Officials: FBI Probes Possible ISIS-Inspired Threat

(CNN)The FBI is investigating a possible ISIS-inspired terrorist threat in the United States, law enforcement officials said Saturday.

The investigation originated from intercepted chatter and other intelligence information that led officials to believe a possible plot could be in the works, the officials said.

No arrests have been made. It's not clear whether the threat is real or aspirational.

The exact nature of the threat couldn't be learned. One official said it focused on parts of California where officials stepped up security, a U.S. official said.

The Transportation Security Administration alerted local law enforcement agencies that are responsible for external security around airports, but officials said the possible threat is not necessarily aviation-related.

Some cities around the United States have increased their security as a precaution.

A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson declined Saturday to talk about specifics, but spoke about security measures in general.

"Over the last few months, we have made a number of security adjustments, including enhanced screening at select overseas airports and increasing random searches of passengers and carry-on luggage on flights inbound to the U.S., reflecting an evolving threat picture," the spokesman said.

He said the DHS added layers of security to the Electronic System for Travel Authorization. ETSA is an online application system to screen travelers before they are allow to board an airplane or ship bound for the United States.

In February, a more visible law enforcement presence was put in place at federal facilities, he said.

"The department has conducted significant outreach efforts ... with state and local law enforcement partners regarding these trends and engaging in a series of meetings and events with local community leaders across the country to counter violent extremism," he said.[source]

Russian Hackers Read Obama’s Unclassified Emails, Officials Say

 

Emails that President Obama sent and received were breached last year, senior officials said. Credit Zach Gibson/The New York Times

By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT and DAVID E. SANGERAPRIL 25, 2015

WASHINGTON — Some of President Obama’s email correspondence was swept up by Russian hackers last year in a breach of the White House’s unclassified computer system that was far more intrusive and worrisome than has been publicly acknowledged, according to senior American officials briefed on the investigation.

The hackers, who also got deeply into the State Department’s unclassified system, do not appear to have penetrated closely guarded servers that control the message traffic from Mr. Obama’s BlackBerry, which he or an aide carries constantly.

But they obtained access to the email archives of people inside the White House, and perhaps some outside, with whom Mr. Obama regularly communicated. From those accounts, they reached emails that the president had sent and received, according to officials briefed on the investigation.

White House officials said that no classified networks had been compromised, and that the hackers had collected no classified information. Many senior officials have two computers in their offices, one operating on a highly secure classified network and another connected to the outside world for unclassified communications.

But officials have conceded that the unclassified system routinely contains much information that is considered highly sensitive: schedules, email exchanges with ambassadors and diplomats, discussions of pending personnel moves and legislation, and, inevitably, some debate about policy.

Officials did not disclose the number of Mr. Obama’s emails that were harvested by hackers, nor the sensitivity of their content. The president’s email account itself does not appear to have been hacked. Aides say that most of Mr. Obama’s classified briefings — such as the morning Presidential Daily Brief — are delivered orally or on paper (sometimes supplemented by an iPad system connected to classified networks) and that they are usually confined to the Oval Office or the Situation Room.

Still, the fact that Mr. Obama’s communications were among those hit by the hackers — who are presumed to be linked to the Russian government, if not working for it — has been one of the most closely held findings of the inquiry. Senior White House officials have known for months about the depth of the intrusion.

Advertisement

“This has been one of the most sophisticated actors we’ve seen,” said one senior American official briefed on the investigation.

Others confirmed that the White House intrusion was viewed as so serious that officials met on a nearly daily basis for several weeks after it was discovered. “It’s the Russian angle to this that’s particularly worrisome,” another senior official said.

While Chinese hacking groups are known for sweeping up vast amounts of commercial and design information, the best Russian hackers tend to hide their tracks better and focus on specific, often political targets. And the hacking happened at a moment of renewed tension with Russia — over its annexation of Crimea, the presence of its forces in Ukraine and its renewed military patrols in Europe, reminiscent of the Cold War.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

Inside the White House, the intrusion has raised a new debate about whether it is possible to protect a president’s electronic presence, especially when it reaches out from behind the presumably secure firewalls of the executive branch.

Mr. Obama is no stranger to computer-network attacks: His 2008 campaign was hit by Chinese hackers. Nonetheless, he has long been a frequent user of email, and publicly fought the Secret Service in 2009 to retain his BlackBerry, a topic he has joked about in public. He was issued a special smartphone, and the list of those he can exchange emails with is highly restricted.

