₦airaland Forum

A Russian nuclear-powered attack submarine cruised within 200 miles of the East Coast recently in the latest sign Russia is continuing to flex its naval and aerial power against the United States, defense officials said.

The submarine was identified by its NATO designation as a Russian Seirra-2 class submarine believed to be based with Russia’s Northern Fleet. It was the first time that class of Russian submarine had been detected near a U.S. coast, said officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of anti-submarine warfare efforts.

One defense official said the submarine was believed to have been conducting anti-submarine warfare efforts against U.S. ballistic and cruise missile submarines based at Kings Bay, Georgia.

A second official said the submarine did not sail close to Kings Bay and also did not threaten a U.S. aircraft carrier strike group that was conducting exercises in the eastern Atlantic.

Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base, north of Jacksonville, Fla., is homeport for two guided missile submarines and six nuclear missile submarines. The submarines are known to be a target of Russian attack submarines.

Look at the world, rather than Ohio, and there is nothing remotely close about this race. If the population of the planet were allowed to vote on its most powerful political post, Obama would win by a landslide. According to a recent study by UPI polling, Obama has support running at an amazing 90 cent in France, and he is almost as huge throughout the rest of Europe. Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, and, yes, the UK – we are all apparently firmly in the Obama camp, with about 70 per cent support. The incumbent would romp home in Australia, China, Latin America, Canada, Mexico, and virtually the entire Middle East. He would win in 31 out of 32 countries, in fact, and the only nation to come out quite strongly in favour of Romney is – as you may perhaps have guessed – Israel.

The reasons for this are intuitively obvious. The world as a whole is leery of Republican foreign policy, because it is associated – rightly or wrongly – with a general willingness to bomb Middle Eastern countries. The yellow-bellied world has listened carefully to what Mitt Romney has to say about Iran, and decided – rightly or wrongly – that it sounds worrying. In Israel, of course, they have listened to Mr Romney’s talk of military action against Iran and think that it sounds very positive.

With one day to go in the U.S. presidential election, Obama's probability of winning has reached 86%, according to New York Times polling guru Nate Silver.

Betting markets Intrade and Betfair also show the President maintaining a strong (but less extreme) lead.

These assessments come despite the continued release of some polls that look good for Romney. The difference between the national polls and the betting markets, some polling experts say, is that the national polls focus on the popular vote, whereas Silver's odds focus on state-by-state polls aimed at determining the winner of the electoral college and, with it, the Presidency. Nate Silver's model also averages hundreds of polls.

Nate Silver is so confident in his polling model that he publicly offered to bet MSNBC host Joe Scarborough who would win the election. Scarborough, who maintains that the election is a "toss-up," has not accepted the challenge.

Let's go to the data...
First, Nate Silver now gives Obama 86% chance of reelection. That's up from a post-first-debate low of ~60% three weeks ago, and it's higher than the 80% previous all-time peak Obama hit just before the first debate.

According to this theory of presidential prognostication, when an American League team wins the World Series, a Republican will win the White House. If a National League team wins, it’s good news for the Democrats.

How accurate is this correlation? It was perfect from 1952 to 1976, and in the 18 elections covered by the Redskins Rule, the World Series Rule applied 13 times, or more than 72 percent.

And this year? The San Francisco Giants, a National League team, won the World Series, which means Obama should win reelection.

Which brings us to Redskins Rule 3.0...

After all, the Redskins Rule was only correct 17 of 18 times. What about that one year it was off? Let’s look at the replay: In 2004, the Redskins lost their final home game to the Green Bay Packers. According to the Redskins Rule, George W. Bush, the incumbent president, should have lost the White House to John Kerry. But he didn’t.

Steve Hirdt, the executive vice president of the Elias Sports Bureau, is the man credited with discovering the Redskins Rule. An expert statistician, Hirdt looked for an explanation for this anomaly—and found one. In 2000, Hirdt reasoned, Al Gore won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College, reversing the polarity of the rule. In other words, Hirdt argued: “Redskins Rule 2.0 established that when the popular vote winner does not win the election, the impact of the Redskins game on the subsequent presidential election gets flipped. So, with that, the Redskins’ loss in 2004 signaled that the incumbent would remain in the White House.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/04/redskins-rule-election-predictor-obama-s-going-to-lose-the-election.html


Redskins Rule Election Predictor: Obama’s Going to Lose the Election
by Michael Solomon Nov 4, 2012 8:35 PM EST

The Washington Redskins just lost their last home game before the presidential election—which means, according to a rule that’s predicted 17 of the last 18 White House winners, Romney will be the next president.

