Tag Archives: Iran

Iran Conducts Missile Tests — But Will Get No More Than a Slap on the Wrist

According to press reports, Iran tested several ballistic missiles over the last few days. These reportedly were tactical and short-range missiles with ranges between 180 and 400 miles.

Iran reportedly is planning to launch a rocket it claims is a space-launch vehicle to place a satellite in orbit using its new Simorgh rocket, a launch most experts believe will actually be a test to develop an ICBM capable of carrying a nuclear warhead against Europe and the United States. This test will be similar to a recent North Korean rocket test.

Obama officials were quick to point out that Iran’s new missile tests did not violate the July nuclear deal. This is technically true — although President Obama and Secretary Kerry claimed at the time that Iran had agreed to honor U.N. Security Council resolutions barring ballistic-missile tests for eight years, this commitment was not actually in the agreement — it was buried in an annex to a Security Council resolution that endorsed the deal. Iranian officials have denied that they agreed to any limitations on their missile program in the nuclear deal.

In December, a U.N. Security Council panel determined that two Iranian missile tests last fall violated U.N. Security Council resolutions. The Council did not sanction Iran for these launches. After bipartisan pressure from Congress, the Obama administration implemented mild sanctions in response to these missile tests in January.

By contrast, the Security Council passed stronger sanctions against North Korea on March 1, 2016, in response to the North’s recent nuclear test and long-range missile launch.

Obama officials indicated today that they will raise Iran’s latest missile test in the Security Council. If the Council takes up this issue — and even if Iran conducts a test of the Simorgh long-range missile — it is certain that the U.N. will give Iran no more than a slap on the wrist because no nation, especially the U.S., wants to endanger the nuclear deal. Iran knows this and is certain to continue to defy the international community by developing its missile arsenal that has only one purpose: serving as a delivery system for its nuclear warheads.

Iran Continues to Act Aggressively- Test Fires Another Ballistic Missile

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) test fired several ballistic missiles Tuesday, March 8, 2016, in defiance of recent sanctions placed on their missile program by the U.S. This marks the third ballistic missile test by Iran in just six months.

The ballistic missiles used were a mix of small and medium range missile, which had ranges from 185-1250 miles. One of the missiles used was a Qiam-1 missile, which is believed to have a range up to 460 miles. The missiles were launched from underground silos.

The Iranian government claims the missiles are used for deterrence purposes, but that does not excuse their continuation of their missile program. An Iranian Brigadier General claimed they would not stop developing ballistic missiles that are “a cornerstone of its conventional deterrence” despite sanctions.

The UN Security Council passed Resolution 1929 in 2010 that sought to limit Iran’s nuclear program and ability to acquire a nuclear weapon. Paragraph 9 in particular restricted Iran from testing a missile that was large enough to carry a nuclear warhead.

Iran first broke this Resolution last October when it test fired an Emad missile. The Emad is a liquid-fueled, intermediate range missile that has the capability to strike a target 1,060 miles away. Iran claims they do not intend to place a nuclear warhead in the missiles, but they are more than capable of doing so if they please.

Just a month after the October test the Iranians tested another intermediate range missile, the Ghadr-110, which has the potential to reach up to 1200 miles.

Iran further pushed the limits when it revealed new underground missile depot containing more Emad missiles. No international pressure has seemed to slow down Iran, as President Rouhani had reportedly told his defense minister to expand the ballistic missile program. Second in command of Iran’s ballistic missile program touted that they have so many Emad missiles that they are running out of room to put them in.

These tests were met with international condemnation, but this has seemed to do little to stop the Iranians.

Instead of breaking off the nuclear deal due to Iran’s belligerence, the U.S. and five other world powers continue to uphold their side of the agreement. Iran’s behavior should have been a clear sign that they have no intention of slowing down their missile program, yet world powers ignored this and lifted economic sanctions on Iran.

The deal also nullified the UN Security Council Resolution on Iran’s missile program.

To make up for the nullification of the UN Resolution, the U.S. imposed its own sanctions on Iran the day after economic sanctions were lifted. The sanctions were directed to individuals and companies involved with Iran’s ballistic missile program, and prevent them from using the U.S. banking system.

