erroneous calculations. Putin and his generals underestimated Ukrainian resistance, overrated the abilities of their own forces, and failed to foresee the scale of military and economic support Ukraine would receive from the United States and European nations.
Kyiv didn’t fall in a matter of days — as planned by the Kremlin — and Putin’s forces in the summer and autumn were pushed back, with Ukraine reclaiming by November more than half the territory the Russians captured in the first few weeks of the invasion. Russia has now been forced into a costly and protracted conventional war, one that’s sparked rare dissent within the country’s political-military establishment and led Kremlin infighting to spill into the open.
The only victory Russian forces have recorded in months came in January when the Ukrainians withdrew from the salt-mining town of Soledar in the Donetsk region of eastern Ukraine. And the signs are that the Russians are on the brink of another win with Bakhmut, just six miles southwest of Soledar, which is likely to fall into their hands shortly.
But neither of these blood-drenched victories amounts to much more than a symbolic success despite the high casualties likely suffered by both sides. Tactically neither win is significant — and some Western officials privately say Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy may have been better advised to have withdrawn earlier from Soledar and from Bakhmut now, in much the same way the Russians in November beat a retreat from their militarily hopeless position at Kherson.
For a real reversal of Russia’s military fortunes Putin will be banking in the coming weeks on his forces, replenished by mobilized reservists and conscripts, pulling off a major new offensive. Ukrainian officials expect the offensive to come in earnest sooner than spring. Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov warned in press conferences in the past few days that Russia may well have as many as 500,000 troops amassed in occupied Ukraine and along the borders in reserve ready for an attack. He says it may start in earnest around this month’s first anniversary of the war on February 24.
Other Ukrainian officials think the offensive, when it comes, will be in March — but at least before the arrival of Leopard 2 and other Western main battle tanks and infantry fighting vehicles. Zelenskyy warned Ukrainians Saturday that the country is entering a “time when the occupier throws more and more of its forces to break our defenses.”
All eyes on Donbas
The likely focus of the Russians will be on the Donbas region of the East. Andriy Chernyak, an official in Ukraine’s military intelligence, told the Kyiv Post that Putin had ordered his armed forces to capture all of Donetsk and Luhansk by the end of March. “We’ve observed that the Russian occupation forces are redeploying additional assault groups, units, weapons and military equipment to the east,” Chernyak said. “According to the military intelligence of Ukraine, Putin gave the order to seize all of the territories of Donetsk and Luhansk regions.”
Other Ukrainian officials and western military analysts suspect Russia might throw some wildcards to distract and confuse. They have their eyes on a feint coming from Belarus mimicking the northern thrust last February on Kyiv and west of the capital toward Vinnytsia. But Ukrainian defense officials estimate there are only 12,000 Russian soldiers in Belarus currently, ostensibly holding joint training exercises with the Belarusian military, hardly enough to mount a diversion.
“A repeat assault on Kyiv makes little sense,” Michael Kofman, an American expert on the Russian Armed Forces and a fellow of the Center for a New American Security, a Washington-based think tank. “An operation to sever supply lines in the west, or to seize the nuclear powerplant by Rivne, may be more feasible, but this would require a much larger force than what Russia currently has deployed in Belarus,” he said in an analysis.
But exactly where Russia’s main thrusts will come along the 600-kilometer-long front line in Ukraine’s Donbas region is still unclear. Western military analysts don’t expect Russia to mount a push along the whole snaking front — more likely launching a two or three-pronged assault focusing on some key villages and towns in southern Donetsk, on Kreminna and Lyman in Luhansk, and in the south in Zaporizhzhia, where there have been reports of increased buildup of troops and equipment across the border in Russia.
In the Luhansk region, Russian forces have been removing residents near the Russian-held parts of the front line. And the region’s governor, Serhiy Haidai, believes the expulsions are aimed at clearing out possible Ukrainian spies and locals spotting for the Ukrainian artillery. “There is an active transfer of (Russian troops) to the region and they are definitely preparing for something on the eastern front,” Haidai told reporters.
