Gryphon Partners is pleased to present volume 5 of Continuity News, the newsletter that focuses on a wide spectrum of emerging threats and offering mitigation strategies. If you would like more information on how we can help your organization, please write us at info@kathryncostellophotography.com

Current Issues Affecting Continuity

Continuity programs allow for the vital business operations to continue uninterrupted in all circumstances, minimize damage and allow management to be in a good position to direct reconstruction of damaged infrastructure. Virtually every incident that affects business operations can be prevented or mitigated with a good continuity plan.

All industries

In recent editions, we discussed cyber-attacks against utilities. Earlier last week, both the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (CERT) and the United Kingdom’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), warned that state actors may have infiltrated Industrial Control Systems and recommended that utilities and other critical infrastructure take immediate steps to further secure their systems.

Not only are threats to companies increasing – and are getting more sophisticated – but cybercriminals are also specifically targeting senior executives while traveling.

We’ve known for years that public Wi-Fi can be a threat to privacy, but recently the DarkHotel hacking group has deployed a new variant of their malware named Inexsmar in hotels. The hackers, whose identities are largely unknown, research their victims extensively and craft an email that is directed specifically at that individual. The email contains a Word or PowerPoint document that doesn’t include links or malicious content but– while opening – is intended to mask the fact that malware is being downloaded via the compromised hotel internet. The contents of the Word or PowerPoint document is not suspicious and if often of interest to the target. Most recent versions we have seen discuss North Korea’s economy.

This is a very advanced attack and researchers are unsure of the ultimate purpose but they believe it is state sponsored. The targeting of senior employees and Government officials is a threat to continuity of organizations.

Let’s get back to traditional continuity 

While cyber is a non-traditional threat to continuity, there is a threat to continuity that is often overlooked.

Companies often go to great lengths to assure that they have a viable continuity program. They have evaluated their susceptibility to various risks and have taken steps to mitigate those risks. They have established alternate sites to conduct their most vital missions and have methodologies in place for assessing new threats. But do the subcontractors, companies and other organizations they rely on to provide their services have equally robust continuity plans?

In March of 2011, parts of Japan were hit by the now historic tsunami that caused catastrophic problems – but it was also a continuity event for many foreign companies that could have been easily avoided by vetting the continuity plans of their suppliers.

A fairly little-known example is that of the automotive industry. While we can understand the effects of the tsunami on the Japanese industry, the effects on the rest of the automotive industry was not so obvious.

The German chemical giant Merck owned a factory that made a paint pigment called Xirallic. This pigment gave certain paints additional sparkle and Merck was the sole supplier to BMW, Acura and many others. That factory was destroyed.

In this global economy, the automotive industry competes on “just-in-time” deliveries, keeping little stock on hand. If a delivery is late, then the factories stop. Here, the companies had to change paint formulations within days – Acura/Honda from White Diamond Pearl to Bellanova White Pearl & BMW from Carbon Black to Carbon Black II.

More importantly, while some companies like BMW weren’t relying on Asia for all their electronics, they found out that while their navigation systems were sourced elsewhere, there was only one company that supplied them with an integrated circuit that was required for the stand alone rear-view cameras on the BMW 5 series. That factory was destroyed as well and BMW had to give heavy discounts on the navigation system to customers who only wanted the backup camera – the delays to source a new supplier for the integrated circuit were significant and would have resulted in lost sales.

Merck learned a valuable, but expensive, lesson and is now no longer producing any items in just one factory. BMW and the rest of the automotive industry are now making sure that they either have multiple suppliers or that their suppliers have a viable continuity plan to guarantee that they can deliver.

Gryphon Partners will be happy to help you with your continuity, security or insider threat programs. Please reach out to us to discuss your needs.

The post Continuity News Vol. 5 first appeared on Gryphon Partners.

Gryphon Partners normally presents Continuity News, the newsletter focusing on a wide spectrum of emerging threats and offering mitigation strategies.

This is an out of sequence edition based upon a current threat that is spreading quickly throughout critical infrastructure systems.

Several European companies are reporting a ransomware attack affecting banking, transportation, power and other infrastructure providers. Initial investigations by several cyber security companies indicate that the attack may be large-scale. Kaspersky lab reports that are “seeing several thousands of infection attempts at the moment, comparable in size to Wannacry’s first hours.” Cyber security experts believe the ransomware strain is known as Petya or Petrwrap, a well-known type of ransomware. It is believed that the malware is taking advantage of the EternalBlue exploit, the same exploit used in the WannaCry attacks seen in May 2017, which takes advantage of a vulnerability in the SMB data-transfer protocol. Microsoft has since patched the issue.

