Warfighting gear has dramatically improved over the past 15 years.

It goes by many names: Deuce gear, TA-50, or 782 gear. Whatever the nickname, load-bearing equipment is some of the most important kit carried by infantry, special operations, and anyone else whose job is to fight on foot.

Since the advent of modular lightweight load-carrying equipment and the accompanying pouch attachment ladder system in the late 1990s, the commercial and government gear market has rapidly grown, particularly since the onset of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. “Tactical nylon” companies are not just producing innovations in load-bearing gear, but uniforms and footwear as well. Here’s a few areas where troop gear has gotten better.

1. Armor protection

The development of lighter ceramic armor plates like the enhanced small arms protective insert plate has marked a shift toward the plate carrier as the preferred option for individual protection. The newest plate carriers the Army currently issues include the soldier plate carrier system and the improved outer tactical vest, while the Marines use the improved scalable plate carrier and improved modular tactical vest.

Commercially, there are dozens of companies producing plate carriers, with models from Crye Precision, London Bridge Trading, and Eagle Industries popular among special operations units and others able to use non-issued gear.

One recent innovation has come in the design of armor plate itself. A soft armor backing is often required to protect the wearer from “spalling” debris that may break off a plate if it is struck by incoming rounds. But some companies are now offering standalone plates with “Level IV” protection, which is the highest protection rating given by the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice; making it even easier to get maximum protection in one package.

2. New materials

A lot of tactical gear nowadays is moving beyond cordura nylon. Laser-cut fabrics and laminates are shaving more weight off, resulting in sturdy load-bearing gear that weighs in at under a pound. That’s crucial considering the increased load of armor, communications, and ammo that has become the norm over the past 15 years of war.

These new materials also help protect gear from abrasions, water damage, and chemical degradation. Polymer gear has also become popular. Thermoplastic holsters and carriers provide better retention of items like sidearms and magazines, while allowing easier access compared to older closed flap and bungee pouches.

3. Adaptability

The advent of modular lightweight load-carrying equipment meant a more modular system for attaching gear to a load-bearing platform. But anyone who’s spent time weaving MOLLE pouches onto a vest knows how laborious it can be. MOLLE has given the end user more options, but switching between those options isn’t a fast process. Recently, gear companies have begun to offer solutions that allow the user to quickly change loadouts.

Velcro-backed panels and chest rigs combined with quick-detach buckles allow for fast changes between different combat loads. Adjustable pouches can carry a wider variety of magazines, tools, radios, and other equipment. There are now even plate carriers built from the ground up to have adaptable components. All this makes it even easier to use one load-bearing platform for multiple roles.

4. Lowered visibility

The War on Terror’s unconventional insurgent battlefield created requirements for operating among the civilian population. As a result, there evolved a new need for low-visibility kit that wouldn’t overtly advertise ammo and equipment, especially among special operations troops and private military contractors.

Companies have released “slick” armor carriers and belts that allow the user to carry a basic load of ammo, communications, and medical supplies while maintaining a undercover posture. This is a huge benefit for special reconnaissance, surveillance, and VIP security operations.

5. More first-line equipment

The pistol belt has seen a resurgence in recent years, and has evolved into several new styles of products. Padded belts with MOLLE capability, often called “battle” or “war” belts, have shifted focus to the “first line” — the basics that allow one to move and fight. A good belt setup can carry water, first aid, and ammo; these are the baseline of the fighting load. Another evolution has come with addition of velcro, allowing for an inner belt system that keeps the outer belt from shifting around when the user runs or changes stance. This has also allowed for lower-profile belt carriage that is suited for low-visibility operations.

6. Fighting footwear

Even the simple boot has seen some major development. Over the past decade, commercials hiking boots have gained popularity among troops. Companies have taken notice and are now offering hiking-style footwear specifically aimed at the military market. A good pair of boots can really make all the difference during an extended patrol or field operation.

7. Comfort

Combat is undoubtedly never comfortable, but there have been major strides taken in reducing some of the discomforts that come with wearing kit for extended periods of time. The “combat shirt,” designed to provide more ventilation when worn under armor, is now a common sight for deployed service members.