When asked about the investigation’s findings, the spokeswoman for the National Security Council, Bernadette Meehan, said, “We’ll decline to comment.” The White House has also declined to provide any explanations about how the breach was handled, though the State Department has been more candid about what kind of systems were hit and what it has done since to improve security. A spokesman for the F.B.I. declined to comment.

Officials who discussed the investigation spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the delicate nature of the hacking. While the White House has refused to identify the nationality of the hackers, others familiar with the investigation said that in both the White House and State Department cases, all signs pointed to Russians.

On Thursday, Secretary of Defense Ashton B. Carter revealed for the first time that Russian hackers had attacked the Pentagon’s unclassified systems, but said they had been identified and “kicked off.” Defense Department officials declined to say if the signatures of the attacks on the Pentagon appeared related to the White House and State Department attacks.

The discovery of the hacking in October led to a partial shutdown of the White House email system. The hackers appear to have been evicted from the White House systems by the end of October. But they continued to plague the State Department, whose system is much more far-flung. The disruptions were so severe that during the Iranian nuclear negotiations in Vienna in November, officials needed to distribute personal email accounts, to one another and to some reporters, to maintain contact.

Earlier this month, officials at the White House said that the hacking had not damaged its systems and that, while elements had been shut down to mitigate the effects of the attack, everything had been restored.

One of the curiosities of the White House and State Department attacks is that the administration, which recently has been looking to name and punish state and nonstate hackers in an effort to deter attacks, has refused to reveal its conclusions about who was responsible for this complex and artful intrusion into the government. That is in sharp contrast to Mr. Obama’s decision, after considerable internal debate in December, to name North Korea for ordering the attack on Sony Pictures Entertainment, and to the director of national intelligence’s decision to name Iranian hackers as the source of a destructive attack on the Sands Casino.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story

Continue reading the main story

This month, after CNN reported that hackers had gained access to sensitive areas of the White House computer network, including sections that contained the president’s schedule, the White House spokesman, Josh Earnest, said the administration had not publicly named who was behind the hack because federal investigators had concluded that “it’s not in our best interests.”

By contrast, in the North Korea case, he said, investigators concluded that “we’re more likely to be successful in terms of holding them accountable by naming them publicly.”

But the breach of the president’s emails appeared to be a major factor in the government secrecy. “All of this is very tightly held,” one senior American official said, adding that the content of what had been breached was being kept secret to avoid tipping off the Russians about what had been learned from the investigation.

Mr. Obama’s friends and associates say that he is a committed user of his BlackBerry, but that he is careful when emailing outside the White House system.

“The frequency has dropped off in the last six months or so,” one of his close associates said, though this person added that he did not know if the drop was related to the hacking.

Mr. Obama is known to send emails to aides late at night from his residence, providing them with his feedback on speeches or, at times, entirely new drafts. Others say he has emailed on topics as diverse as his golf game and the struggle with Congress over the Iranian nuclear negotiations.

George W. Bush gave up emailing for the course of his presidency and did not carry a smartphone. But after Mr. Bush left office, his sister’s email account was hacked, and several photos — including some of his paintings — were made public.

The White House is bombarded with cyberattacks daily, not only from Russia and China. Most are easily deflected.

The White House, the State Department, the Pentagon and intelligence agencies put their most classified material into a system called Jwics, for Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System. That is where top-secret and “secret compartmentalized information” traverses within the government, to officials cleared for it — and it includes imagery, data and graphics. There is no evidence, senior officials said, that this hacking pierced it. [SOURCE]

 

Mapping Chaos in Yemen

Most of Yemen’s 24 million people live in the west of the country (area in box).

By SARAH ALMUKHTAR, JOE BURGESS, K.K. REBECCA LAI, SERGIO PEÇANHA and JEREMY WHITE Updated April 10, 2015
 

In late March, Saudi-led forces began an offensive in Yemen against the Houthi rebel group, which has taken over large portions of the country. Though it is the poorest country in the Middle East, Yemen is of outsize importance to crucial players like Saudi Arabia, Iran and the United States. Related Article

The Saudi-led Offensive

The Saudi-led airstrikes crippled Yemen’s Houthi-controlled air force, but have so far failed to halt Houthi expansion on the ground. Military operations have severely limited humanitarian assistance in Yemen, a nation already burdened with hundreds of thousands of refugees. “The country seems to be on the verge of total collapse,” said Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights.