Reports of infections began coming in today, Tuesday June 27 2017 from the Ukraine and have since been reported in several other European countries, Russia, and the United States. The attackers are unknown. A message displayed on infected computers requires payment to unlock the system be paid to a specific bitcoin account.

Ensure that all Microsoft system patches have been applied that relate to the EternalBlue exploit. However, since the cause of the infection has not been definitively determined, this patch is not a guaranteed to resolve this threat but the best way to safeguard against these types of malicious attacks is to run the latest version of all software and make sure it is always updated. Over 90% of attacks unitize a flaw in a software program that has long since been patched by the software developer.

The best way to recover from such a disaster is to have a viably disaster recovery continuity plan to restore damaged or deleted files.

If you would like more information on how we can help your organization, please write us
at info@kathryncostellophotography.com

The post Continuity News Special Edition first appeared on Gryphon Partners.

Gryphon Partners is pleased to present volume 3 of Continuity News, the biweekly newsletter focusing on a wide spectrum of emerging threats and offering mitigation strategies. If you would like more information on how we can help your organization, please write us at info@kathryncostellophotography.com

Current Issues Affecting Continuity

Continuity programs allow for the vital business operations to continue uninterrupted in all circumstances, minimize damage and allow management to be in a good position to direct reconstruction of damaged infrastructure. Almost every incident that affects business operations can be prevented or mitigated with a good continuity plan.

All industries

Cyber-attacks always happen to the other guys.
In December 2016, the lights went out in Kiev. It was restored in a few hours but it wasn’t until June 12, 2017 that the cause was disclosed after security researchers spent six months trying to figure out not only what the specific cause was, but also why cyber criminals would choose to attack an electrical grid at midnight when there is little demand and knowing that the outage could be quickly resolved.

The malicious code, dubbed “CrashOverride” and “Industroyer” may have been inserted into the SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) systems much earlier and this outage was merely a test run to see if it works – it worked.

Researchers believe that SCADA systems (that control a variety of industries from the electrical grid, water and waste treatment plants to oil production facilities) in Europe and the Middle East are also at immediate risk any without modifications to the malware and may already be present on many systems.

With simple modifications to the software, the researchers have said that North American systems are at risk as well and the US Department of Energy and industry groups are warning US and Canadian energy providers of the imminent danger.

When SCADA systems were first introduced in the 1940’s, security wasn’t an issue and  when these systems went “on-line” in the 1980’s, security wasn’t a consideration. Even today, securing these systems is an afterthought because all the disruptions to date targeted systems in faraway places like Iran and the Ukraine – now the threat affects every country in the world.

But it gets worse. Cyber criminals are getting sneakier in how they work.

We are all smart. We’ve learned not to click on links in emails from strangers and to hover our mouse over links to determine where they really lead. We know that the email from our boss asking us to transfer money to an unusual account might not really be from our boss.

Now there is a new and novel threat targeting accounting departments in major industries worldwide. This threat comes from emails coming from what appears to be your clients and includes a PowerPoint or Word document.

These email attachments will easily be cleared by your organization’s anti-virus programs but the links that are imbedded are malicious. The difference is that you don’t need to click on the links – just hovering over the link will install the program that steals banking information.

Each of these threats can be lessened by a good continuity strategy. We can provide experts to review the security of your SCADA systems and develop plans to help keep them secure. We can also create tailor made training programs to keep your organization safe from malware since most malware attacks are innocently enabled by poor cyber security practices.

As a final note, we are safe because we switched to Apple Macs and there aren’t any malware programs written for Macs, right?

Just this week, researchers identified two malicious programs written specifically for the Mac. Called MacSpy and MacRansom, they do exactly what they are called and are even more dangerous as most Mac users erroneously believe that they are immune to malicious software. Some researchers are calling this the “Big Mac Attack.”

Regardless of the operating system your organization uses, you must always stay one step ahead of the bad guys, have plans to reduce your vulnerabilities and be prepared to respond adequately to minimize operational disruptions.

The post Continuity News Vol. 3 first appeared on Gryphon Partners.

Gryphon Partners is pleased to provide volume 2 of Continuity News, a newsletter focusing on a wide spectrum of emerging threats and offering mitigation strategies that will enhance readiness. To learn more about our products and services, please write us at info@kathryncostellophotography.com

Current Issues Affecting Continuity

Continuity programs allow for the vital business operations to continue uninterrupted in all circumstances. Here, we highlight a few current threats and mitigation strategies.