Integrating kneepads into uniform pants helps to eliminate the “ankle pad” syndrome that traditional strap designs often suffer from. Aftermarket helmet liners and retention systems ensure a more comfortable fit. Some advances go beyond mere comfort. Uniforms like the Marine Corps’ fire resistant organization gear and its replacement, the enhanced flame-resistant combat ensemble are designed to prevent the burn injury prevalent in victims of improvised explosive device strikes.

8. Availability

There are only so many ways the make a magazine pouch, so many of tactical nylon companies are offering similar products. This is not inherently a bad thing; it gives end users more options and ensures that their needs will be met even if their first choice of equipment is not available. As the tempo of overseas deployments and urgent gear requirements slows, it will become more difficult for so many companies to eke out an existence in a shrinking market. For the time being, however, troops have plenty of options to meet their needs and preferences for combat kit.

The gear market has produced rapid innovation in a remarkably short period of time that has transformed the way infantrymen, special operations, and anyone else who carries firearms for a living carries their equipment. The future remains unclear, with powered exoskeletons and improved armor being some surmised improvements. What is certain is that for every new piece of equipment or technology, troops will need a way to carry it.

SEE ALSO: Here is what it's like when Special Forces raid a compound

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: How the US military spends its billions

A former Islamic State militant recently spoke with NBC news about his experience fighting with the group in Syria — and why he surrendered after just three days on the frontlines.

The man, a 24-year-old single father and college dropout who traveled from New York back to his native Turkey, told NBC what has become a familiar story. Socially isolated and lacking meaning in his life, he was seduced by the jihadis' promise of a salary, a house, and a wife.

"My life was hard and nobody liked me," the man, who insisted on anonymity, said while crying. "I didn't have many friends. I was on the internet a lot and playing games."

This is a common profile among those recruited by the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, who are often young men (and women) seeking purpose and identity. They are drawn to ISIS' promise of community, along with the glory of potential martyrdom. ISIS' inclusive rhetoric, combined with its social-media prowess, has allowed the group to recruit more foreigners to its ranks than any other modern jihadist group.

Firsthand accounts of the militants' brutality from those who have fought with ISIS, such as the one given by the Turkish-American recruit, are still relatively rare, even though an estimated 20,000 foreign fighters have joined the group.

"They told us, 'When you capture someone, you will behead them,'" he said. "But as for me, I have never even beheaded a chicken … It is not easy … I can't do that."

He said he was also instructed to throw homosexuals off of tall buildings and kill female adulterers. He said he decided to leave ISIS after an airstrike killed six of his fellow fighters in the Syrian border town of Tal Abyad.

"I got scared because in my whole life I hadn't seen anything like this," he told NBC. "And since I was scared, I threw my pistol away and my legs couldn't hold me."

The online radicalization of Muslims has become a security threat for the West: An estimated 4,000 ISIS recruits come from Western countries, and foreigners now make up at least half of ISIS' fighting force, The New York Times reported in April.

Many disgruntled recruits have tried to return to their home country after traveling to join ISIS and finding that life with the group is less glamorous than advertised, The Independent reported.

"I've done hardly anything but hand out clothes and food," a French recruit wrote in a letter home obtained by Le Figaro. "I've also cleaned weapons and moved the bodies of killed fighters. Winter is beginning. It's starting to get tough."

The man interviewed by NBC may have escaped the Islamic State. But the interview was conducted in a Syrian prison where he was being held captive by Kurdish forces.

He will only be free in death, the ex-fighter told reporters.

"They burn your life, they leave nothing," he said. "I can't do anything now. If I go to them [ISIS], they will kill me. If I go to Turkey, they will arrest me. If I stay here, I will go to prison. I have nothing. The only escape for me is death."

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 11 game-changing military planes from the last 15 years

At the height of the Cold War, America's underground was rife with dozens of hidden nuclear-missile units.

Some of these systems contained Titan II missiles, which carried the largest single nuclear warhead of any missile of its kind before or since.

Titan II was a guided ballistic missile that was also the largest, most powerful nuclear weapons system ever deployed in the US. And it served one purpose: deterrence.