Confirmed Saudi-led airstrikes, March 26 to April 1



The Houthis’ Drive South

Originally from Saada Province, the Houthis practice a variant of Shiite Islam and receive support from Iran. In January, the Houthis overran the capital, Sana, forcing president Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi to resign. Since then, they have continued pushing south, and this week began pressing on the port of Aden, where Mr. Hadi and forces still allied with him had taken refuge.

Houthis control or have influence [darker regions]
Houthis are able to operate [lighter regions]

 

Years of American Involvement

Yemen is home to one of Al Qaeda’s most active branches, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Since 2009, the United States has carried out at least 100 airstrikes in Yemen, according to an analysis by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which has done a detailed analysis of strikes there.

Al Qaeda is not the only terrorist group operating in Yemen. Last week, the Islamic State claimed responsibility for bombings at two Shiite mosques in Sana that killed more than 135 people. The presence of ISIS could drive Yemen into a “full-blown sectarian conflict,” said Katherine Zimmerman, an analyst for the American Enterprise Institute. “What ISIS wants to do is to recreate in Yemen the sectarian war its predecessor, Al Qaeda in Iraq, stoked there.”

Historical Divisions

South Yemen was a separate country until 1990. The northwest, an area historically called Yemen, is mostly Shiite. The southeast, known as Hadramawat, is home to a mostly Sunni population. “Yemen and the Hadramawat have seldom been part of the same political entity in the past and have maintained separate identities for a long time,” said Michael Izady, a historian and cultural geographer who has mapped ethnicity and religion for Columbia University.

 [Source]

Obama Apologizes After Drone Kills American and Italian Held by Al Qaeda

Warren Weinstein: Kidnapped Government Contractor Asks U.S. To Negotiate With Al Qaeda For His Release

WASHINGTON — An American aid worker and another man held hostage by Al Qaeda were killed in an American drone strike in Pakistan in January, government officials disclosed on Thursday, underscoring the perils of a largely invisible, long-distance war waged through video screens, joysticks and sometimes incomplete intelligence.

Intending to wipe out a compound linked to the terrorist group, the Central Intelligence Agency authorized the attack with no idea that the hostages were being held there despite hundreds of hours of surveillance, the officials said. Even afterward, they said, the agency did not realize at first that it had killed an American it had long sought to rescue, with the wrenching news becoming clear over time.

The violent death of an American at the hands of his own government proved a searing moment in a drone war that has come to define the nation’s battle with Al Qaeda, especially since President Obama took office. Visibly upset, Mr. Obama came to the White House briefing room shortly after his staff issued a written statement announcing the deaths to make a rare personal apology.

“As president and as commander in chief, I take full responsibility for all our counterterrorism operations,” the grim-faced president told reporters as television cameras broadcast his words. “I profoundly regret what happened,” he added. “On behalf of the United States government, I offer our deepest apologies to the families.”

The government is conducting two reviews of the drone strike to determine what went wrong, and the episode could force a broader rethinking of Mr. Obama’s approach to fighting Al Qaeda. Under the president’s policy, drone strikes are to be authorized only when it can be concluded to a “near certainty” that there will not be civilian casualties.

The two hostages, Warren Weinstein, an American kidnapped in 2011, and Giovanni Lo Porto, an Italian seized in 2012, were killed Jan. 15 in a remote area in Pakistan known as a Qaeda sanctuary, officials said. An American affiliated with Al Qaeda, Ahmed Farouq, was killed in the same strike. Another American member of Al Qaeda, Adam Gadahn, was killed in a separate strike in the same region Jan. 19, according to the officials.

Just as the C.I.A. did not know the hostages were present, it also did not know that the American Qaeda members were at the strike targets and they had not been specifically targeted, officials said. Mr. Farouq was the deputy head of Al Qaeda’s relatively new branch in India and was not publicly identified as an American until Thursday. Mr. Gadahn was better known as a Qaeda spokesman.

Officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence operations said it took weeks to piece together what happened.

Intelligence agencies picked up information soon after the January strikes that Mr. Weinstein was dead, but they were not immediately clear how. They pursued theories that he could have died in an American strike, during a Pakistani military operation or at the hands of his captors.

Only after pulling together disparate clues did they link the deaths of Mr. Weinstein and Mr. Lo Porto to the January drone strike, the officials said, and only last week did intelligence officials report to Mr. Obama that they had what they called the highest level of confidence. Mr. Obama ordered that the episode be declassified, but he said nothing to Prime Minister Matteo Renzi of Italy when he visited the White House last Friday.