Forget all the polls. Ignore Nate Silver. Just trust the Redskins Rule: Mitt Romney will be the next president of the United States.

The "Redskins Rule" returned to order in 2008 when Washington lost 23-6 to Pittsburgh on election eve and the next day, with Bush in the White House, Mr Obama defeated Republican hopeful John McCain to claim the presidency.

The only person to break this rule since 1937 was George Bush in 2004.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9655139/US-election-could-Barack-Obama-fall-victim-to-the-Redskins-Rule.html

Under the so-called 'Redskins Rule', the candidate from the party that received the most votes for president in the prior election will win the presidency if the Redskins win their final home game before the election.

If the Redskins lose – as they did to the Carolina Panthers on Sunday – the candidate from the other party would claim election victory.

In this case, that would herald a triumph for Republican challenger Mr Romney over Democratic incumbent Mr Obama.
In 18 elections starting in 1940, the Redskins' result has accurately predicted which candidate will receive the most overall votes in the subsequent election.

In 17 of 18 US presidential elections, it has predicted the election winner, who is the candidate that collects the most electoral college delegates, which are assigned to states based upon population. At least 270 are needed to win.

The only time the method missed calling the presidency correctly was in 2004 when the Redskins lost 28-14 to Green Bay and Republican incumbent George W. Bush beat Democratic challenger John Kerry.

The only person to break this rule since 1937 was George Bush in 2004.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9655139/US-election-could-Barack-Obama-fall-victim-to-the-Redskins-Rule.html

When the simulation was planned, it appeared that the fall of 2012 would be a critical period, and therefore it was decided to examine the possible developments subsequent to an Israeli attack. This sense of an imminent decision has since abated somewhat, but after the US and Israeli elections, the question of an attack will undoubtedly resurface. It is therefore critical to continue to examine the potential ramifications of an attack.

The scenario of an Israeli attack immediately after the US elections does not reflect the position of the Institute for National Security Studies. The possibility of an Israeli attack at any time is complex and has been analyzed in many INSS publications. Overall, there are two opposing assessments of the implications of an Israeli attack.

One anticipates the outbreak of World War III, while
the other envisions containment and restraint, and presumes that in practice, Iran’s capabilities to ignite the Middle East are limited.
The war game that took place developed in the direction of containment and restraint, with the actors motivated mainly by rational considerations and critical interests.

"We declare our support for Hamas ... Israel's aggression has not scared us," the message quoted him as saying.

A visit by two Iranian warships to a Sudanese port last week highlighted military ties between the two countries, and prompted speculation the stay was related to the arms factory blast. Sudan denied this, saying the visit was "routine."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/04/us-sudan-hamas-israel-idUSBRE8A30AS20121104

(Reuters) - Sudan will not stop supporting Palestinian group Hamas despite Israeli "aggression," a senior Sudanese official said on Sunday, less than two weeks after Khartoum accused Israel of bombing an arms plant in the Sudanese capital.

Israel accuses Sudan of channeling weapons from Iran to Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, via Egypt's Sinai desert. Sudan denies the charge but often expresses sympathy for Hamas in its conflict with Israel.

A blast at Khartoum's Yarmouk arms factory last month drew new attention to the accusations after Sudan said an Israeli air strike was behind the explosion. Israel has not commented on the blast.

On Sunday, Sudan's Second Vice President al-Haj Adam Youssef said the incident would not stop Sudan supporting Hamas, whose officials have often visited Khartoum in the past, state radio reported in a text message sent to mobile phones.

“They think of themselves as a major regional power from the dawn of history and they are determined not to fall into the trap that, in their mind, in their judgment, the late Gaddafi fell into.”

The costs and risks of a preventive war would only mount, so the option of acting “now” must be retained, he stressed.