"The idea behind Titan II was to instill enough fear in the mind of the enemy to cause them to think twice about launching an attack against us," Chuck Penson, the archivist and historian at the Titan Missile Museum in Sahuarita, Arizona, told Derek Muller, the host of the YouTube channel Varitasium.

In his latest Varitasium episode, Muller takes us inside an underground base where one of these monster Titan II missiles still stands, and he learns about the insanely complicated steps it would have taken to actually launch this terrifying piece of human engineering in the event of an attack.

Inside the missile was a weapon with incredibly destructive potential — 650 times as powerful as the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

Therefore, it's no surprise that on the entry door into the silo, where the Titan II missile stands, there is a sign that reads "CAUTION."

Though the Titan II missile still stands, it no longer carries its dangerous cargo.

Among the more interesting features in the silo are the soundproof panels covering the walls. Without these panels to absorb the sound during a launch, the energy from the sound waves would actually shake the missile to pieces before it could lift off.

The Titan Missile Museum in Arizona, where this empty missile is located, includes the original site for one of the 54 underground silos across the country where deterrent missiles, such as Titan II, were hidden during the late 1950s and mid-'60s.

The control center with all of the gadgets, switches, and buttons — including those that would initiate a launch — is located far from the missile, beyond a series of long underground tunnels.

Another benefit, besides secrecy, to an underground launch site was that if the enemy successfully detonated a bomb in the US, the site's occupants would be shielded from the radiation as long as their base was not destroyed in the attack.

Once in the control room, Penson takes Muller through the multistep process of what it would have been like to launch a Titan II missile. First, the speakers in the room sound an alarm that is followed by a message with a series of random numbers and words.

This message should have reached them only if the US president had ordered it.

Everyone in the room copies down the message and compares notes, and if they agree on what they heard, then they go to a red safe — which is locked, of course — containing a series of what Penson calls "authentication cards."

Each card contains two letters. If one of the cards has the two-letter combination that matches the first two letters in the secret message transmitted through the speakers, then the control room is officially "go" for launch.

After that, you just have one more six-letter code and two keys separating you from World War III. But the six-letter code is on a wheel with 17 million possible combinations, and the key slots are far enough apart that you must have two people turning them at exactly the same time.

After you insert the six-letter code, the commander counts down to the final key turn. The commander and his partner hold the keys down for five seconds, and then a terrifying green light illuminates the "Ready to Launch" panel.

"For all intensive purposes that should say, 'Welcome to World War III,' because that's pretty much what it boils down to," Penson said. "When you turn the key you are committed. There is no 'oops' switch."

These precautions were taken to prevent a single person from launching a missile. After all, people can get pretty crazy and paranoid during times of war.

Though Titan II was never launched to prevent an attack on US soil, several of these missiles were launched. In fact, some were used to launch American manned missions through NASA's Gemini program to space.

Check out Muller's video below or on YouTube:

CHECK OUT: All of the beautiful locations in Matt Damon's new thriller about Mars are real — here are the epic photos that prove it

SEE ALSO: This new nuclear-armed US bomb may be the most dangerous weapon in America's arsenal

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 14 extraordinary rocket test failures that paved the way for NASA's space program

One of the most notorious spies in American history will walk out of prison by the end of the year.

On November 20, Jonathan Pollard will be paroled 30 years after being convicted of spying for Israel.

It's not hard to see why Pollard's case has been such a consistent source of controversy over the past three decades.

Pollard was spying on behalf of a US ally and received a life sentence despite pleading guilty and fully cooperating with US investigators. He turned over thousands of classified documents and even allegedly sold documents to Pakistan and apartheid South Africa as well.

For some, Pollard is a victim of what they believe to be the US national-security establishment's discontent toward its close operational relationship with Israel, and that he was used as a blunt tool for bringing an often difficult ally to heel. For others, Pollard was nothing more than a particularly energetic traitor who sold crateloads of secrets to a foreign government.

The debate over Pollard, and what, if anything, his case may still mean for the US-Israel relationship probably won't end any time soon. But news of his release is an opportunity to revisit the US intelligence community's authoritative read on one of the most controversial affairs in the recent history of American national security.