Instead, after preparations had been made, Mr. Obama called Mr. Renzi on Wednesday to inform him what had happened and also called Mr. Weinstein’s wife, Elaine Weinstein. Aides described it as one of the most painful moments of his presidency. “It’s like your worst fears realized,” said one aide, who asked not to be named describing the president’s reaction. “He took it pretty hard.”

In a written statement, Ms. Weinstein said the family was “devastated” by the news and added that it looked forward to learning more about what happened.

But she said his captors bore responsibility. “The cowardly actions of those who took Warren captive and ultimately to the place and time of his death are not in keeping with Islam, and they will have to face their God to answer for their actions,” she said.

The issue of killing Americans through drone strikes has been an acutely delicate one for Mr. Obama, who two years ago announced in a speech at the National Defense University that he was beginning to scale back the aerial campaign and restrict it to cases of genuine threat to the United States and its people.

His administration has concluded that the federal government has the right to use deadly force against Americans tied to Al Qaeda if capture is not feasible. In the case of the two Qaeda figures killed in January, no legal determination would have been needed because it was not known that they were at the bombed sites.

Some members of Congress criticized the administration or called for more oversight. “Warren Weinstein did not have to die,” said Representative Duncan Hunter, Republican of California. “His death is further evidence of the failures in communication and coordination between government agencies tasked with recovering Americans in captivity — and the fact that he’s dead, as a result, is absolutely tragic.”

Human rights groups that have criticized the Obama administration’s aggressive use of drone strikes said the deaths of the hostages underscored the flaws in the policy. “Today’s demonstration of transparency is a welcome step, but apology and redress should be available for all civilians killed in U.S. drone strikes, not just Americans and Europeans,” said Naureen Shah, the director of Amnesty International USA’s program on security and human rights.

Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the fact that the government did not know that the hostages or American Qaeda figures were present showed the problems in the drone war. “These and other recent strikes in which civilians were killed make clear that there is a significant gap between the relatively stringent standards the government says it’s using and the standards that are actually being used,” he said.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, rejected the criticism, saying there was no evidence that the strikes deviated from normal practice, and he added that the families would receive financial compensation. Mr. Obama said a full review would identify any changes that should be made to avoid similar errors. “We will do our utmost to ensure it is not repeated,” Mr. Obama said.

Advertisement

Mr. Obama did not sign off on this specific strike, aides said, because he has authorized the C.I.A. and military to carry out drone attacks without further consultation if they fit certain criteria. Mr. Obama said the operation was conducted “fully consistent with the guidelines” for such missions. “It is a cruel and bitter truth that in the fog of war generally, and our fight against terrorists specifically, mistakes, sometimes deadly mistakes, can occur,” he said.

Even though Mr. Obama announced that the two counterterrorism operations had been declassified, there were limits to the White House’s transparency. Mr. Obama did not say that the C.I.A. had carried out the strikes, or even that they involved drones, nor did he say that they occurred in Pakistan.

Under the terms of a secret arrangement brokered in 2004, the C.I.A. was allowed to conduct lethal strikes inside the tribal areas of Pakistan, but neither the American nor the Pakistani government could acknowledge their existence. The pace of drone operations in Pakistan has declined sharply in recent years. But even as the American military withdraws from Afghanistan, the C.I.A. has pushed to keep certain bases in that country open so operatives can run missions across the border to gather intelligence for drone strikes.

Mr. Weinstein, 73, a resident of Rockville, Md., was a business development expert working on contract for the United States Agency for International Development when he was kidnapped in August 2011 in Lahore, Pakistan, just four days before he was scheduled to return to his family in the United States. Al Qaeda released videos of him, and news media reports from as recently as last week indicated that he was still assumed to be alive.

Mr. Lo Porto studied at London Metropolitan University and worked on aid projects in the Central African Republic and Haiti before traveling to Pakistan to help rebuild a flood-ravaged area. Shortly after arriving in January 2012, he was abducted.

Mr. Renzi, in Brussels for a European meeting, told reporters the kidnappers were to blame for the deaths. “Two hostages were in the hands of a terrorist organization that put their lives at risk,” he said.

But Giacomo Stucchi, a Northern League lawmaker, said the American government owed Italy an explanation. He said Italy knew nothing about a strike until now. “Was it against someone or against a generic target?” he asked in a telephone interview. “We want to know.”

Mr. Farouq had been named deputy leader of Al Qaeda’s South Asia faction, known as Al Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent. An Al Qaeda spokesman said in Pakistan in a statement released this month that Mr. Farouq had been killed in a drone strike in Shawal, a thickly forested mountainous valley that spans the border between North Waziristan and South Waziristan tribal districts.