The U.S. has done nothing to stand in the way of Iran developing and testing ballistic missiles. Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey told lawmakers “we should under no circumstances relieve pressure on Iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking,” yet the U.S. has watched as the Iranians have launched three missile tests. President Obama even dispatched officers to ask Congress to be light on pressuring Iran on their missile program.

President Obama originally warned that he would walk away if Tehran did not adhere to the deal, yet the U.S. is currently the only one who is adhering to its misguided principles. Iran will not slow down its missile program as long as the U.S. imposes meager sanctions and takes little action.

As Fred Fleitz of the Center for Security Policy states “it is certain that the U.N. will give Iran no more than a slap on the wrist because no nation, especially the U.S., wants to endanger the nuclear deal.”

Massive Military Exercise May Point to a Saudi Intervention in Syria

This week the Saudi government is drawing from 20 nations to launch the largest ever military exercise in the region, North Thunder. The drills participants will be drawn from member states of the Saudi-led “anti-terror” coalition the Kingdom established two months ago.

The Saudi government has staged large military exercises in the past, but it seems each year these exercises grow larger. With the Saudi government concerned with threats from their southern and northern borders, they now need to project an even stronger presence in the region.

Saudi Brigadier General Ahmed Al-Asiri claims the exercise is intended to “enhance fighting abilities, increase coordination between countries participating in the exercise, and facilitate the exchange of information and experience.” The drill may be about more than improving cooperation for counterterrorism however.

The Saudi government has actively opposed the Assad regime, and has aided rebel groups for several years now. But Syrian rebels are continuing to lose territory to Syrian military forces backed by Iranian and Russian assistance.

Taken together with reports of the Saudi aircraft arriving at Turkish base of Incirlik and discussion of a possible Turkish and Saudi ground intervention, and the military exercise could be seen as a show of force to Syria and its allies Iran, Russia, and Iraq.

While the Saudis say any potential intervention would be aimed at Islamic State, the Guardian quoted Saudi Foreign Minister, Abdel al-Jubeir, saying Assad’s removal was necessary to defeating the Islamic State (IS). If the Saudi government and its coalition engage Assad’s forces, it could severely escalate the conflict and possibly start a major war throughout the Middle East.

Aside from the large military exercise, Turkey has been actively attacking Syrian Democratic Forces (made up primarily of Syrian Kurds) through airstrikes and artillery in the past weeks

The Syrian Kurds have primarily targeted Islamic State and Syrian rebel groups they accuse of being allied with Al Qaeda-linked Jabhat al Nusra.

The Kurds have seen recent successes with the help of Russian airstrikes, and are closing in on an effort to join Kurdish held territory around the city of Afrin to the Kurdish held Hasakah province.
Doing so would block off the crucial Azaz corridor, which is the Syrian rebel force in Aleppo’s only means of resupply from Turkey. Aleppo currently faces a siege from Assad’s forces.

While Saudi Arabia and its coalition continue to escalate their military preparations, the U.S has pushed heavily towards peace talks between the Syrian government and opposition forces, and just last week the International Syria Support Group agreed to a “cessation of hostilities” in Syria, but both Russian airstrikes and Turkish shelling of Kurdish positions continues.

With Saudi-supported rebel force in dire straits, States opposed to Assad, including Saudi Arabia, find options other than direct intervention dwindling. Saudi Arabia is traditionally considered to be highly reluctant to intervene directly, but the changes to their relationship with the United States, and their recent intervention in Yemen may represent a changing calculation. If so the upcoming military exercise could be a harbinger for a more robust Saudi intervention policy.

Russia Continues Push to Remove U.S. Influence from Middle East

Reuters reports that Russia is ready to send civil airliners and continue to provide military aid to Iraq to fight the Islamic State (IS). This comes at a great detriment to the U.S. who may lose vital influence in the Middle East.

Russia has been providing financial and military aid to Iraq for several years, but it now makes a major commitment to Iraq when the Assad regime looks prime to take back Aleppo, a major rebel stronghold.

Russia had been a long time supporter of the Iraqi government. Russia signed a treaty of friendship with Iraq in 1972 because of Iraq’s size, strategic position, and oil, and this relationship continued well into the Saddam years. The Washington Times reported that Russia may have been tied to moving Iraqi arms to Syria before the U.S. intervention in 2003, and between 2008 and 2011 Bagdad purchased up to $246 million dollars of military aid from Russia.