The recent attacks on a concert venue in Manchester, the vehicle attack and knife attack in London and the failed robbery at the Manila Casino remind us that these incidents can occur anywhere and have impacts on the venues and on the public.

While we frequently speak about “business continuity”, we must also think about “personal continuity” – how do we keep our families safe without disrupting normal activities? Here are a few things to consider:

• Make sure everyone has some sort of identification, a means of communication and some money
• Identify a meeting point if your family gets separated – try to find a place that won’t be too busy in a crowd
• Leave public gatherings either early or late. Stay away from crowds at exits.
  • Park in areas that are convenient to exits and main roads and not necessarily the closest to the venue entrance
  • Identify emergency exits and think about how you would find that exit in power outages or smoke
  • Always consider your surroundings. Is there anything that would impede your departure?
• Designate an out-of-area contact. During times of high phone traffic, local calls may be impossible to make, but it may be possible to text or to make an out of area call.
• Remember to follow your instincts. If something feels “wrong” then it probably is. Move away from that location.
• When something seems out of place, report it to a venue employee or security.

All industry partners

These incidents also brought lessons for our industry partners. Owners and operators of places of public assembly (shopping centers, schools, stadiums, airports and other transportation centers etc.) are reminded to consider the following:

• Are emergency responders familiar with your facility?
  • Do they have floorplans?
  • External access to cameras?
  • Training with employees?
  • Do they have pre-identified access routes
• How do you secure areas of congestion prior to security checkpoints?
• Are your buildings designed to deflect explosive blasts away from areas of congestion? Can fire and smoke be contained?
• Have you identified areas to care for members of the public following any incident?

For all businesses:

• Is there an emergency action plan?
• Do you have an “active shooter plan”?
• Are employees trained in those plans?
• Has local law enforcement trained with your employees?

In short, every business and area of public assembly needs to have emergency plans in place. Equally, every family needs to have their own emergency plans. While we are reviewing this today because of violent incidents, emergency plans are required for virtually any incident, from weather events to accidents.

In developing plans for governments and industry, we’ve learned that these plans do not need to be very expensive, nor does the training need to be disruptive to your operations.

For your family readiness, please contact us if you’d like a free expanded Family Readiness Template that you can easily adapt for the specific needs of your family.

A comment from the last Continuity Update

In the last issue, we discussed the industry implications of a possibility of a laptop ban on flights. The threat remains real and we can expect some sort of a requirement to check laptops. The reality is that some laptops will be lost or damaged. Are you ready to continue operations if your laptop gets lost or damaged? There are continuity measures you can take to assure that a lost or damaged laptop won’t slow you down.

The post Continuity News Vol. 2 first appeared on Gryphon Partners.

Gryphon Partners is pleased to introduce Continuity News, a newsletter focusing on a wide spectrum of emerging threats and offering mitigation strategies that can enhance readiness of both businesses and individuals. To learn more about Continuity News and related products, please write us at info@kathryncostellophotography.com

Current Issues Affecting Continuity

As we know, Continuity programs allow for the vital business operations to continue uninterrupted in all circumstances. These programs minimize damage and allow management to be in a good position to direct reconstruction of damaged infrastructure. This newsletter highlights a few current threats and mitigation strategies.

This newsletter will not duplicate reporting, but will summarize the incident(s) and identify their impact on continuity.

All industries

The recent “ransomware” attacks that affected most of the globe, all industries and private citizens demonstrates how cyber is an actual physical threat. When medical systems and utilities are attacked, there is an actual threat to life. This ransomware targeted critical infrastructure more than other industries – those organizations that they thought would be most likely to pay.

In continuity, we don’t concern ourselves with the cause of the disruption – we focus on reducing threats of all kinds to continuity and develop strategies to mitigate the effects. In this case (as with most non-sophisticated cyber-attacks) the effects can be easily mitigated.

All of the affected systems met at least one of these criteria:

• The systems were running a counterfeit version of Microsoft Windows
• The systems hadn’t been updated
• The system administrator had not backed up critical data

Mitigation strategies for continuity

• Use only official versions of software. Counterfeit versions will not get required security updates and may have additional malware installed by the counterfeiter.
• Automatic updates should be turned on. The flaw that allowed this ransomware to attack these systems had been resolved several months earlier. Microsoft and most other vendors release updates on a regular basis.
• All critical data must be backed up in multiple locations, the backup must be tested and personnel must be trained on how to clean infected systems and restore data.
• Extremely critical data should have back-up computers that are not normally connected to public internet – but must be updated regularly.