Mr. Gadahn, who was killed separately, was one of the better known Americans tied to Al Qaeda. He grew up in Southern California, converted to Islam at 17 and was said to have left the United States in the late 1990s when he was questioning his family’s religious beliefs and the American political system.

He was indicted on treason charges in 2006 for appearing in Qaeda propaganda videos calling for attacks on United States targets, the first American charged with that in more than a half century. He filmed a 2011 video urging Muslims in the West to carry out terrorist strikes, specifically citing loopholes in American gun laws.

“You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card,” he said in the video. “So what are you waiting for?”[source]

Even the NYT Editorial Board Admits That Obama's "Successful" Yemen Is Really "The Catastrophe In Yemen"

The aftermath of an explosion in Sana, Yemen, on Monday. Credit Yahya Arhab/European Pressphoto Agency.

Saudi Arabia’s military intervention in Yemen’s civil war was always a risky gamble. Now there’s evidence showing just how damaging four weeks of airstrikes have been: more than 1,000 civilians killed, more than 4,000 wounded, and 150,000 displaced. Meanwhile, the fighting and a Saudi-led blockade have deprived Yemenis of food, fuel, water and medicines, causing what a Red Cross official called a humanitarian catastrophe. Yemen has long been a weak state, and with each day it draws closer to collapse.

The Saudis claim the airstrikes have punished the Houthi rebels, who have tried to take over Yemen, by wiping out many of their weapons and military installations around the country. But the rebels, who are supported by Shiite Iran, are still on the march. The Saudis, who lead a coalition of Sunni Arab nations, are nowhere near to restoring the Yemeni president, Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi. Mr. Hadi was ousted by the Houthis in January and driven into exile in Saudi Arabia.

The Obama administration has helped the Saudis with intelligence and tactical advice and by deploying warships off the Yemeni coast. Now it is wisely urging them to end the bombing. The White House seems to have realized that the Saudis appear to have no credible strategy for achieving their political goals, or even managing their intervention. On Tuesday, they declared a halt to most military operations, only to resume bombing hours later. More airstrikes followed on Thursday as warplanes from the coalition struck Houthi targets around the Yemeni cities of Aden and Ibb.

The Sunnis constitute a majority in Yemen. Saudi Arabia and other Sunni countries intervened because they feared that a Houthi takeover would extend the influence of Iran, which also has footholds in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. That fear appears to be exaggerated in Yemen. Nevertheless, the intervention has threatened to turn what has been a civil war between competing branches of Islam into a wider regional struggle involving Iran.

Saudi Arabia has been further unnerved by the possibility of a nuclear deal involving the United States, other major powers and Iran. Such a deal, it fears, would help make Iran the dominant regional power and spur reconciliation with the United States, thus putting Saudi Arabia’s security relationship with Washington in jeopardy. This has left American policy makers with a formidable diplomatic challenge: reassuring the Sunni nations of continued support while trying to see if Iran, an adversary since 1979, could be nudged into a more productive relationship.

The deployment of the U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt aircraft carrier and other warships to the Arabian Sea this week was intended as proof of that reassurance. American officials said they were prepared to intercept a nine-ship Iranian convoy headed for Yemen and believed to be carrying weapons for the rebels. Fortunately, the Iranian vessels turned around, avoiding a possible confrontation.

The fighting needs to end, relief supplies need to be delivered quickly and a political dialogue needs to be restarted. Before the outbreak of the Houthi offensive, a United Nations-led diplomatic initiative had made some progress, but the Security Council never gave it enough support and attention. And now, the United Nations official who led the negotiations, Jamal Benomar, a Moroccan diplomat, has resigned and returned to New York.

Finding a political solution will not be easy; it may not even be possible. For one thing, it will require Saudi Arabia to accept the Houthis, an indigenous Yemeni group, as part of the governing power structure. But such a solution is the only hope for bringing some stability to the country and refocusing international and Yemeni resources on Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the most lethal Al Qaeda affiliate, which is the real beneficiary of the widening chaos. [source]

US Aircraft Carrier Enters Persian Gulf As Iranian Convoy Moves Away From Yemen

Yemeni children hold rifles at a tribal gathering organised by the Shiite Huthi movement in Sanaa.

Washington (CNN)  The USS Theodore Roosevelt entered the Persian Gulf Saturday to conduct what a U.S. defense official called routine maritime security operations, days after U.S. warships were deployed to the Yemeni coast to counter an Iranian convoy.