Reznikov has said he expects the Russian offensive will come from the east and the south simultaneously — from Zaporizhzhia in the south and in Donetsk and Luhansk. In the run-up to the main offensives, Russian forces have been testing five points along the front, according to Ukraine’s General Staff in a press briefing Tuesday. They said Russian troops have been regrouping on different parts of the front line and conducting attacks near Kupiansk in the Kharkiv region and Lyman, Bakhmut, Avdiivka, and Novopavlivka in eastern Donetsk.
Combined arms warfare
Breakthroughs, however, will likely elude the Russians if they can’t correct two major failings that have dogged their military operations so far — poor logistics and a failure to coordinate infantry, armor, artillery and air support to achieve mutually complementary effects, otherwise known as combined arms warfare.
When announcing the appointment in January of General Valery Gerasimov — the former chief of the defense staff — as the overall commander of Russian forces in Ukraine, Russia’s defense ministry highlighted “the need to organize closer interaction between the types and arms of the troops,” in other words to improve combined arms warfare.
Kofman assesses that Russia’s logistics problems may have largely been overcome. “There’s been a fair amount of reorganization in Russian logistics, and adaptation. I think the conversation on Russian logistical problems in general suffers from too much anecdotalism and received wisdom,” he said.
Failing that, much will depend for Russia on how much Gerasimov has managed to train his replenished forces in combined arms warfare and on that there are huge doubts he had enough time. Kofman believes Ukrainian forces “would be better served absorbing the Russian attack and exhausting the Russian offensive potential, then taking the initiative later this spring. Having expended ammunition, better troops, and equipment it could leave Russian defense overall weaker.” He suspects the offensive “may prove underwhelming.”
Pro-war Russian military bloggers agree. They have been clamoring for another mobilization, saying it will be necessary to power the breakouts needed to reverse Russia’s military fortunes. Former Russian intelligence officer and paramilitary commander Igor Girkin, who played a key role in Crimea’s annexation and later in the Donbas, has argued waves of call-ups will be needed to overcome Ukraine’s defenses by sheer numbers.
And Western military analysts suspect that Ukraine and Russia are currently fielding about the same number of combat soldiers. This means General Gerasimov will need many more if he’s to achieve the three-to-one ratio military doctrines suggest necessary for an attacking force to succeed.
Ukrainian officials think Russia’s offensive will be in March, before the arrival of Leopard 2 and other Western tanks | Sascha Schuermann/Getty Images
But others fear that Russia has sufficient forces, if they are concentrated, to make some “shock gains.” Richard Kemp, a former British army infantry commander, is predicting “significant Russian gains in the coming weeks. We need to be realistic about how bad things could be — otherwise the shock risks dislodging Western resolve,” he wrote. The fear being that if the Russians can make significant territorial gains in the Donbas, then it is more likely pressure from some Western allies will grow for negotiations.
But Gerasimov’s manpower deficiencies have prompted other analysts to say that if Western resolve holds, Putin’s own caution will hamper Russia’s chances to win the war.
“Putin’s hesitant wartime decision-making demonstrates his desire to avoid risky decisions that could threaten his rule or international escalation — despite the fact his maximalist and unrealistic objective, the full conquest of Ukraine, likely requires the assumption of further risk to have any hope of success,” said the Institute for the Study of War in an analysis this week.
Wicked and scary Putin may be but, as far as ISW sees it, he “has remained reluctant to order the difficult changes to the Russian military and society that are likely necessary to salvage his war.”
Editor’s Note: A version of this story appears in today’s Meanwhile in the Middle East newsletter, CNN’s three-times-a-week look inside the region’s biggest stories. Sign up here.
Baghdad and Abu Dhabi CNN
—
Iraq is holding its first international soccer tournament in more than four decades, hosting its Gulf Arab neighbors for a two-week competition as it emerges from its worst and longest political deadlock in years.
The tournament, analysts say, is a glimmer of hope for a struggling population, but also holds a political message – Iraq is signaling to its neighbors and the world that it is ready to move past decades of turmoil.
After more than 30 years of global isolation due to wars and sanctions, for many Iraqis the Arabian Gulf Cup – the tournament started on Friday and will run until January 19 – is something of a tonic.