A proper continuity strategy would turn a cyber-attack like this into a mere annoyance rather than a catastrophe.

Aviation

Following the laptop ban in aircraft cabins from certain countries to the US and the UK, the US is contemplating expanding that ban to even more countries.

Electronics guidance is not new. Following the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in 1988, governments and airlines implemented testing of electronics. At that time, however, electronics weren’t small enough to allow for explosives to be hidden in a functioning electronic device.

Now, ICAO, the United Nations International Civil Aviation Organization, is considering global guidance for in-cabin electronics. While this guidance cannot be mandated for countries, it does raise significant issues for international aviation and airport operations http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/articles/278814/laptop-ban-icao-considering-global-guidance-on-cabin-electronics

These guidelines could affect the security of airport operations and raise the following questions that may not be addressed by the guidance:

• How will affected electronics be handled at checkpoints?
• How will airports deal with security scanning abandoned electronics? How will they be stored and/or disposed of.
• How will airports handle additional crowds that are waiting to check their electronics? Will this checking of electronics occur before or after security screening? If before security screening, what additional security will be required to prevent an incident at this chokepoint?

Continuity programs should be in place for all businesses and Government institutions. These programs also need to consider all unintended consequences of policies and procedures.

The post Continuity News Vol. 1 first appeared on Gryphon Partners.

The post The Emerging Clinton Doctrine? first appeared on Gryphon Partners.

The civil war within Islam has produced the worst international terrorist threat of the modern era: ISIS, or Daesh. This conflict, as well as instability in Africa, has already pushed millions of migrants into Europe, which has given rise to greater nationalism and threatens the European project. Increasing terrorist attacks in the West—including the United States—call into question current counterterrorism strategies.

At the same time, slow growth and economic dislocation is producing a backlash against globalization. And against the backdrop of economic stagnation, isolationist sentiments in America are hitting levels unseen since the immediate post-Vietnam era.

Most significant, a major presidential candidate is challenging fundamental assumptions about U.S. foreign policy. Consensus behind a new grand strategy did not quite cohere after the Cold War. But presidential candidates since 1992, while differing on their approaches to specific issues, generally agreed that the U.S.-led postwar architecture should be preserved—and that American leadership was necessary to respond selectively to global crises and to keep the peace among major powers.

Donald Trump is different. Trump‘s pronouncements are more than an attack on Hillary Clinton’s worldview. Although stated in provocative and unorthodox ways, he takes issue with many of the tenets that have guided U.S. foreign policy across both Republican and Democratic administrations since the end of the Cold War. What we are witnessing is nothing less than the birth of a Trump Doctrine, one that calls for a break from the status quo on at least five main issues: U.S. goals, countering the terrorist group ISIS and Islamist extremism, democracy promotion, immigration and great-power relations.

U.S. Goals: Trump’s slogan—America First—harkens back to the isolationists of the pre-World War II era. Trump, however, is not an isolationist. Quite the contrary. He favors a large defense budget and wants to ensure that America remains the world’s sole military and economic superpower. Rather, “America First” is Trump’s way of attacking “globalism.” The term “globalism” encapsulates, for Trump, the myriad policies that he believes are expending American resources on behalf of goals incidental to core U.S. interests.

It is in the realm of international economics in particular that Trump is sounding the alarm of globalism. U.S. presidents since the end of World War II have taken the view that economic integration and free trade are win-win propositions that both further global security and benefit American interests, foreign and domestic. Trump’s America First view is more zero-sum and nationalistic. He believes that the United States naively practices free trade while other countries gain undue advantage through mercantilist practices. He believes many trade agreements have damaged America—negatively affecting U.S. workers and the middle class by facilitating movement of manufacturing jobs from the United States to other countries such as China and Mexico. He believes that these and related policies are producing slow economic growth, huge debt and undermining the underpinnings of U.S economic power.

Trump is intent on prioritizing U.S. economic interests. He, for example, will renegotiate NAFTA and abandon the current text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership in order to reassert U.S. sovereignty and protect and expand U.S. manufacturing and employment.

Countering ISIS and Islamic Extremism: Trump appears to see the threat of ISIS and Islamist extremism as urgent and the principal current threat to the United States. He believes that President Obama and candidate Clinton fail to recognize the nature of the problem—that ISIS and al-Qaida are Islamist terrorist groups—and accept that we have to live with the threat is unacceptable. He has said that a Trump administration will seek to defeat ISIS quickly and to eliminate its threat to the United States, rejecting the notion that we should learn to live with the threat. He wants U.S. alliances to focus on the threat of Islamist terrorism and also is willing to cooperate with Russia to defeat it. He is willing to use more U.S. forces and to adopt more aggressive tactics. He appears to favor using a lot of force against terrorist targets in the Middle East but then get out rather than maintain a significant role on the ground for years. He also wants to review U.S. immigration and visa policy as well domestic law enforcement policies to deal with this threat.