Multiple U.S. officials have said the American ships had been deployed to the region to dissuade the Iranian convoy, which included armed ships, from docking in Yemen, where Iran has been supporting and arming the Houthi rebellion.

The Iranian ships turned away from Yemen on Thursday, and were still sailing northeast toward Iran on Saturday, a U.S. defense official said. They were still in international waters off the coast of Yemen on Saturday, the official said, adding that the convoy was moving slowly and wasn't expected to reach the Strait of Hormuz for several days.

On Friday, Pentagon spokesman Col. Steve Warren told reporters that there had been no communication between Iranian and U.S. forces at any point.

READ: Warships near Yemen create 'options' for dealing with Iranian vessels, U.S. says

"I think it's fair to say that this appears to be a de-escalation of some of the tensions that were being discussed earlier in the week," Warren said.

Although U.S. administration spokesmen had downplayed the link between the U.S. warships and the Iranian convoy, President Barack Obama said earlier this week that the U.S. was sending "very direct messages" warning Iran against attempts to arm the Houthis.

U.S. officials had stressed this week that Iranian attempts to arm Houthi rebels would be a violation of multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions, and officials have been urging the Iranians to keep away from the turbulent Gulf nation.

READ: What's going on in the Yemen conflict

The U.S. has walked a fine line as it looks to quell the situation in Yemen. It has sought to reassure Gulf allies like Saudi Arabia that are engaged in a proxy war with Iran in Yemen -- allies that support the deposed Yemeni government that had been cooperating with the U.S. in fighting an al Qaeda affiliate. But it is also looking to keep tensions with Iran to a minimum as American diplomats work to secure a final deal on Iran's nuclear program.

Those negotiations got underway again earlier this week with diplomats from the U.S., five other world powers and Iran working to seal a final accord to curb Iran's nuclear program and provide Tehran sanctions relief by the June deadline for a deal.[source]

Mysterious X-37B Military Space Plane to Fly Again Next Month

Artist's illustration of the U.S. Air Force's X-37B space plane in orbit. The mysterious spacecraft is scheduled to launch on its fourth mission on May 20, 2015.
Credit: NASA Marshall Space Flight Center
The United States Air Force's X-37B space plane will launch on its fourth mystery mission next month.
The unmanned X-37B space plane, which looks like a miniature version of NASA's now-retired space shuttle orbiter, is scheduled to blast off atop a United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket from Florida's Cape Canaveral Air Force Station on May 20.
"We are excited about our fourth X-37B mission," Randy Walden, director of the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office, said in a statement. "With the demonstrated success of the first three missions, we’re able to shift our focus from initial checkouts of the vehicle to testing of experimental payloads." [See photos of the X-37B's third mission]
The X-37B's payloads and specific activities are classified, so it's unclear exactly what the spacecraft does while zipping around the Earth. But Air Force officials have revealed a few clues about the upcoming mission.
"The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) and the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office (AFRCO) are investigating an experimental propulsion system on the X-37B on Mission 4," Capt. Chris Hoyler, an Air Force spokesman, told Space.com via email.
"AFRCO will also host a number of advance materials onboard the X-37B for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to study the durability of various materials in the space environment," Hoyler added.
The Air Force owns two X-37B space planes, both of which were built by Boeing's Phantom Works division. The solar-powered spacecraft are about 29 feet long by 9.5 feet tall (8.8 by 2.9 meters), with a wingspan of 15 feet (4.6 m) and a payload bay the size of a pickup-truck bed. The X-37B launches vertically atop a rocket and lands horizontally on a runway, like the space shuttle did.
One of the two X-37B vehicles flew the program's first and third missions, which were known as OTV-1 and OTV-3, respectively. ("OTV" is short for "Orbital Test Vehicle.") The other spacecraft flew OTV-2. Air Force officials have not revealed which space plane will be going to orbit on the upcoming mission.
OTV-1 launched in April 2010 and landed in December of that year, staying in orbit for 225 days. OTV-2 blasted off in March 2011 and circled Earth for 469 days, coming down in June 2012. OTV-3 launched in December 2012 and stayed aloft for a record-breaking 675 days, finally landing in October 2014.