“Iraq is a football-mad country that has been lobbying for years for the right to host competitive international games,” said Patrick Osgood, associate director of the Control Risks consultancy firm in Dubai.
This is the first time Iraq has hosted the Gulf Cup since 1979, when it was held in the capital Baghdad. This time, the tournament is being held in the southern port city of Basra, with teams from Saudi Arabia, Oman, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Yemen also competing.
Since it last hosted the Gulf Cup, the nation has faced two devastating wars, a regime change, an occupation and a militant insurgency that impacted the once thriving Basra as it did the rest of the country. Of late, the city’s residents have encountered severe energy and food shortages that have led to unrest.
“The practical effect in a city in dire need of investment is likely to be small,” Osgood told CNN. “But Iraqis deserve nice things, to participate with others, to be able to exercise hospitality.”
There is excitement and fervor in Basra about the tournament. Murals adorn the city’s walls and fans were seen joining long queues for tickets. Flags flutter from every participating nation in streets and there are welcoming posters reading, “Basra welcomes you” and “Basra is your home.”
“We’ve been waiting for this moment for 40 years,” said 29-year-old Mohammed Ali, a taxi driver in Basra, adding that the city feels very secure and its residents are filled with joy for the occasion.
“We have experienced problems, but we always say that sport unites people,” he told CNN. “We are seeing many people from the Gulf, and we can tell that they too have missed Basra.”
The last Gulf Cup was held in Qatar in 2019, with Bahrain emerging as the winner.
Gulf Arabs rarely travel to Iraq for tourism. Of all the Gulf states, only the travel hubs of Doha and Dubai have direct flights to the country, catering largely to connecting passengers and Shiite Muslim pilgrims. Gulf states’ ties with the Iraqi government have warmed over the past few years, but that hasn’t trickled down to the public level. In Saudi Arabia, government permission is required for travel to Iraq, which is only given to men above 40.
Major General Saad Maan, head of public relations at the Iraqi interior ministry, told CNN that he expects “tens of thousands of fans to arrive in Basra” and that all security measures have been taken to assure the safety of both residents and fans.
“Iraq is saying that there is great political stability,” said Ihsan Al-Shammari, a politics professor at Baghdad University and head of the Iraqi Centre for Political Thought. “It also speaks to the security situation, especially if the tournament is successfully completed without any security incidents.”
Iraq also hopes that the event will bolster its image to investors and political partners, said Al-Shammari, as well as bring it closer to its Gulf Arab neighbors with whom it has had frosty relations since Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990.
The opening ceremony on Friday started with a spectacular fireworks display and a theatrical performance chronicling the nation’s 5,000-year history, though the showpiece occasion wasn’t without controversy.
The Iraqi Football Association apologized to Kuwait for a brawl that took place in the Basra International Stadium’s VIP section that prevented the Kuwaiti ruler’s representative from entering. That prompted the rest of the delegation to leave the event. The Kuwait FA said it will continue participation in the tournament after being given security guarantees from Iraq.
Iraq drifted into chaos after a 2003 US-led invasion toppled longtime ruler Saddam Hussein, and around the end of 2021 fell into its longest political stalemate as the country’s various political factions – divided mainly between Shiite blocs and their Iran-backed rivals – failed to form a government.
The deadlock was only broken last October with the election of a new president and premier, but experts remain skeptical about whether the new government can prevent further stability and instill serious reforms.
The country’s economy is still in crisis, much of its infrastructure is in ruins and its ties with neighboring states are strained as Iran continues to support prominent political factions and their armed militias.
“Basra city experiences security issues around crime and protest activity,” said Osgood, “but neither issue is prohibitive, and the government has surged security provision to mitigate threats.”
“On balance, there’s unlikely to be major security disruption during the tournament,” he said, adding that “there are significant socio-economic issues in Basra that drive unrest, but there’s also significant goodwill around the tournament – no one wants to spoil it.”
The tournament is not on the international soccer radar but it is a heated topic in the Gulf region and has often been reflective of the region’s geopolitical scene.