Immigration: Trump also departs from the establishment on both legal and illegal immigration. He wants to break the cycle of millions of illegals becoming legalized every few decades in deals that include commitments to control illegal immigration—commitments that always go unfulfilled. His often used imagery of a wall expresses the determination to break that cycle by whatever means are necessary.

On legal immigration, it appears that Trump would like to reduce the flow and perhaps change the criteria for who would be admitted. He argues that reducing and changing criteria for legal immigration would result in increased employment for Americans and legal residents, particularly in the lower end of the income spectrum. His concerns about ISIS using flows of refugees to infiltrate terrorists into the United States led him to call for suspending visas for all Muslims until a process was established for reliable vetting, which later he modified to temporarily suspending admission of visitors and immigrants from terror-afflicted countries.

Trump appears to fear Europe’s problems replicating themselves in the United States. In Europe, the continent is in the midst of a potentially dangerous paradigm shift. According to some estimates, more than 700,000 Africans are waiting in Libya to move to Europe, with millions more likely to follow their path given population growth and economic and political crises on the continent. This could eventually dwarf the already destabilizing current and future flows from conflicts in the Middle East and South Asia. This would inevitably have huge impacts in domestic politics and security in Europe.

Great-Power Relations: Trump is envisioning a new era of great-power relations. He favors a less truculent approach to Russia than Hillary Clinton. While other presidents have pursued common understandings with Moscow, Trump envisions perhaps a more sweeping paradigm shift—and perhaps a new grand bargain: acceptance of some kind of a sphere of influence for Moscow in parts of its immediate neighborhood in exchange for Russian cooperation on issues important to the United States with regards to war on terror, Syria, and the Asian balance of power. In his view of Russia, he may be closer to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s attitude toward the Soviet Union than the approach of any subsequent American president.

Due to strong pressure from Trump campaign officials, for example, the Republican platform dropped an endorsement of the provision of lethal defensive arms and assistance to Ukraine. Trump’s recent statement that called into question America’s guarantee to NATO allies under Article V if they are not meeting their own defense obligations created a furor. Trumpmade it clear that he wants to use it as a bargaining tool to force allies to pay for their defense, and has also stated that he wants to preserve NATO.

With China, by contrast, the Trump Doctrine would pursue a much harder line. He has promised to place China’s economic practices—its alleged currency manipulation, lack of intellectual-property protections, and economic espionage—at the center of the bilateral relationship. Economic pressure, Trump believes, would not only address U.S. domestic concerns—such as the loss of manufacturing jobs—it would also provide a means by which Washington could elicit Chinese cooperation on security concerns such as the North Korean nuclear program.

Great-power relations may also shift in the context of U.S. relations with its traditional allies. Trump is hardly the first American political figure to gripe about our allies’ free-riding. What distinguishes Trump, however, is the degree to which he is consumed with the issue. While U.S. presidents have tended to accept freeloading as a price worth paying for a network of alliances that underwrites international security and preserves U.S. global leadership, Trump is prepared to wield U.S. leverage to ensure that U.S. alliances pay their “fair share.”

Democracy Promotion: Particularly since the Reagan years, democracy promotion has become a central tenet of U.S. foreign policy. Policymakers have generally reached the conclusion that the spread of democracy and human rights is not only consistent with American ideals, but also contributes to a more peaceful world. When military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq were undertaken to overthrow regimes posing serious security problems, bipartisan coalitions supported the installation of democratic governments to reestablish political authority. The consensus was that democratic ideals have universal appeal and can take hold across countries and regions with different histories and cultures.

When Trump alludes to democracy promotion, he does so mostly in the context of his sharp attacks on nation-building and regime change. In his Republican National Convention speech, for example, he lambasted the U.S. decision to support the overthrow of dictatorships in Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Syria, arguing that these efforts undermined stability and U.S. counterterrorism priorities. Trump pledged unequivocally to “abandon the failed policy of nation building and regime change.”

Trump is raising serious issues that deserve to be debated. How precisely would he pursue his vision at a practical level, and how would he minimize the negative, perhaps unintended, consequences of his proposals?