Russia has been engaging more with Iraq in support of its intervention in Syria. This past September Russia entered into a four-way intelligence sharing agreement between themselves, Iraq, Iran, and Syria. Aside from intelligence, Russia has provided military aid such as jets, military experts, tanks, artillery equipment, and armored vehicles to Iraq.

Russia has no vital interest in the region. They have no ports in the country like they do in Syria, nor do they have any military bases. Russia’s interest in Iraq lies primarily in weakening U.S. influence in the region. The U.S. was providing large amounts of military aid to Iraq, and Russia does not want to see that relationship grow any further.

The U.S. has spent up to $20 billion in military equipment and training for the Iraqi military. The U.S. has also sent ground troops and advisors to combat IS. However, this aid has not been enough to gain Iraq’s support.

Iraq has criticized the U.S. for being too soft on IS and terrorism. The Iraqi government believe the U.S. was not moving fast enough against IS, and they wanted to see greater results. This claim of being too slow comes at an even greater detriment when the Assad regime has made up significant ground in three months with the help of Russian airstrikes. The Iraqis may see the Russians as the answer to defeating IS, and the U.S. will continue to lose any influence in the region if they cannot prove they can provide valuable support against IS.

CBS News reported last October that U.S. officials have told Iraqi leaders to choose a side, Russia or the U.S., and it’s increasingly clear that the Iraqi governments ties to Iran and Russia trump those with the U.S.

Russia continues its support for a Shiite axis (Iran-Iraq-and Syria), and it has created a commanding influence in the Middle East. The U.S., on the other hand, has continued to alienate its longtime allies in the region, in part through the misguided effort to secure an Iran nuclear deal.

Heritage Foundation Brings Together Iran Nuclear Deal Critics

The Iran nuclear deal, signed last September, has been touted as a diplomatic victory by the Obama Administration, which claims that Iran will be prevented from acquiring a weapon under the terms of the deal. However, Iran experts say there is little evidence that the deal benefits the U.S. in anyway. Critics say this deal will accelerate Iran’s nuclear program and their ability to gain a nuclear weapon.

Speaking at a panel at the Heritage Foundation on Wednesday, U.S. Congressman Ron DeSantis (R-FL) said he fears there may now be no opportunity to slow Iran’s nuclear program. DeSantis noted that the deal made an end run around congress as an “executive to executive” agreement, lacked clarity regarding ballistic missile testing, and resulted in the lifting of sanctions, which erased U.S. leverage.

Center for Security Policy Vice President Fred Fleitz led off the discussion panel by citing the increased efficiency of Iran’s 6,000 centrifuges. Recent improvements have given the Iranians the capability to produce a nuclear weapon quicker than previously believed.

The Washington Institute’s Director of Research for Middle Eastern Policy Patrick Clawson shifted the focus to political aspects of the deal and its effects on U.S. relationships. The U.S. has shifted its focus to improving relations with Iran to the detriment of long time U.S. allies. Europe is not pleased with the U.S. aiding Russia and Iran in Syria, yet the current Administration continues to essentially support their efforts.

Heritage Foundation’s James Phillips pointed out the deal is making Iran a regional hegemon. While the Obama Administration focuses on amending historical grievances, Iran, Syria, and Russia will begin pushing U.S. influence out of the Middle East as they gain greater control.

Clawson and Phillips both referenced the Administration’s hope to bring out the moderates in Iran through this new deal, but no moderates have been able to make any impact. Clawson stated, at best, the next Iranian election may see 20% of the positions held by “moderates”, and unlikely to significantly impact the nature of the Iranian regime.

A common criticism from each panelists was the Administration’s lack of effort to restrict Iran. The Obama Administration has allowed Iran to bend and work around the deal’s stipulations in order to keep the deal afloat. When Iran tested ballistic missiles on two separate occasions, which directly breaks the agreement and international sanctions, the Administration did little besides voicing their disproval. All panelists agreed, the Administration seems more concerned with improving relations with Iran than keeping their nuclear program in check.

Rebel Cause in Syria Fading as Government Forces Move Closer to Aleppo

The Syrian city of Aleppo has been surrounded by Assad government forces. Syria’s largest city has been held by multiple rebel groups since 2012. Al Qaeda’s Syria affiliate, al-Nusra Front, Al Qaeda linked Ahrar al Sham, and several closely aligned Islamist militias play a dominant role in the rebel-held city.