Iraq last hosted the Gulf Cup 44 years ago, when it won the tournament. The nation was banned from it for about a decade after Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait and was prevented from hosting it since due to security reasons.
Despite the hiccups, residents of Basra are optimistic about the tournament in their city.
“The whole of Basra is joyous, opening its doors to the Gulf and other provinces (of Iraq),” said 46-year-old Ali Salman of Basra.
“We want to say to visitors from the Gulf and other provinces of Iraq: don’t rent hotels, the doors of our homes are open.”
Iran executes two more men amid crackdown on protests
Iran executed two men – one a karate champion, the other a volunteer children’s coach – in connection with nationwide protests, sparking outrage around the world. The European Union said in a statement Saturday that it was “appalled” by the executions, calling it “yet another sign of the Iranian authorities’ violent repression of civilian demonstrations.”
Background: The pair were alleged to have participated in anti-regime protests and were convicted of killing a member of the country’s Basij paramilitary force, were hanged early Saturday morning, according to state-affiliated media.
Why it matters: The total number of people now known to have been executed in connection with the protests has reached four. As many as 41 more protesters have received death sentences in recent months, according to statements from both Iranian officials and in Iranian media reviewed by CNN and 1500Tasvir, but the number could be much higher.
Sweden says it can’t meet all of Turkey’s NATO demands
Sweden is confident that Turkey will approve its application to join the NATO military alliance, but will not meet all the conditions Ankara has set for its support, Reuters cited Sweden’s prime minister as saying on Sunday. “Turkey both confirms that we have done what we said we would do, but they also say that they want things that we cannot or do not want to give them,” Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson told a defence think-tank conference in Sweden.
Background: Finland and Sweden signed a three-way agreement with Turkey in 2022 aimed at overcoming Ankara’s objections to their membership of the alliance. They applied to join NATO in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but Turkey objected and accused the countries of harboring militants. New entrants require the consensus of all existing members.
Why it matters: It is unclear if the steps taken by the two candidates will satisfy Turkey, which has delayed the accession of the two countries to extract concessions from them. The move has been seen as benefiting President Recep Tayyip Erdogan ahead of elections this year.
Israel arrests two teens over Jerusalem Christian cemetery vandalism
Israel Police arrested two teenagers suspected of vandalizing at least 28 tombstones and damaging a Protestant cemetery near Jerusalem’s Mount Zion, they announced on Friday. The suspects, aged 18 and 14, from central Israel, will be brought before a judge to decide on an extension of their detention following their arrest late on Thursday. “The investigation continues with the aim of bringing them to justice,” a statement from Israel’s police spokesperson in Jerusalem said.
Background: The Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and the Middle East said in a statement earlier last week that “vandals” had “purposely and relentlessly smashed more than thirty gravestones, many of them historic,” in the cemetery. The church said there was clear indication that “these criminal acts were motivated by religious bigotry and hatred against Christians.” Israel Police said the vandalism took place on Sunday, January 1.
Why it matters: The attack on the cemetery and Israel’s handling of it is likely to be in the spotlight after the country swore in the most right-wing government in its history last month. Police did not name the suspects or comment on a possible motive, but Chief Superintendent Assaf Harel said: “Any damage to religious institutions and sites is serious and damages the unique and delicate fabric of life that exists in the city for members of all religions and denominations.”
London’s first Arabic bookstore bid farewell as it closed its doors in 2023, marking the end of a 44-year-old era for Arabic literature in Europe.
Citing economic difficulties, the advent of electronic reading and logistical challenges brought on by Brexit, the founders of Al Saqi Bookstore found the burden of keeping its doors open too heavy.
Regarded as Europe’s leading Arabic bookstore, Al Saqi, which means water seller in Arabic, was founded in 1978 by lifelong friends André Gaspard and Mai Ghoussoub. They opened the store after fleeing the Lebanese Civil War that started in 1975 and lasted until 1990.
The shop at first only carried books in Arabic, later expanding its collection to English, for Europeans who wanted to learn about Arabic culture. It also runs a publishing house in London and Beirut, which will continue to operate.
“It was home for us misfits” the founder’s daughter and publisher Lynn Gaspard told the BBC in an interview.