Achieving greater burden sharing and focusing our alliances on current threats would be positive. However, the challenge is how to achieve this goal without shaking confidence in the United States. It is clear that our current approach has not achieved the right balance both on updating the alliances and on burden sharing. But there is the risk that undermining confidence in the United States and its alliances could produce scenarios such as renationalization of security policies by great powers, similar to the situation before World War II, including the nuclearization of allied countries.

Trump has expressed sympathy, if not outright support, for nationalist forces in Europe. But he has not explained how these trends will redound to the benefit of the United States. It would not serve U.S. interests for the next administration to exacerbate xenophobic sentiments on the Continent through protectionism and incendiary rhetoric about burden sharing.

Revisionist powers such as Russia and China would become more aggressive as U.S.-led alliances weaken because they lose credibility. What would a Trump administration do to minimize such threats?

Even with a more accommodating policy toward Russia, we have to avoid undermining relations with European allies and compromising the sovereignty of states such as Ukraine and Georgia. Far from being a pathway to U.S.-Russia cooperation, there is the risk that the TrumpDoctrine’s step back from Ukraine could open the door to further incursions by Russia against its European neighbors.

Given the current Chinese leader’s push for regional hegemony, the United States needs a balance of power approach in Asian security—with Japan, India, Vietnam and other regional power playing a balancing role and the U.S. as the ultimate balancer. How would a Trump administration engineer this balance?

After World War II, the United States underwent a paradigm shift in its foreign policies—remaining deeply engaged in unstable regions to maintain great-power peace. To develop the details of this new paradigm, the Truman and Eisenhower administrations developed some of the most important internal and external institutions of the Cold War era. They also engaged in bipartisan deliberations involving leaders of both the executive and legislative branches, drawing on expertise from inside and outside of government. Such a process to arrive at a bipartisan consensus is necessary regardless of who becomes our President.

Trump’s critique of free trade has its merits. It takes inordinate time and expense for American firms to document and litigate unfair trade practices such as dumping under the current process. The risk is that by the time they secure a judgment, their mercantilist competitors have harmed them irreparably. And there has been no response to the problem of currency manipulation. However, Trump needs to articulate how he would design a more effective enforcement process for trade agreements and how he would avoid rounds of tit-for-tat retaliation leading to trade wars. As many have said, America has 5 percent of the world’s population, and its prosperity depends on selling to the other 95 percent.

On immigration, it is certainly time for a review of not only whom we allow into the country, but who especially we wish to attract—the best and the brightest from around the world and individuals who subscribe to America’s core values. An updated immigration strategy is required, and control of the border and who comes to the country is also a must, as is developing a system to police visa overstays. The global population movement makes this necessary. We need to work together with our European allies to assist them in developing appropriate strategies for the coming potential flood of refugees and the future of Africa as an urgent matter.

Yet, Trump’s sometimes inflammatory rhetoric has undermined his ability to work with all groups in American society on this question. As a candidate and, if he wins, as a president, he must shed this divisive approach, which is counterproductive to finding the needed consensus on a way forward.

On democracy promotion, I judge that the goal of a democratized world as a long-term objective remains valid. But how this goal is pursued, especially given recent setbacks, is an important question. It needs to be debated recognizing that the process of building an effective liberal democracy takes time – as it did in our own country. The path to open political systems will vary according to the different histories, cultures, and circumstances of our partners. It requires us to work patiently with leaders and societies of aspiring democracies and not to abandon them when they experience setbacks.

On strategy and tactics, perhaps a differentiated approach would be the best. We should emphasize stability and conflict resolution in places such as the Middle East and Africa. We should work to consolidate democratization in other regions such as parts of Europe, parts of Asia and the Americas, where democratic institutions have faltered. Also, it would be beneficial to review whether our institutions involved in democracy building are effective and make the necessary reforms.

On countering Islamist terrorism, notwithstanding his refusal to engage in nation-building and keep to get involved in protracted conflict and policing,Trump has vowed to destroy ISIS within a matter of months. If his intent is to liberate ISIS-held areas such as Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria, the question is how he will do so. A good option is to follow the Afghan model, embedding U.S. and coalition Special Forces with local fighters and applying significant air power against ISIS targets. However, the question of what happens to the areas liberated from ISIS must be answered. How, without state-building and new power-sharing arrangements in Iraq and Syria, would a Trump administration prevent segments of the Sunni Arab population from gravitating to yet another (and perhaps even more vicious) terrorist group? After all, ISIS is the successor to the terrorist group Al Qaeda in Iraq. There is also the broader question of how to change failed policies in dealing with state sponsors of terrorist and extremist groups such as Pakistan.