“It’s not a minor decision to contemplate an operation against Iran, but however complicated, dangerous – it probably carries some unintended consequences – an operation against Iran could be now – think of what it means to try it when Iran is already nuclear, several years down the stream,” he said.

An immediate crisis was avoided in the summer when Iran quietly chose to use over a third of its medium-enriched uranium for civilian purposes, delaying the moment when it could have built a nuclear bomb. Without this decision, Mr Barak told The Daily Telegraph, the situation would “probably” have peaked before the US presidential election.

In the event, Iran delayed the “moment of truth” by “eight to 10 months”, but Mr Barak predicted that sanctions and diplomacy would still fail to resolve the stand-off. If so, he said that Israel and its allies would probably face the decision over whether to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities in 2013.

Israel reserved the right to act alone, added Mr Barak, who stated bluntly that any “operation against Iran” would be less dangerous “now” than when the country had crossed the nuclear threshold.

Mr Barak, the most decorated soldier in Israeli history, became defence minister five years ago with one driving preoccupation. His central task – indeed what he views as his historic responsibility – is to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran from threatening Israel and casting a shadow over the world.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9643647/Israel-says-Iran-has-pulled-back-from-the-brink-of-nuclear-weapon-for-now.html

Israel says Iran has pulled back from the brink of nuclear weapon - for now

Iran has drawn back from its ambition to build a nuclear weapon but the respite is only temporary and Tehran will still have to be confronted by next summer, Ehud Barak, the Israeli defence minister, said on Tuesday.

JERUSALEM — An Israeli news program claims that Israel’s premier told his military to prepare for a strike on Iranian nuclear sites in 2010, but it was not ready.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak says in excerpts aired Sunday that “at the moment of truth, the answer given was that the ability didn’t exist.

”It quotes former Mossad chief Meir Dagan as telling Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the order was illegal, as it needed Cabinet approval.

It sounds like the Navy is looking at using small fleets of these vehicles to patrol the waters around its larger vessels to shield against swarms of suicide attackers using tiny speedboats laden with explosives — a longstanding vulnerability to US ships designed to pummel large ships, aircraft, and inland targets from far away using missiles, torpedoes and large caliber cannons.

How does USV PEM work? During last week's test, a crew in a control station on shore piloted the boat — similar to the way UAVs are controlled — and used its night vision and infrared cameras to find and kill targets using the missiles or a remotely controlled .50 caliber heavy machine gun that's mounted on board. It's easy to imagine that in the future, these control stations could install aboard ships being protected by the USV PEM technology.

"During the demonstration, they engaged stationary and moving targets out to 3.5km," or just over two miles, says the Navy's press release.

The project is part of a joint-US-Israeli collaboration run out of the US Navy's sea systems command's Special Warfare Program Office. The same shop is responsible for, among other things, fielding a number of tiny submarines used to listen for enemy submarines, deliver Navy SEALS and other secret squirrel activities.

Until the Navy can field these killer roboboats, it will be mounting remotely controlled chain guns aboard its ships and possibly lasers and Griffin missiles to defend against swarm attacks.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/now-us-navy-is-arming-drone-boats-8280128.html


While the US Air Force's drones have been firing all sorts of air-to-surface missiles and bombs for roughly a decade now, the Navy took a big step toward getting in on the action last week when it launched six Israeli-made Spike missiles from an unmanned 36-foot motorboat.

The Navy pretty much admits that the project — called the unmanned surface vehicle precision engagement module (USV PEM) — is aimed at defeating threats that are straight out of Iran's war plans for the Persian Gulf region.

Mr Barak said in London this week that Iran appears to have pulled back from proceeding apace to acquire nuclear weapons. But he reiterated Israel's determination to carry out a military strike if it felt this was necessary.

The Ministry of Defence said in a statement: "The UK regularly deploys Typhoons to UAE as part of our routine exercise programme and to demonstrate our military commitment to UAE and the security of the region. We have a mutual interest with our GCC [Gulf] partners in ensuring peace and stability in the region."