However, after weeks of Russian airstrikes and strategic maneuvers, the government looks ready to begin an assault to retake the city.

Aleppo serves as a major supply point for the opposition forces, due to its close proximity to the Turkish border. Without Aleppo, the rebels would lose key access to their supply lines.

Government forces have been able to make significant advances on rebel strongholds due to the recent support of the Russian and Iranian military. Iran has predominantly reinforced the Syrian military with ground troops, while Russia has launched an extensive campaign of airstrikes on rebel territory.

Since Russia and Iran have joined the fight late late year, government forces have been able to take back numerous rebel held territories.

  • In late November, government forces made their first significant movements towards taking Aleppo by reclaiming several towns just south of the city.
  • In early December, the Syrian government reclaimed the Marj al-Sultan airbase on the eastern outskirts of Damascus.
  • On January 24, the town of Rabia, long held by rebel forces, was reclaimed. Russian airstrikes played a key role, as they allowed for the government forces to capture three surrounding cities before taking Rabia.
  • On February 2, government forces and its allies made reclaimed three cities, Hardatnein, Tal Jibbeen and Deir Zaitoun, north of Aleppo.
  • The next day Al Jazeera reported Syrian army and its allies took Nubul and Zahraa, cutting off rebel supply lines from Turkey.

There have been rumors that the People’s Protection Unit (YPG), Syrian Kurds, is increasingly aligning with Russia after YPG officials stated their support of the Russian airstrikes against Jihadists. The biggest rift between the YPG and Russia is Assad. The Syrian Kurds strongly oppose Assad, but have reportedly welcomed any help against the jihadist groups, including not only Islamic State but also Ahrar al Sham and Jabhat Al Nusra, which YPG has been engaged by in the past.

If the government forces take Aleppo, the opposition forces would lose any leverage they would have hoped to hold in the Geneva peace talks. The peace talks were pushed back to February 25 after the opposition forces refused to move forward until their demands were met. On top of this, the rebel groups have used continued advancement towards Aleppo by the Assad regime as reason to delay talks.

The potential attack on Aleppo does not just pose a threat to rebel forces, but also regional neighbors. BBC reports a monitoring group lists roughly 40,000 people fleeing to Turkey. With terrorists previously traveling through Turkey to reach Europe, the large numbers of these fleeing citizens will provide the perfect cover for more jihadists to move past borders.

While losing Aleppo would surely hurt the rebel cause, it may intensify the fighting overall. While the Saudis have pledged to fight IS in Syria, they are just as concerned to remove Russia and Iran’s influence from Syria. This may lead the Saudis to increase their support of the rebels, which will lead to greater support from Russia and Iran for Assad. With the majority of efforts being focused on government and opposition forces, IS will have the ability to further its control within Syria.

The UN and U.S. hope the civil war in Syria can be resolved through diplomatic means instead of force. However, this seems unlikely particularly while Russia, Iran, and Assad continue to see battlefield success.

Death of Senior Commander Unlikely to Have Effect on AQAP Progress

A U.S. drone strike has reportedly killed Jalal Baleedi, an Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) senior field commander also known as Hamza al-Zinjibari. Baleedi and 11 other AQAP followers were killed during the February 4, 2016 strike in Abayan Province according to residents.

Baleedi served as a regional field commander for the provinces of Abyan, Shabwa, Hadramout, al-Bayda, and Lahj. Baleedi is best known for an operation that ambushed and executed 14 Yemeni soldiers in the city of Seiyoun on August 8th 2014.

There have been rumors that Baleedi defected to the Islamic State (IS), but this has not been substantiated.

In the past year the U.S. has successfully targeted AQAP leadership including:

  • In April of 2015, Ibrahim al-Rubaish, AQAP’s top ideological leader and mufti, was killed in a US drone strike in Yemen.
  • That same month, a U.S. drone strike killed Nasser bin Ali al-Ansi, a senior AQAP leader and AQ’s global deputy manager.
  • In June 2015, the U.S. was able to target and kill AQAP leader, Nasir al Wuhayshi, also served as AQ’s second in command.