Even if we avoid large state- and nation-building projects such as Iraq and Afghanistan, we need to preserve the capacity, acquired at enormous cost based on experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, to assist in limited state building to help friendly forces control territories which have strategic value. Not doing so would mean overlearning the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan and risk creating vacuums in which terrorists could establish sanctuaries. Such a mistake, in turn, might require a larger intervention and occupation of such territories to root out terrorist forces, as happened after 9/11.

The objective of getting Russia to work with us to defeat ISIS is desirable—but there is no guarantee that Moscow will do so. Previous efforts at achieving U.S.-Russian cooperation by Bush and Obama administrations have not succeeded. What is the basis for Trump’s confidence that he will succeed if and when he is the U.S. president?
It is imperative that the Trump campaign not leave these questions unanswered. This is because Trump’s fundamental critique has merit: America’s challenges at home—driven by unprecedented debt, weak economic growth, racial and class divisions, and growing economic inequality—do indeed threaten U.S. primacy abroad. He has raised these issues in a uniquely provocative manner. His boldness must now be matched with wise solutions.

Trump speaks for millions of Americans with his unfettered attacks on an establishment that has, in fact, made its share of errors. For this, he has been awarded the Republican nomination for president. Now, just three months before his possible election as Commander in Chief, he has our attention. It is time for him to pivot to a more serious dialogue with more details on how to deal with these issues. Regardless of the outcome of the general election, the issues that he has raised and the sentiments to which he has lent his voice are not going away.

Source: The National Interest

The post The Emerging Trump Doctrine? first appeared on Gryphon Partners.

WASHINGTON: The US should adopt a policy of “total isolation” against Pakistan to send a signal that it faces the prospect of becoming a “second North Korea” if it continues destabilising Afghanistan by supporting the Taliban and Haqqani network, a former top American diplomat has said.

“In the aftermath of the US drone attack killing Taliban leader Mullah Mansour, this is the time to increase the pressure by suspending all assistance to Pakistan — military and civilian — and move towards isolating Pakistan internationally, including not supporting IMF renewal of financial support,” said Zalmay Khalilzad, a former top American diplomat in the Bush Administration.

Khalilzad, who played a key role America’s policy towards Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iraq after 9/11 terror attack, said the US should adopt a policy of “total isolation” against Pakistan.

Such a policy, he argued would send a signal to Pakistan that it faces the prospect of becoming a “second North Korea” unless it changes its course on Afghanistan.

Khalilzad was the highest ranking Muslim American in the history of the United States. He was the US Ambassador to the United Nations under President George W Bush. He also served as the US ambassador to Afghanistan and headed the country’s diplomatic mission in Iraq.

“If Pakistan truly changes course, then the US should be willing to be supportive in a significant way. But we have to substantially escalate the cost of Pakistan’s hostile policy in Afghanistan,” he said.

Khalilzad also called for retaining the current level of forces in Afghanistan and more flexible rules of engagement for US forces until the next President reviews the situation in Afghanistan and decides on a new policy.

“While there are some potential risks in isolating Pakistan, there are real risks with continuing the current course in Afghanistan and Pakistan,” he said and called for having a contingency plan to deal with the nuclear scenario risks.

“In fact (US forces) being in Afghanistan would help in addressing such challenges promptly,” he said.

“The choice we have made hasn’t really worked for the last 15 years in terms of changing Pakistan’s two-faced policy. The time has come to adjust that policy. In my view a better option is international isolation of Pakistan,” Khalilzad argued.

“The role that Pakistan has played….is that of a double game. It has signalled on the one hand that it wants to be helpful to the United States in fighting terrorism and stabilising Afghanistan. But on the other hand, in reality, it has been energetically supporting the Taliban and the Haqqani network to achieve the very opposite. That has been the essence of the Pakistan policy on Afghanistan,” he said.

Source: The Times of India

The post ‘US should adopt policy of total isolation against Pakistan’ first appeared on Gryphon Partners.

America’s relationship with Iran poses a classic geopolitical dilemma. Iran is an important regional power that pursues adversarial policies with its neighbors and represses its people at home. Yet the United States can only address key issues affecting U.S. interests if it engages Tehran wherever possible. As it did vis-à-vis the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the United States needs to pursue policies designed to preclude regional hegemony and to create a balance of power in the region, while also expressing support for human rights and engaging Iran diplomatically.