In 2012, the National Security Archive at George Washington University successfully compelled the US government to release a version of the CIA's 1987 damage assessment of Pollard's espionage. The heavily redacted document expands upon an almost entirely redacted version of the study's preface, released in 2006.

The damage assessment is a window into the tangled world of mid-1980s global power politics — as well as into a high-stakes intelligence operation gone horribly and perhaps inevitably wrong.

Here are some of the more startling bits of the CIA's assessment of a spy drama that's still a source of contention 30 years later.

Pollard stole an astounding amount of stuff.

"Pollard's operation has few parallels among known US espionage cases," the damage assessment states.

Pollard stole "an estimated 1,500 current-intelligence summary messages," referring to daily reports from various regions of interest to US national security. He stole another 800 classified documents on top of that.

During the investigation into his espionage, Pollard recalled that "his first and possibly largest delivery occurred on 23 January [1984] and consisted of five suitcases-full of classified material."

He delivered documents to his Israeli handlers on a biweekly basis for the next 11 months, with only a short break for an "operational trip" to Europe.

In contrast, Adolf Tolkachov, who was one of the most valuable US intelligence assets of the Cold War, met with his CIA handlers fewer than two dozen times over the course of seven years.

Pollard and his handlers' tradecraft seemed shoddy.

As the assessment notes, Pollard gave himself away by blatantly accessing documents that were far outside of his professional purview:

But his handlers don't come off looking terrible competent either. One handler wanted Pollard to report on whether US intelligence had any potentially incriminating information about high-level Israeli officials and to help root out Israelis passing information to the US.

After this individual left the room, Pollard's most immediate handler reportedly told him he would terminate the operation if he complied with his supervisor's order, a sign that there were certain disagreements within the Israeli side on how the operation should proceed and what kind of information their asset should target.

Pollard also delivered 1,500 intelligence summaries that the Israelis never explicitly asked him for; despite the potential to expose the operation, Pollard's handlers kept accepting them anyway. And they didn't seem to care that such large, biweekly intelligence deliveries could expose their asset.

And there seemed to be little consideration for the undue harm the operation could do to Israel's relationship with the US. The damage assessment gives a strong impression that Israeli operatives believed that their lack of interest in US weapons systems or capabilities could insulate them from a major incident if Pollard were ever exposed. After all, according to the report, "Pollard's objective was to provide Israel with the best available US intelligence on Israel's Arab adversaries and the military support they receive from the Soviet Union."

But they were wrong.

In some ways, Pollard's espionage took place in an entirely different world ...

The Israelis were primarily interested in getting two things out of Pollard: information about Pakistan's nuclear program and information relating to Soviet upgrades to the conventional arsenals of the Arab states (with a particular focus on Syria). Pollard also provided details of the Palestine Liberation Organization's compounds in Tunis, Tunisia, which the Israelis used during a 1985 raid.

The damage assessment notes that Israel was particularly keen on obtaining an NSA handbook needed to decrypt intercepted communications between Moscow and a Soviet military-assistance unit in Damascus, Syria. Pollard attempted emergency communications with his Israeli handlers on just two occasions: once to provide intelligence on an impending truck-bomb attack and another time to warn that the Soviet T-72M main battle tank had entered service with Hafez Assad's Syrian military.

Israel was eager for information on Soviet weapons systems that would likely be passed to the Arab states, and wanted information on armaments Israel would face if the conflict with the Arab states ever escalated into a hot war.

Today, there's little conventional military threat to Israel's existence, the Soviet Union is defunct, and Syria is no longer a unitary state.

But at one point, Israel was willing to jeopardize its relationship with the US to gain an advantage in all of these areas.

... and, in some ways, it's the same world.

Pollard's Israeli handlers at least tried to make it seem as if the US wasn't the target of their espionage, as Pollard was instructed not to take any information related to US weapons systems or strategic and military planning.

But this is arguably a moot point: Pollard exposed highly sensitive operational details of US intelligence collection, giving invaluable insight into US intelligence methods, sources, and collection priorities. That said, the Israelis at least tried to avoid making the US — rather than Soviet and Arab militaries — the primary target of Pollard's espionage.