The MoD added: "These deployments are not due to our concerns over Iran's nuclear programme. As we continue to make clear, the Government does not believe military action against Iran is the right course of action at this time"

The British Government has urged Israel to exercise restraint over Iran, pointing out that sanctions are having a crippling effect on the Iranian economy – with the fallout from the punitive measures making the government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad increasingly unpopular.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britain-meets-gulf-allies-over-growing-tensions-in-iran-8278101.html

The Government is expected to hold discussions with senior officials in the Gulf region about the threat posed by Iran to Middle Eastern oil supplies.

Leaders in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are increasingly concerned in case there are attempts by the Iranians to block the Strait of Hormuz, the waterway through which 40 per cent of the world's oil supplies are shipped.

Britain already has mine-sweeping Royal Navy vessels in the Gulf region, and The Independent revealed yesterday that Prime Minister David Cameron is considering stationing warplanes in the Persian Gulf amid rising tension in the region.

It is understood that the Government is keen to reassure its Gulf allies that they would have Britain's full diplomatic and military backing should tensions with Iran escalate further.

While Israel’s right-wing politicians consolidate, the military makes no effort to conceal its active preparations for combat. Military exercise follows military exercise. Some experts even concede that the al-Hartum factory strike, widely attributed in the press to Israel, could have been a rehearsal of sorts.

Iranians are not sleeping through the crisis either; in early October they initiated the launch into Israel’s airspace of the Iranian drone aircraft Hesballoy. On October 29 a large-scale military exercise began in the region along the Iraqi border.

Some political experts claim there will be a risk that a new “big wave” in the Middle East could reach its peak after the American presidential elections, and that the region might plummet into the abyss. They say that Israel is ready to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.

At the same time the Islamic Republic, whose economy is on the verge of collapse due to sanctions, is also prepared to stand up to Israel.

So far, uncertainty in the US presidential race has served as a containment factor. But what will happen after the elections?

Irina Fedorova, a specialist in Iranian-US relations, delivers a “partly cloudy” forecast for the near future; “Before the Inauguration on January 20 it is hardly possible to anticipate any sudden political moves from the US president, who will be elected on November 6. The main task of the new, or old, president with the US political elite will be the formation of a new government. That is why foreign policy issues will not take precedence in that period.

“The issue that will influence the US president’s opinion on the possibility of a military strike against Iran will be the crisis in Syria, including the problem of Bashar al-Assad. Until those problems are resolved, the US president’s attention will be focused on Syria.”

The Israeli factor cannot be ignored either: the current situation in Israel provides much food for thought. The Knesset is dissolved and elections are set for January 22, the day after the new president of the USA is inaugurated. There are two politicians who are ready for a war against Iran; Benjamin Netanyahu from Likud and Avigdor Lieberman of Israel is Our Home [Yisrael Beiteinu], and there is a very real possibility that one of them will win.

Israeli warplanes fly over Golan as Hizballah fighters pour into Syria
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report November 4, 2012, 9:23 PM (GMT+02:00) Tags:  Syria   Hizballah   Golan   Gen. Benni Gantz   Israel Air Force 

Chinese Katyushas used by Hizballah against Syrian rebels
Israeli warplanes flew over the divided Golan Sunday, Nov. 4, in a show of strength and as a deterrent against the Syrian civil war seeping across the border, DEBKAfile’s military and Western intelligence sources report.  

In Paris, President Francois Hollande vowed Sunday that “France would oppose with all its strength any bid to destabilize Lebanon. Lebanon must be protected.”

He spoke regardless of the 5,000 Lebanese Shiite Hizballah fighters who have poured into Syria from their Beqaa Valley stronghold of al-Harmel to fight Bashar Assad’s war. Our sources reveal that these Lebanese fighters have now advanced 50-60 kilometers deep into southwestern Syria, up to the outskirts of the embattled town of Homs.
On the Golan, further to the east, Israel’s chief of staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz visited the IDF contingent stationed there to reinforce the message broadcast by the IAF.

Hizballah is now openly flaunting the presence of its regular troops in Syria. They are armed with heavy artillery and Chinese WS-1 multiple-launch rocket systems made in Iran. These “Katyushas,” shoot 302mm rockets at targets up to 100 kilometers away and can operate in the rugged mountain terrain of Lebanon, Syria and Israel and in harsh weather conditions, including snow.