A recovery team processes the U.S. Air Force's X-37B space plane after the robotic spacecraft's successful landing at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California on Oct. 17, 2014. The touchdown marked the end of the X-37B’s third space mission.
Credit: Boeing

If Air Force officials know how long OTV-4 is going to last, they're not saying.
"The X-37B is designed for an on-orbit duration of 270 days," Hoyler said. "Longer missions have been demonstrated. As with previous missions, the actual duration will depend on test objectives, on-orbit vehicle performance and conditions at the landing facility."
The secrecy surrounding the X-37B and its payloads has fueled speculation in some quarters that the vehicle could be a space weapon of some sort. But Air Force officials have repeatedly refuted that notion.
"The primary objectives of the X-37B are twofold: reusable spacecraft technologies for America's future in space, and operating experiments which can be returned to, and examined, on Earth," Air Force officials wrote in on online X-37B fact sheet. "Technologies being tested in the program include advanced guidance, navigation and control; thermal protection systems; avionics; high-temperature structures and seals; conformal reusable insulation, lightweight electromechanical flight systems; and autonomous orbital flight, re-entry and landing."[source]

Iran Shows Indignation At US Military Demonstration

Ahmad Reza Pourdastan, Commander of Iran’s Ground Forces lashed out at US foreign policy and rhetoric in a statement broadcast on Wednesday’s “CNN Newsroom.” Pourdastan said, according to CNN’s translation, “at the moment, we consider the United States to be a threat to us, because its policies and actions are threatening to us. We would like the US to change its rhetoric and tone of voice so that our nation could have more trust in US military leadership.”

U.S. Carrier Moving Off Coast of Yemen To block Iranian Arms Shipments, Leaving Previous Watch Over ISIS

An F/A-18C Hornet from Marine Strike Fighter Attack Squadron 251 is launched from the flight deck of the USS Theodore Roosevelt. (Photo: MC3 Josh Petrosino, U.S. Navy, European Pressphoto Agency)
WASHINGTON — The aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt has moved off the coast of Yemen to prepare to intercept potential shipments of Iranian weapons to the rebels fighting the U.S.-backed government of Yemen, Pentagon officials said Monday.
Col. Steve Warren, a Pentagon spokesman, said the carrier and ships supporting her had been in the Persian Gulf. They moved to the waters near Yemen because of increased instability there, he said.
The Roosevelt is also tracking a convoy of Iranian ships headed to the Gulf of Aden, said two Defense officials speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the Iranian vessels. The Iranians have been supporting Houthi rebels in Yemen.
The Roosevelt began steaming toward Yemen Sunday, said a Navy official who was not authorized to speak about the issue publicly. With the Roosevelt, the Navy now has nine warships off Yemen, the Navy official said. The Navy usually has amphibious ships for landing troops and gear in the region. The Roosevelt "significantly" adds to the Navy's firepower there.
The Pentagon has been tracking the progress of the Iranian ships since last week, one of the Defense officials said. The Navy is prepared to intercept the ships.

The U.S. Navy aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt conducts maritime security operations in the Arabian Sea on April 21. (Photo: MC3 Athony N. Hilkowski, U.S. Navy, via European Pressphoto Agency)

Moving the Roosevelt is viewed by the Pentagon as significant but not necessarily a prelude to conflict.
If the Iranians are delivering arms and violating United Nations resolutions, it could trigger a confrontation with the Navy, according to a third senior Defense Department official, also speaking on condition of anonymity. It's too soon to tell if that will happen, that official said.
The Houthis are Shiite Muslims, while the Yemeni government has been dominated by Sunni Muslims.
Iran, which is also primarily Shiite, has been backing the Houthis, while Sunni nations, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, are supporting the government.
Last month, the Pentagon evacuated Special Operations forces that had been assisting the government in Yemen. Terrorists associated with al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula are intent on hitting U.S. and western targets and have been a particular concern of the Pentagon's.
Defense Secretary Ashton Carter foreshadowed the Roosevelt's move last week when he told reporters that the Pentagon would look for alternatives to fighting AQAP.

An E-2D Hawkeye from Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron 125 is prepared for launch. (Photo: MC3 Josh Petrosino, U.S. Navy, European Pressphoto Agency)

"It's easier for us to operate against a group like that if we have the cooperation of a stable government as was the case in the past," Carter said. "But if we don't have a stable government, as is the case in the current circumstance, we have to use other means to protect ourselves, and that's what we're doing."
The guided-missile cruiser USS Normandy is accompanying the Roosevelt, the Navy said.
Thpan style="background-color: white;">e Navy has intercepted Iranian arms shipments to the terror groups Hamas and Hezbollah in the past, said Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution.
"Perhaps we will do it again," O'Hanlon said. "I'd hardly rule it out."[source]