Still, it's possible to glimpse fissures between the US and Israel in the damage assessment.

Pollard's espionage was enabled by the US's refusal to share information that the Israelis considered vital to their national security — even though the US is never under any obligation to share the entirety of their intelligence with any foreign state, regardless of how closely allied it may be. The US had perfectly valid reasons to withhold certain intelligence.

For instance, the damage assessment notes that Pollard's spying was damaging partly because what it might have led the Arab states to conclude about the US's strategic posture:

The US and Israel are different countries with interests and objectives that sometimes contradict. Sometimes they diverge in ways that only become visible when a Pollard-type scandal breaks, which is rarely.

And sometimes they diverge on a geopolitical level, as is currently occurring in the controversy over the Iranian nuclear deal, a top US foreign-policy priority that Israel's leadership vehemently opposes.

Israel versus Syria

Like this interesting aside about how long US intelligence believed it would take Hafez Assad's army to retake the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights, which Israel seized during the 1967 Middle East War and which Syria had used as a staging area for invasions of Israel in 1948 and 1967:

The name of the agency that gave the more pessimistic assessment is still redacted, strongly suggesting that this was the view of a US entity.

So some office within the US intelligence community believed that the Defense Intelligence Agency had a highly inflated view of Israeli military capabilities — or was underestimating the military strength of the Assad regime.

Read the entire damage assessment here.

SEE ALSO: Turkey is playing a "dangerous game" with ISIS

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: This drummer created a whole song by only using the sound of coins

Peruvian security forces rescued 54 adults and children, mostly members of the Ashaninka indigenous group, who had been held by Shining Path rebels in a remote jungle region, government officials said.

Antiterrorism police chief Gen. Jose Baella said some of the adults were kidnapped between 20 and 30 years ago from Puerto Ocopa and nearby towns back when the rebel movement was still strong.

Baella said the women were used to produce child soldiers for the guerrillas and grow crops for them. The oldest of the 34 children was 14, he said Saturday.

Independent security expert Pedro Yaranga said the rescue was not a serious blow to the drug-trafficking Shining Path remnant that operates in the area, but does show how weak it has become.

"These children and the captive mass had been abandoned and were on their own, very far from the place where the columns and the camps of the rebels and their children are located," he said.

The group was rescued by a special-forces unit of soldiers and police in helicopter-borne missions on Friday and Monday, said Baella. Members of the group have been reunited with relatives they had not seen for decades, he added.

Baella said none were being immediately presented to the media. They were receiving medical treatment and being interviewed by prosecutors at the counternarcotics police base in Mazamari.

The rescued group was living in a various camps in thick jungle with a 50-meter (150-foot) canopy in a place called Sector V in the Satipo province of Junin state, officials said.

Two young Shining Path deserters who were raised in the camps had led authorities to them, and a total of 70 people have been rescued from such camps in the past year, said Baella.

Analysts estimate the Shining Path's strength at no more than 200 fighters.

It has been seriously weakened in recent years with the capture of top commander "Artemio" in 2012, and the killings of two top cadres the following year in a security force ambush.

Its last refuge borders Peru's main cocaine-producing region, the Apurimac, Ene, and Mantaro river valley.

Last year, the group's two top leaders — brothers Victor and Jorge Quispe Palomino — were indicted in the US on charges including conspiracy to commit narco-terrorism.

Join the conversation about this story »

One month after a Bosnian-Serb assassinated Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife, Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg, on a street corner in Sarajevo, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, effectively beginning World War I.

Ferdinand's murder sent the Great Powers into a war that would last five years and cost the lives of 10 million troops.

Thought of as the "war to end all wars," World War I marked a number of firsts in military conflict, including the use of planes, tanks, and chemical weapons. 

On June 28, 1919, the victorious Allied leaders signed the Treaty of Versailles, officially ending World War I and spurring German nationalism, which in turn gave Nazi leader Adolf Hitler a political platform.

Here's a few colorized photographs published by The Open University showing life during World War I.

SEE ALSO: Haunting visions of World War I live on in these overlay photos

Trench warfare was one of the hallmarks of World War I.