London is home to a large Arab diaspora. For decades, the city has been a refuge for Arabs fleeing war, economic turmoil and political persecution. But it is also a major hub for tourists, with many Gulf Arabs keeping summer homes in the city.
For many, Al Saqi was the place to find books banned in the Middle East, with Arab travelers to Europe often making a stop in London to stock up.
But as Al Saqi’s door closes, another one may open as the store’s legacy has inspired one of its own employees to carry the torch.
Mohammad Masoud, a bookseller at the store, is now crowdfunding for a new initiative called “Maqam” that aims to open a similar shop.
“This is what Maqam is about. It exists for people who are in need of Arabic content and are searching for belonging,” he told Al Jazeera.
LOS ANGELES — “Avengers” star Jeremy Renner is being treated for serious injuries that happened while he was plowing snow, the actor’s representative said Sunday.
Renner, 51, is in critical condition although he is stable, the actor’s representative said. No further details on the extent of Renner’s injuries were available.
The actor has a home in Nevada, but it is unclear where he was hurt. Renner plays Hawkeye, a sharp-shooting member of the superhero Avengers squad in Marvel’s sprawling movie and television universe.
He is a two-time acting Oscar nominee, scoring back-to-back nods for “The Hurt Locker” and “The Town.” Renner’s portrayal of a bomb disposal specialist in Iraq in 2008’s “The Hurt Locker” helped turn him into a household name.
“The Avengers” in 2012 cemented him as part of Marvel’s grand storytelling ambitions, with his character appearing in several sequels and getting its own Disney+ series, “Hawkeye.”
Today is Thursday, Dec. 29, the 363rd day of 2022. There are two days left in the year.
Today’s Highlight in History:
On Dec. 29, 1845, Texas was admitted as the 28th state.
On this date:
In 1170, Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was slain in Canterbury Cathedral by knights loyal to King Henry II.
In 1812, during the War of 1812, the American frigate USS Constitution engaged and severely damaged the British frigate HMS Java off Brazil.
In 1851, the first Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) in the United States was founded in Boston.
In 1890, the Wounded Knee massacre took place in South Dakota as an estimated 300 Sioux Indians were killed by U.S. troops sent to disarm them.
In 1940, during World War II, Germany dropped incendiary bombs on London, setting off what came to be known as “The Second Great Fire of London.”
In 1972, Eastern Air Lines Flight 401, a Lockheed L-1011 Tristar, crashed into the Florida Everglades near Miami International Airport, killing 101 of the 176 people aboard.
In 1978, during the Gator Bowl, Ohio State University coach Woody Hayes punched Clemson player Charlie Bauman, who’d intercepted an Ohio State pass. (Hayes was fired by Ohio State the next day.)
In 1989, dissident and playwright Vaclav Havel (VAHTS’-lahv HAH’-vel) assumed the presidency of Czechoslovakia.
In 1992, the United States and Russia announced agreement on a nuclear arms reduction treaty.
In 2006, word reached the United States of the execution of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (because of the time difference, it was the morning of Dec. 30 in Iraq when the hanging took place). In a statement, President George W. Bush called Saddam’s execution an important milestone on Iraq’s road to democracy.
In 2007, the New England Patriots ended their regular season with a remarkable 16-0 record following a 38-35 comeback victory over the New York Giants. (New England became the first NFL team since the 1972 Dolphins to win every game on the schedule.)
In 2016, the United States struck back at Russia for hacking the U.S. presidential campaign with a sweeping set of punishments targeting Russia’s spy agencies and diplomats.
Ten years ago: Maine’s same-sex marriage law went into effect. Shocked Indians mourned the death of a woman who’d been gang-raped and beaten on a bus in New Delhi nearly two weeks earlier; six suspects were charged with murder. (Four were later sentenced to death; one died in prison; the sixth, a juvenile at the time of the attack, was sentenced to a maximum of three years in a reform home.)
Five years ago: Puerto Rico authorities said nearly half of the power customers in the U.S. territory still lacked electricity, more than three months after Hurricane Maria.