Hizballah fighters are reported by our sources to have already used this weapon with deadly effect in a battle with Syrian rebels over the town of Quseir opposite the Lebanese Beqaa Valley. It ended in Hizbalah’s capture of the town.

DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources report that all the US, British and French forces that might be needed for military action are already in place in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf, while Israel’s Defense Forces are on standby. They are awaiting orders to go forward after first being told which way to jump – Syria or Iran.

US strength – air, naval and strike ground units – are concentrated on the Red Sea Socotra Island and Oman's Masirah Island in the Persian Gulf. Since mid-October, Washington has maintained supplementary special operations and anti-air units in Turkey, Jordan and Israel.

Britain and France have massed naval, air and special operations forces in the big naval base of Port Zayed and the Al Dhafra air facility – both in the United Arab Emirates. A French fighter-bomber squadron is also parked at the Tabuk air base in Saudi Arabia.

Military strategists regard the initial phases of the Iran-Israeli confrontation as already being in motion, manifested by an Iranian stealth drone which overflew Israel on Oct. 6 and Israel’s raid on Oct. 24 of the Sudanese factory manufacturing and storing Iranian missiles.

They are predicting that such shadow-sparring exercises between Tehran and Jerusalem may evolve next month into more direct clashes between Israel, Iran and Hizballah - more probably isolated incidents related to Iran’s Middle East deployments, especially in Syria and Lebanon, rather than a full-blown eruption of hostilities all at once.

http://debka.com/article/22495/London-Paris-Jerusalem-line-up-for-post-US-vote-action-on-Syria-Iran-


The UK , France and Israel showed signs this week of lining up for military action with regard to Syria and Iran as soon as America’s presidential election was out of the way Tuesday, Nov. 6, DEBKAfile’s military sources report. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu spent two days (Oct. 31-Nov. 1) talking to President Francois Holland. As the Defense Minister Ehud Barak landed in London the next day, Prime Minister David Cameron was reported on standby for the dispatch of RAF fighter-bombers to the Persian Gulf.

Barak flew to London after US Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had spent several days in Israel, no doubt tying up the last ends of US-Israeli cooperation for potential action.

Although America’s top military chief can’t tell who will
be his next commander-in-chief - Barack Obama for another four years or the Republican Mitt Romney - he is duty-bound to have US forces in the Middle East ready for any contingency.
Although none has admitted as much, all the parties to these consultations did their best this week to chart alternative scenarios applicable to either winner.

The consensus was that whether it is Obama or Romney, the two flaming Middle East crises can no longer remain subject to the policy immobility dictated by the presidential campaign – certainly not the Syrian bloodbath.

But the presence of thousands of Iranian and Hizballah combatants fighting for Bashar Assad on the battlefields of Syria oblige Western policy architects to reckon with reactions from Tehran and its Lebanese surrogate, HIzballah, as well as their Palestinian allies in the Gaza Strip.

I had seen Israel’s perspective on a possible attack and now wanted an Iranian view, so I caught a flight to Istanbul to put the game’s results to Hossein Mousavian, a former member of Iran’s nuclear negotiating team. He believed the game was deeply flawed.

Dismissing the limited nature of Iran’s response, Mousavian argued that in reality Iran would respond ‘by all means’, employing the total power of its armed forces to draw Israel into a long-term war. Perhaps, more importantly, Mousavian argued that Iran would see the US as complicit.

Iranians, he said, are convinced that Israel is too small to attack Iran unilaterally Iran. "They see Israeli as just a baby,” he said. “One that would never act without US assistance.”
The attack would also have huge regional consequences, he continued. Most obviously, Iran would use its status as the symbol of resistance against Israel in the Middle East to stoke the high levels of anti-Americanism that already exist there.

Even groups like Al Qaeda, he argued, who are Iran’s enemies, would use “inflamed Muslim sentiment to launch attacks at American citizens across the world and on US soldiers on the many American bases in the region.”

At the end of our interview, he leaned forward, took my arm and looked me right in the eyes. He recalled the Israeli strikes on an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 and a Syrian reactor in 2007.
“This is the big mistake that people make,” he told me. “To think if Israel attacks Iran, like it attacked Iraq and Syria, the Iranians would not retaliate.
"The nation is one hundred percent different. The whole region would be engulfed.”