Soldiers could spend the majority of their deployments in the trenches. Here, a soldier receives a haircut from a barber on the Albanian front.

Here, a German Field Artillery crew poses with its gun at the start of the war in 1914.

On July 24, Turkey announced that it would finally allow US forces to use its Incirlik Airbase to carry out strikes against ISIS militants in Syria and Iraq.

But Turkey's access came with conditions.

Ankara is clearly is more concerned about its sizable and rebellious Kurdish minority, which is upwards of 13% of the country's population, than it is about ISIS, which the Turkish government has been consistently accused of supporting.

And providing the US access to Incirlik gives the Turks more freedom to strike the Kurds in Iraq, which they began doing right after announcing the agreement with the US.

It's unclear if the quid-pro-quo will be worth it. In any case, it will almost certainly meant to work for Turkish president Recip Tayyip Erdogan's political advantage.

Erdogan's gambit

After the reproted agreement, Turkey struck against both ISIS in Syria and the Kurdish PKK stationed in northern Iraq.

Turkey also cracked down on alleged terrorists within its orders in a massive string of arrests— with the majority of those arrested belonging to the PKK.

The decision to strike at both ISIS and the PKK — the perennial enemy of the Turkish state that's waged an insurgency since the 1980s, driving a conflict that's killed many as 30,000 people — is a Machiavellian move by Erdogan.

Turkey's internal politics are having a big impact on the fight against ISIS, and the US might now be ensared in the Turkish strong-man's latest power play.

Peace no longer politically useful

During June elections, Erdogan's ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) lost its parliamentary majority for the first time since 2002.

The AKP's reversal of fortune was largely due to the success of the Pro-Kurdish People's Democratic Party (HDP), which became the first majority Kurdish party to enter Turkey's parliament.

The success of the HDP limited Erdogan's own political ambitions of empowering the presidency of the country at the expense of the parliament.

The success of the HDP has also led to a fracturing of the Turkish parliament, as currently no party holds a majority and coalition talks between the AKP and other have faltered.

Erdogan's government has been attempting to negotiate a fragile peace process since 2012, and the AKP rode to power partly on its ability to capture segments the Kurdish vote.

However, it seems the peace process and the Kurds are no longer politically useful: On July 30th, the leader of Turkey's ultranationalist Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) said he would be willing to form a coalition with the AKP if the peace process with the Kurds were formally ended.

Erdogan 'will not allow PKK to abuse the political space'

The PKK are a Kurdish separatist group, originally inspired by Marxism, that has been designated a terrorist organization by Turkey, the US, and the EU for their attacks against military and non-military targets.

An end to the peace process would likely lead to more violence, and could lead to the PKK once against starting its insurgency in the east of Turkey.

But Erdogan would also be able to form a majority in parliament with the MHP, thereby sidelining the Kurdish political party and the center-left Republicn People's Party (CHP).

To further limit the influence of Kurds in Turkish politics, Erdogan has also threatened to strip members of parliament of diplomatic immunity and prosecute them for ties to the PKK. The threat is obviously aimed at the HDP.

“The underlying strategy is to coerce the HDP to physically renounce what the PKK is doing,” Aaron Stein, a non-resident fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East, told the Huffington Post.

Erdogan wants to turn the public against the HDP, shore up support among conservatives in Turkey, and rule with total authority despite the loss of his majority in parliament.

If Erdogan is able to consolidate his political gains against the Kurds quickly enough, military action against the PKK may end up being brief.

“The campaign against ISIS is a long-term campaign, possibly for years — as long as ISIS is not eliminated,” Sinan Ulgen, a former Turkish diplomat, told the Wall Street Journal. “The strikes against PKK are more intense today but they are likely to be short-lived.

"They’re a signal by Turkey that it will not allow PKK to abuse the political space created by the Kurdish settlement talks.”

Consequences for the US

Any prolonged concerted effort by Turkey against the PKK will only further complicate an already tangled web of alliances in the fight against ISIS.

In addition to bombing the Kurds in northern Iraq, the YPG — a Syrian Kurdish militia aligned with the PKK — has accused Ankara of shelling a Kurdish-held village in northern Syria.