Baleedi was born and raised in the Abyan province in Yemen, where he served as imam for a mosque in Zinjibar before joining AQAP in 2011. Several members of Baleedi’s family are members of Al Qaeda, and it is believed these ties drew him into the organization.

One of Baleedi’s strengths has been his ability to persuade others regarding Al Qaeda’s positions. This is in part because Baleedi is well-known around Yemen, including in his time serving as an imam. He appeared regularly in recruitment and field operation videos, and he also sat down for interviews with Yemeni reporters.

The U.S. State Department placed a $5 million reward on Baleedi after he was suspected of planning attacks on Western diplomats in 2013.

AQAP has recently taken considerable territory around Yemen. They now control the commercial city of Azzan, the port city of Mukalla, and are continuing to move into Aden, a major port city and new home of the Yemeni government. Baleedi, serving as field commander to the regions where these cities are, is likely to have been involved with planning and execution of these operations.

Baleedi’s death, if confirmed, will affect AQAP in the region, but although the death of a senior field commander may slow their push west, it likely won’t be enough to stop their recent successes.

With the Saudi coalition and Yemeni security forces engaged primarily in fighting the Iranian backed Houthis, it’s unclear if there is a force willing or able to capitalize on Baleedi’s death with movement on the ground. As a result the U.S.’s ability to kill high-level AQAP leadership continues to have a limited strategic impact on AQAP’s efforts.

Economic Warfare in the Middle East May Keep Oil Prices Low for the Near Future

Saudi Arabia continues to produce oil at high levels despite dropping oil prices. Oil makes up 80% of the Saudi economy, yet prices have dropped significantly over the past few months. The price now sits just over $30 a barrel. With their increasing production

OPEC nations agreed to increase oil production in hopes of weakening U.S. shale oil production. Most Middle Eastern countries can produce oil at less than $30 a barrel, while it takes around $60 to produce a barrel through fracking, the method used by shale oil producers. OPEC achieved its goal of slowing down U.S. production; however Saudi Arabia and Iran refuse to lower their own production, as oil has become a strategic weapon in the larger geopolitical conflict between the two Gulf rivals.

Saudi Arabia has expressed a desire for OPEC nations to lower production levels in order to see a rise in oil prices.  However, Iran is anxious to raise its own output levels as the U.S. lifts its sanctions. As a result, the Saudis are reluctant to decrease their own production as Iran makes up for lost profits in the oil market. With well-established cash reserves and the lowest breakeven price per barrel in OPEC, Saudi Arabia suffers less from low oil prices than does Iran.

Despite this however, the Saudi government is aware that its cash reserves are dwindling rapidly at the current price, and has lately debated new methods of funding. One option they considered was the IPO offering of state-controlled oil company, Saudi Aramco.

While the Saudi government publicly denies concerns over their deficit spending, privately there’s reason to worry. The Saudis are spending roughly $5 to $6 billion of their national reserves every month. With $630 billion total in reserves, it looks as if they are in no immediate danger, but that is assuming oil prices will not drop even further.

More troubling for the Saudis is the potential for Iran to surpass them as the top economy in the region. The recent Iran Nuclear Deal has lifted the economic sanctions that have long kept the Iranian economy from reaching full potential. With the sanctions lifted the World Bank predicts that Iran will see a 5.8% rise in GDP in 2016 and a 6.7% rise in 2017.

The Obama Administration has chosen to shift its focus on improving relations with Iran, to the detriment of Saudi Arabia, a long time U.S. ally. As a result, the Saudis have been forced to turn to other strategic methods for dealing with Iran, rather than relying on American military.

The Saudis are currently engaged with a proxy conflict with Iran on two fronts, Syria and Yemen, and relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia have continued to deteriorate following  the Saudi government execution of Shiite cleric Nimr al-Nimr on terrorism charges. By keeping oil production high and the price below Iran’s break-even point, Saudi Arabia hopes to keep the Iranian economy weak and hit the Iranians where it hurts.

While economic considerations may have initiated the drop in oil prices, Saudi strategic considerations are likely to continue to suppress prices as the Saudi government continues to utilize the market as a weapon.