Obama Kept Iran's Short Breakout Time a Secret

By Eli Lake

The Barack Obama administration has estimated for years that Iran was at most three months away from enriching enough nuclear fuel for an atomic bomb. But the administration only declassified this estimate at the beginning of the month, just in time for the White House to make the case for its Iran deal to Congress and the public.
Speaking to reporters and editors at our Washington bureau on Monday, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz acknowledged that the U.S. has assessed for several years that Iran has been two to three months away from producing enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon. When asked how long the administration has held this assessment, Moniz said: "Oh quite some time." He added: "They are now, they are right now spinning, I mean enriching with 9,400 centrifuges out of their roughly 19,000. Plus all the . . . . R&D work. If you put that together it's very, very little time to go forward. That's the 2-3 months."
Brian Hale, a spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, confirmed to me Monday that the two-to-three-month estimate for fissile material was declassified on April 1.
Here is the puzzling thing: When Obama began his second term in 2013, he sang a different tune. He emphasized that Iran was more than a year away from a nuclear bomb, without mentioning that his intelligence community believed it was only two to three months away from making enough fuel for one, long considered the most challenging task in building a weapon. Today Obama emphasizes that Iran is only two to three months away from acquiring enough fuel for a bomb, creating a sense of urgency for his Iran agreement.
Back in 2013, when Congress was weighing new sanctions on Iran and Obama was pushing for more diplomacy, his interest was in tamping down that sense of urgency. On the eve of a visit to Israel, Obama told Israel's Channel Two, "Right now, we think it would take over a year or so for Iran to actually develop a nuclear weapon, but obviously we don’t want to cut it too close."
On Oct. 5 of that year, Obama contrasted the U.S. view of an Iranian breakout with that of Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who at the time said Iran was only six months away from nuclear capability. Obama told the Associated Press, "Our assessment continues to be a year or more away. And in fact, actually, our estimate is probably more conservative than the estimates of Israeli intelligence services."
Ben Caspit, an Israeli journalist and columnist for Al-Monitor, reported last year that Israel's breakout estimate was also two to three months away.
A year ago, after the nuclear talks started, Secretary of State John Kerry dropped the first hint about the still-classified Iran breakout estimate. He told a Senate panel, "I think it is fair to say, I think it is public knowledge today, that we are operating with a time period for a so-called breakout of about two months."
David Albright, a former weapons inspector and president of the Institute for Science and International Security, told me administration officials appeared to be intentionally unspecific in 2013, when the talking points used the 12-months-plus timeline. "They weren't clear at all about what this one-year estimate meant, but people like me who said let's break it down to the constituent pieces in terms of time to build a bomb were rebuffed," he said. Albright's group released its own breakout timetable that focused solely on the production of highly enriched uranium, not the weapon itself. It concluded Iran was potentially less than a month away.
When USA Today asked a spokeswoman for the National Security Council about Albright's estimate, she responded that the intelligence community maintained a number of estimates for how long Iran would take to produce enough material for a weapon.
"They have made it very hard for those of us saying, let's just focus on weapons-grade uranium, there is this shorter period of time and not a year," Albright told me. "If you just want a nuclear test device to blow up underground, I don't think you need a year."
This view is supported by a leaked document from the International Atomic Energy Agency, first published by the Associated Press in 2009. Albright's group published excerpts from the IAEA assessment that concluded Iran "has sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable implosion nuclear device based upon (highly enriched uranium) as the fission fuel."
Kenneth Pollack, a former CIA analyst who is now an Iran expert at the Brookings Institution, told me that most of the technical estimates about an Iranian breakout were not nearly as precise as they are sometimes portrayed in the press. "The idea there is such a thing as a hard and fast formula for this is nonsense," he said. "All the physicists come up with different answers depending on what inputs they use."
In this way, Obama's new, more alarmist figure of two to three months provides a key selling point for the framework reached this month in Switzerland. When Obama announced the preliminary agreement on April 2, he said one benefit was that if it were finalized, "even if it violated the deal, for the next decade at least, Iran would be a minimum of a year away from acquiring enough material for a bomb."
Hence the frustration of Representative Devin Nunes, the Republican chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. "We've been researching their claim that a deal would lengthen the breakout time for Iran from two to three months to a year," he told me of the administration. "We're just trying to confirm any of their numbers and we can't confirm or make sense of what they are referencing."
Nunes should hurry. The Iranian nuclear deal is scheduled to breakout in less than three months.[source]