One year ago: British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted in New York of helping lure teenage girls to be sexually abused by the late Jeffrey Epstein; the verdict capped a monthlong trial featuring accounts of the sexual exploitation of girls as young as 14. (Maxwell would be sentenced to 20 years in prison.) More than a year after a vaccine was rolled out, new cases of COVID-19 in the U.S. were soaring to their highest levels on record at over 265,000 per day; the surge was driven largely by the highly contagious omicron variant. Candace Parker, who helped the Chicago Sky win the franchise’s first WNBA championship, was named The Associated Press’ Female Athlete of the Year for a second time.
Today’s Birthdays: Actor Inga Swenson is 90. Retired ABC newscaster Tom Jarriel is 88. Actor Barbara Steele is 85. Actor Jon Voight is 84. Singer Marianne Faithfull is 76. Retired Hall of Fame Jockey Laffit Pincay Jr. is 76. Actor Ted Danson is 75. Singer-actor Yvonne Elliman is 71. The president of the International Olympic Committee, Thomas Bach, is 69. Actor Patricia Clarkson is 63. Comedian Paula Poundstone is 63. Rock singer-musician Jim Reid (The Jesus and Mary Chain) is 61. Actor Michael Cudlitz is 58. Rock singer Dexter Holland (The Offspring) is 57. Actor-comedian Mystro Clark is 56. Actor Jason Gould is 56. News anchor Ashleigh Banfield is 55. Movie director Lilly Wachowski is 55. Actor Jennifer Ehle is 53. Actor Patrick Fischler is 53. Rock singer-musician Glen Phillips is 52. Actor Kevin Weisman is 52. Actor Jude Law is 50. Actor Maria Dizzia is 48. Actor Mekhi Phifer (mih-KY’ FY’-fuhr) is 48. Actor Shawn Hatosy is 47. Actor Katherine Moennig is 45. Actor Diego Luna is 43. Actor Alison Brie is 40. Country singer Jessica Andrews is 39. Actor Iain de Caestecker is 35. Actor Jane Levy is 33. Singer-actor-dancer Ross Lynch is 27. Rock musician Danny Wagner is 24.
BAGHDAD — Iraq’s prime minister has ordered a crackdown on local businesses operating under the names of international brands without legal permission, his office said Wednesday.
The move by the premier, Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, comes after The Associated Press reported last week that Iraq has become a major center of trademark violations and piracy.
In one prominent example, a chain of fake Starbucks has been operating under the international coffee company’s logo in Baghdad, the Iraqi capital. Starbucks filed a lawsuit in an attempt to shut down the trademark violation, but the case was halted after the owner allegedly threatened lawyers hired by the coffee house.
Amin Makhsusi, the owner of the fake branches, had admitted to the AP that he operated the stores without a license from Starbucks but denied making threats. He said he had first tried to obtain a license legally, but after being turned down, decided to open the store anyway.
The statement from al-Sudani’s office said that trademark infringements are “a violation of the law, and a crime that harms the business environment and foreign investments” as well as harming “Iraq’s reputation and its ability to attract major companies and institutions with internationally registered brands and trademarks.”
It said that Iraqi authorities had taken “legal measures” against a number of businesses found to be operating under fake trademarks, but did not specify which ones.
Asked whether the government had ordered the “Starbucks” stores to be shut down, Yahia Rasool, a spokesperson for al-Sudani, declined to comment beyond the statement issued by his office.
At one of the unauthorized “Starbucks” branches in Baghdad, the signs bearing the logo had been removed from the storefront by Wednesday and the main entrance was shuttered by a roll-down metal cover. However, another door remained open and the shop was still doing business inside, serving coffee in Starbucks-brand paper cups.
Makhsusi told the AP that the stores had taken down the “Starbucks” signs and logos under orders from security officials, but that they were still selling the stock of Starbucks coffee and cups, bought retail, which they had to “get rid of.”
The chain will change its name, he said, to be able to operate legally.
However, the issue of counterfeiting and piracy in Iraq goes beyond coffee.
The broadcaster beIN has sent cease-and-desist letters to Earthlink, Iraq’s largest internet service provider, alleging that a free streaming service offered to its subscribers is composed almost entirely of pirated content.