Hollande Continues to Stand up to Iran and Global Jihadists

My skin crawled yesterday when I heard that Italian officials concealed nude Roman statues in a Rome museum prior to a visit by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.  This was cultural submission to the global jihad movement which objects to Western culture and values.  Why would Italian officials hide their heritage for an Iranian official?  How long will it be when Western leaders start hiding and censoring Western culture on a wide scale because of objections by Islamists?

Fortunately, French President François Hollande chose not to submit to the Iranian leader’s intolerance of Western culture for a dinner he was scheduled to have with Rouhani.  The Iranian delegation demanded a halal menu and wanted wine removed from the menu.  Hollande refused and insisted on a menu of local food and wine.  His staff said an ‘Iran friendly’ meal went against France’s republican values.  Hollande’s staff offered to hold a breakfast instead, but Rouhani rejected this idea as “too cheap.”  As a result, the two leaders did not dine together.

Meanwhile, French Justice Minister Christiane Taubira resigned yesterday to protest President Hollande’s proposal for a constitutional amendment to strip French citizenship from some homegrown terrorists.  Taubira has been criticized for her weak positions in promoting French security in the wake of the November terrorist shootings by ISIS jihadists that killed 130.  According to the Wall Street Journal, Taubira was replaced by a centrist who reportedly will tip Hollande’s government away from his Socialist Party’s left wing.

Taubira’s lack of national security mindedness could be seen in photos of her bicycling home from the Justice Ministry after she resigned.

Let’s hope Hollande’s principled stand to fight the global jihad movement is a good omen that will offset this week’s nonsensical cultural submission to Iran during President Rouhani’s visit to Rome.

Electrical Grid Remains a Vulnerable Target to Nations and Terrorists

Today, Afghani and Israeli infrastructure were targeted by outside forces. In Afghanistan, the Taliban blew up a major electricity pylon in Dand-e-Shahabuddin area knocking out power to the entire region. In Israel, the Public Utility Authority was the target of one of the country’s largest cyber attacks in history.

Afghanistan and Israel will be able to recover from the recent attacks, but these events illustrate how susceptible a nation’s infrastructure can be. The Taliban were able to easily knock out power to an entire region without any high tech equipment, while the entire nation of Israel would have been effected if the attack was not stopped.

This is not the first, and certainly not the last, time an outside force has attacked a nation’s grid.

  • March 31, 2015, 44 of Turkey’s 81 provinces lost power for twelve hours after their grid was alledgedly hacked by Iran.
  • January 2015, cities and towns across Pakistan lost power after Baluchistani rebels attacked a transmission line.
  • June 9, 2014, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) attacked a transmission tower that blacked out the entire nation of Yemen.
  • In December 2015, Russia was suspected of hacking Ukrainian power stations, causing tens of thousands of Ukrainians to lose power.
  • 2013, the Wall Street Journal and Associated Press reported on several occasions when Iranians infiltrated the U.S. power grid and, on one occasion, a dam in New York.
  • 2010, a North Korean defector spoke with BBC Click about North Korean hackers began using Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) to target control systems of critical infrastructure.

Whether high tech or low tech, attacks on the grid can be carried out by anyone or any group. In the case of Yemen, AQAP simply fired grenades at a Yemeni transmission tower and blacked out the whole nation. With powerful nations relying heavily on electricity, it is imperative for nations to secure their grids and protect against a possible incursion.

As a well developed nation it is not enough to just prepare against high tech incursions. Securing servers and putting up firewalls will not stop an explosive or gunfire from ruining a system. The United States must prepare for a full spectrum of attacks from its enemies.

John Riggi, a section chief at the FBI’s cyber division, mentioned in a CNN article that IS had been attempting to hack into the U.S. grid, but have been unsuccessful. However, he later mentions that it is possible to gain the technology necessary from the black market. Some companies have been cited selling hacking equipment to oppressive governments.

Hackers have offered hacking training on internet forums for a small fee. The tools to hack into control systems on power plants and dams are easily accessible on the internet. Powerful nations and average people now have access to the knowledge to do critical damage to a nation’s vital infrastructure.

With all of these threats it is important for the U.S. to know who their enemies are. As the CNN article mentioned, while IS has been unsuccessful, they still have the potential and desire to hack our grid. U.S. Defense leaders are well aware of the threats We currently do not have a strategy to deter actors like China and Russia from proliferating hacking capabilities to other hostile actors.