While Ankrara denies that claim, tensions will continue to simmer and explode throughout Kurdish-held regions as long as Turkey continues to battle both the Kurds and ISIS.

And since the US views the YPG as the most capable force currently deployed on the ground against ISIS, any Turkish hostility against the YPG or the Kurds more generally will be a glaring contradiction within the anti-ISIS forces.

An unnamed US official told Foreign Policy on Tuesday that due to the YPG's successes against ISIS, the US views them as an important regional partner.

“We don’t want to see that [relationship] complicated in any way” and “we are not going to forsake them,” the official said to Foreign Policy.

But Turkey has a different view of both the Kurds and its own interests in the region and just gained a freer hand as the result of its deal with the US.

Conseqeutnly, continued US support for the YPG makes things awkward.

On Thursday, State Department Deputy Spokesperson Mark Toner pledged that US aircraft operating out of Incirlik Airbase will continue to provide air support with the YPG. But Toner's comments came just a day after the Turkish Foreign Ministry said that any air support missions for the YPG were not included in the US-Turkey deal.

Basically, Turkey and the US are attempting to harmonize their approach to the war against ISIS but don't agree on how or whether the Kurds fit into such a struggle.

For now, the US has to find a way to strike a middle approach that will satisfy both the Syrian Kurds and an ever uneasy Erdogan — or else the anti-ISIS campaign may pay a steep price for US access to a single Turkish airbase.

SEE ALSO: ISIS is exploiting a crucial weakness in Turkey that lets them walk 'free'

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 5 of the most elite special forces in the world

DUBAI/BEIRUT (Reuters) - President Hassan Rouhani affirmed his confidence in Iran's nuclear deal with world powers on Sunday, tackling the criticisms of hardliners and highlighting the achievements of his two-year-old presidency.

With one eye on a likely run for re-election in 2017, Rouhani used a live interview on state TV to tout the deal as a new "third way" for Iranian foreign policy, dismissing hardliners' criticism that he had capitulated to the West.

"This idea that we have two options before the world, either submit to it or defeat it, is illogical: there is also a third way, of constructive cooperation with the world in a framework of national interests," he said.

"We worked with the United Nations without war or pleading or surrender, but with logic, negotiation and diplomacy in a legal path," he said, avoiding any direct mention of the United States or other Western powers.

He also touted the economic achievements of his government, which has brought inflation down from highs above 40 percent and restored economic growth, trends that should be maintained by the promised sanctions relief.

Rouhani downplayed the risk that nuclear inspections could jeopardize Iran's state secrets and defensive capabilities, a key line of attack by hardliners in the security establishment who fear a military attack by Western powers.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had forbade giving U.N. inspectors access to military sites, and it was only with delicate wording that this sticking point was resolved in the deal.

"We will not give away even the smallest national secret, whether military, scientific, commercial or societal ... our defensive capability won't be diminished at all," Rouhani said.

He invoked popular support for the diplomatic opening, casting his election victory two years ago as a "referendum" on how Iran should conduct itself on the world stage.

"From their perspective, yesterday we were a threatening country and now we are a country with which a deal needs to be struck."

(Reporting by Babak Dehghanpisheh and Sam Wilkin; Editing by Robin Pomeroy)

Join the conversation about this story »

Cyber-attacks are ten a penny now, and the FBI and other authorities that investigate these crimes around the world have many hurdles to cross if they want to catch a hacker. Police forces can often be hindered by the dark web and anonymizing tools used by cyber-criminals to cover their tracks, but there are also political barriers in arresting cyber-criminals in other countries as well as lengthy trials and investigations into home-grown perpetrators. A couple of high profile cases from recent years have shined a light on how cyber-crime cases are carried out.

There is now a growing underground economy for cyber-crime. It is no longer the preserve of just the hacker elite. The market is thriving, said Symantec in one of its most recent threat reports. More cyber-criminals, whether sophisticated or glorified script kiddies, means more work for authorities as they try desperately to keep up with a flood of international attacks.