And at least two U.S. pharmaceutical companies have approached the U.S. Chamber of Commerce with complaints that their trademark was being used to sell counterfeit life-saving medication by Iraqi companies.
———
Associated Press reporters Ahmed Sami Fattah and Ali Abdul-Hassan in Baghdad contributed reporting.
The 2023 Gulf Cup will be the first major football tournament held in Iraq for 40 years.
Tickets for the 25th Gulf Cup, the first major football tournament to be hosted by Iraq in more than 40 years, went on sale on Saturday.
The January tournament in the southern city of Basra will see Saudi Arabia competing after their World Cup appearance in Qatar – where they provided one of the shocks of the competition by beating eventual champions Argentina 2-1.
Qatar, who departed the World Cup after the first round, will also be competing, along with Yemen, Bahrain, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and host nation Iraq.
Holding the Cup is a challenge for Iraq, which has experienced decades of conflict following the overthrow of longtime authoritarian Saddam Hussein in the US-led invasion of 2003. The security situation remains fragile across much of the country.
“Today, we are launching the sale of Gulf-25 tickets,” Adnan Dirjal, head of Iraq’s football federation, told reporters in Basra on Saturday.
Tickets for the January 6-19 competition range from $10 to $30.
Iraqi authorities announced earlier this month that fans visiting Iraq for the competition will not have to pay visa fees. The country is hoping to attract football fans from across the region, including Kuwait, whose border with Iraq lies less than 50km (30 miles) from Basra.
One of the city’s stadiums has a capacity of 65,000, while the second can hold 30,000 fans and will be inaugurated on Monday with a friendly match between two clubs from Iraq and Kuwait’s domestic leagues.
Football’s governing body, FIFA, earlier this year lifted a ban on international competitions in Iraq that had been in place for years due to security concerns.
In January, Baghdad’s packed Al-Madina Stadium hosted a friendly between Iraq and Uganda, the first international match in the capital since 2013.
Iraq first hosted the Gulf Cup in Baghdad in 1979, when it also won the tournament. The country was set to hold the Cup’s 2014 edition but it was instead shifted to Saudi Arabia.
BAGHDAD — Everything from the signboard outside down to the napkins bears the official emblem of the top international coffee chain. But in Baghdad, looks are deceiving: The “Starbucks” in the Iraqi capital is unlicensed.
Real Starbucks merchandise is imported from neighboring countries to stock the three cafes in the city, but all are operating illegally. Starbucks filed a lawsuit in an attempt to shut down the trademark violation, but the case was halted after the owner allegedly threatened lawyers hired by the coffee house.
Be careful, he told them — and boasted of ties to militias and powerful political figures, according to U.S. officials and Iraqi legal sources.
“I am a businessman,” Amin Makhsusi, the owner of the fake branches, said in a rare interview in September. He denied making the threats. “I had this ambition to open Starbucks in Iraq.”
After his requests to obtain a license from Starbucks’ official agent in the Middle East were denied, “I decided to do it anyway, and bear the consequences.” In October, he said he sold the business; the cafes continued to operate.
Starbucks is “evaluating next steps,” a spokesman wrote Wednesday, in response to a request for comment by The Associated Press. “We have an obligation to protect our intellectual property from infringement to retain our exclusive rights to it.”
The Starbucks saga is just one example of what U.S. officials and companies believe is a growing problem. Iraq has emerged as a hub for trademark violation and piracy that cuts across sectors, from retail to broadcasting and pharmaceuticals. Regulation is weak, they say, while perpetrators of intellectual property violations can continue doing business largely because they enjoy cover by powerful groups.
Counterfeiting is compromising well-known brands, costing companies billions in lost revenue and even putting lives at risk, according to businesses affected by the violations and U.S. officials following their cases.
Qatari broadcaster beIN estimated it has lost $1.2 billion to piracy in the region, and said more than a third of all internet piracy of beIN channels originated from companies based in northern Iraq. The complaint was part of a a public submission this year to the U.S. Special 301 Report, which publicly lists countries that do not provide adequate IP rights.