If the chaos in the Middle East is to be calmed, the United States will have to work not just with traditional partners but also with competitors. Iran has contributed to the sectarian polarization of the Middle East and the conflicts that region has fostered, but it isn’t the sole cause of these. Washington and Tehran are at loggerheads over Syria, but they support the same governments and leaders in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

To enable productive engagement, the United States will have to work with its partners in the region to establish a favorable balance of power. This means continuing its military deployments and arms sales to ensure the security of the Persian Gulf, while asserting its rights under the new nuclear agreement to prevent Iran from making covert progress toward a weapon. At the same time, the United States should start planning a policy framework to deter Iran from restarting nuclear programs once certain restrictions in the agreement lapse. Finally, the United States and its partners must jointly compete against Iran in Iraq and Syria.

Such efforts will better position the United States to engage Iran to settle regional conflicts and defeat the Islamic State. Each of us led discussions with Iran during the administration of George W. Bush, and we were able to achieve limited understandings in some areas and even active cooperation in others. The Bonn Agreement, which established the post-Taliban interim government in Afghanistan, was the apogee of this cooperation, and it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to achieve without Iran’s support. Notably, this success occurred in the context of the active assertion of U.S. power against the Taliban. The United States can likewise craft policies to shape the political and military contexts in Iraq and Syria.

During the Obama administration, contacts with Iran have focused most heavily on nuclear issues. But these contacts occur irregularly, involve a small circle of individuals and tend to address only the most urgent issues. Secretary of State John F. Kerry may have Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif on speed dial, but there is only so much that two very busy men can accomplish. In any case, Kerry will likely be leaving office in a few months, and the U.S.-educated Zarif will eventually do the same. There is no guarantee their successors will establish the same kind of rapport. U.S. policy should not be dependent on their doing so.

That’s why before he leaves office, President Obama should take steps to enhance communications between the two countries. The most obvious move would be to reestablish normal diplomatic relations. It is not clear that the Iranian regime would be ready to go this far, however, and such a step would be quite controversial in the United States as well.

Short of that, however, the Obama administration and the Iranian government could assign middle-ranking U.S. and Iranian diplomats to the interests sections of the embassies that already represent each to the other. It is worth noting that the United States had a substantial diplomatic presence in Cuba before the resumption of full diplomatic relations last year. An even more modest measure would be for the United States to simply allow Iranian diplomats accredited to the United Nations in New York to travel to Washington on occasion. Such a gesture might be reciprocated by Iran, allowing visits by U.S. officials based in Dubai, where the United States maintains an office that monitors Iranian affairs.

U.S.-Iranian engagement should certainly focus on the battle against the Islamic State, but it should also focus on the pathways to stabilizing the region. The United States should seek to help Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran come to an understanding regarding Iraq and Syria and to explore a Westphalia-like agreement to curb sectarian and geopolitical conflict. Such an agreement will not occur without active mediation from the outside. Currently, only the United States can play that role.

In addition, Obama should not ignore the aspirations of the Iranian people, many of whom hope for greater freedom and contact with the world. Human rights issues should be part of the agenda for any enhanced engagement. Also, the United States should facilitate private travel between the two countries for students, scholars and ordinary citizens. The best way to do this would be to resume direct commercial flights between the two countries. This step would be of particular benefit to the hundreds of thousands of Iranian Americans and their many relatives in Iran.

None of these steps would resolve the many differences between the United States and Iran on their own. Better communication does not always yield accommodation. But better communication always yields better information, and better information always permits, even if it cannot guarantee, better policy. It is difficult to see how the Middle East can be stabilized without engaging and coming to some understandings with Iran.

Source: The Washington Post

The post WaPost Opinion: Before Obama leaves office, here’s what he should do about Iran first appeared on Gryphon Partners.

“There was no way the former Taliban Chief Mullah Akhtar Mansour could have survived in Pakistan for so long without the military, financial and logistical support of the ISI,” Ambassador Khalilzad insisted.

Mullah Mansour was recently killed in a US drone strike in Balochistan province of Pakistan.

Speaking to CNN-News18 on the sidelines of an MEA organised seminar in Mumbai, Ambassador Khalilzad said the whole world was running out of patience with Pakistan’s double-speak, including its ‘all-weather friend’ China.

He also said the world should isolate Pakistan and stop giving it both military assistance and also development assistance through the IMF and World Bank.

The Ambassador went on to say after Osama bin Laden, now the killing of Mullah Mansour has shown the world what Pakistan is really upto in the so called war on terror.

Watch the full interview at: CNN-18

The post Video: Pak Risks Becoming The Next North Korea If It Doesn’t Change: Former US Envoy first appeared on Gryphon Partners.