Iraq is seeking foreign investment away from its oil-based economy, and intellectual property will likely take center stage in negotiations with companies. Yet working to enforce laws and clamp down on the vast web of violations has historically been derailed by more urgent developments in the crisis-hit country or thwarted by well-connected business people.
“As Iraq endeavors to diversify its economy beyond the energy sector and attract foreign investment in knowledge-based sectors, it is critical that companies know their patents and intellectual property will be respected and protected by the government,” said Steve Lutes, vice president of Middle East Affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Makhsusi insists he tried the legal route but was denied a license from Starbucks’ regional agent based in Kuwait. He also said he attempted to reach Starbucks through contacts in the United States, but that these were also unsuccessful.
He depicts his decision to open a branch anyway as a triumph over adversity.
Cups, stir sticks and other Starbucks merchandise are obtained in Turkey and Europe, using his contacts, he said. “The coffee, everything is authentic Starbucks,” Makhususi added.
Makhsusi said he “had a session” with a lawyer in Baghdad to come to an understanding with the coffee company, “but so far we have not reached a solution.”
The law firm recounts a different version of events.
Confidentiality agreements prevent the firm from divulging details of the case to third parties, but the AP spoke to three Iraqi legal sources close to the case. They spoke on condition of anonymity in order to provide details. They also asked the name of the firm not be mentioned for security reasons.
They said that in early 2020, the firm was hired by Starbucks and sent a cease-and-desist notice to Makhsusi. They said that the businessman then told one of the lawyers on the case that he ought to be careful, warning that he had backing from a prominent Iranian-backed armed group and support from Iraqi political parties.
“They decided it was too risky, and they stopped the case,” the Iraqi legal source said. Makhsusi denied that he threatened Starbucks’ lawyers.
Makhsusi said doing business in Iraq requires good relations with armed groups, the bulk of whom are part of the official state security apparatus.
“I have friendly relations with everyone in Iraq, including the armed factions,” he said. “I am a working man, I need these relationships to avoid problems, especially given that the situation in Iraq is not stable for business.”
He did not name particular armed groups he was in contact with. The AP contacted two groups known to have business dealings in the areas where the cafes are located, and both said they had not worked with Makhsusi.
Counterfeiters and pirates have stepped up activity in Iraq in the past five years, particularly as Gulf countries have responded to U.S. pressure and become more stringent regulators, said a U.S. official in the State Department, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk about the trends.
The broadcaster beIN has sent cease-and-desist letters to Earthlink, Iraq’s largest internet service provider. Earthlink offers subscribers a free streaming service, Shabakaty, which beIN alleges is composed almost entirely of pirated content. Iraq’s Communications Ministry, which partners with Earthlink, did not respond to a request for comment.
“It’s unheard of and completely outrageous,” said Cameron Andrews, director of beIN’s anti-piracy department. “It’s a huge market, so it’s a great deal of commercial loss.”
But the larger issue for beIN is the piracy that originates inside Iraq and bleeds into the rest of the region and the world, he said. After being copied by these companies, beIN’s channels are re-streamed on pirate IPTV services, and become accessible all over the region, according to beIN. The company’s investigation found that some Iraqi operators even distribute pirated content in the U.S.
At least two U.S. pharmaceutical companies have approached the U.S. Chamber of Commerce with complaints that their trademark was being used to sell counterfeit life-saving medication by Iraqi companies.
“I worry if regulatory lapses or infringements in IP protection are allowed, then U.S. companies will be deterred from doing business in Iraq and quality of care could be dangerously jeopardized for Iraqi patients,” said Lutes.
The companies did not accept to be named in this report or detail the types of medications.
Successive Iraqi governments promised to fight graft since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion reset Iraq’s political order, but none has taken serious steps to dismantle the vast internal machinery that enables state-sanctioned corruption.
Intellectual property has also historically been a low priority for Iraq. Limited bilateral talks with the U.S. over the issue have been on and off for the past five years.
The challenge is to find a “clear leader in the Iraqi government that is interested in IP issues as a way to attract foreign investment,” said a U.S. State Department official. “Until that person exists, it is difficult for us to engage.”