International cyber arrests

Many of the world’s most active hackers are dotted across the globe, from Russia to China, from the UK to Australia. The FBI’s most wanted cyber-crime list includes numerous foreign nationals. The most recent hacker snagged from across the pond was British man Lauri Love, who is charged with infiltrating US government computers and now faces extradition.

American authorities encounter many hurdles when trying to capture and extradite an international cyber-criminal. Recently, they scored a rare win with the extradition of alleged hacker Ercan Findikoglu, a Turkish man who’d been arrested in Germany in 2013 and had been sitting in prison there since. Findikoglu, 33, is accused of leading a criminal group that hacked ATMs in New York and 23 other countries, stealing over 50 million dollars. Findikoglu had been described as one of the most wanted cyber crooks in the world, and if convicted he could face life behind bars — in the form of a 247 year prison sentence.

A Swedish man named Alex Yucel, who led the Blackshades group, was convicted by a New York court in June and sentenced to four years and nine months for developing and selling malware. He had been arrested in Moldova in 2013 and successfully extradited following years of creating remote access tools that could gain control of victims’ computers. His software is believed to have infected over 500,000 computers.

Yucel pleaded guilty and Judge P. Kevin Castel described him and other cyber-criminals as “spreading misery” across the world’s internet users. “The message must go forth that this is a serious crime worthy of a serious punishment,” said the judge. “Yucel’s computer hacking days are now over,” said Preet Bharara, US Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

Forming cross border bonds

There are many wanted hackers in Europe that are of interest to American authorities. One of the most notorious is Nicolae Popescu, a Romanian national, wanted for orchestrating an Internet fraud scheme.

Local Romanian authorities take the threat of hackers very seriously, says Alexandru Catalin Cosoi, chief security strategist at Romanian security software company Bitdefender.

“[Authorities are] in the underground forums, they’re doing a lot of arrests,” he says. “I know that there are a lot of specialists in the law enforcement agencies that are very skilled and are very eager to solve these issues.”

Academics, the security industry, and governments need to form bonds to carry out international efforts, adds Dr. Bhavani Thuraisingham, director of the Cyber Security Research Center at the University of Texas, Dallas. “We need not just technical solutions, we need political solutions,” she says.

In Europe, organizations like Europol and the private security sector work together to investigate and eventually arrest cyber-criminals, says Ilias Chantzos, senior director of government affairs EMEA at Symantec.

“We will work together, collect intelligence to understand what is the criminal infrastructure we want to go after,” says Chantzos, who also sits on Europol’s Cybercrime Centre (EC3) advisory group. “What will happen, will be an effective, regular interaction between corporations and law enforcement, exchanging information, and when there’s a green light, the operation will take place.”

Europol also collaborates with the FBI, as seen recently in the shuttering of dark web forum Darkode, which included Romanian authorities, for example. The operation was led by the FBI and included law enforcement agencies from 20 countries. “Obviously jurisdiction is an issue,” explains Chantzos, but effective communication and collaboration makes a difference.

“We need to know that the criminal is in a territory that we can do the arrest or that we know that some of the criminal infrastructure we’re going to disrupt is in a territory that we can exercise jurisdiction. Some of it will not be there and we need to accept that so often the effectiveness will be as good as it possibly can be.”

Safe in Russia?

The top man on the FBI’s most wanted cyber-crime list is the Russian hacker Evgeniy Mikhailovitch Bogachev, with a three million dollar bounty on his head, the highest reward of anyone else on the list.

The FBI says he’s likely still at his residence in Anapa, Russia on the Black Sea, which poses immense challenges for investigators. The US doesn’t have a formal extradition treaty with Russia, unlike Sweden, Turkey, and Germany, and diplomatic relations between the countries are fraught. Russia’s decision to grant asylum to Edward Snowden in 2013 worsened relations between Russia and the US on this matter.

“We will use every available legal and diplomatic means to bring all cyber-criminals to justice wherever they reside,” said David Hickton, US Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, where the charges were filed.

Bogachev (AKA “lucky12345″ and “slavik”) was formally indicted last year under his real name for developing strains of ransomware and coordinating the GameOver Zeus botnet, an attack network that could be used to siphon off online banking details. His malware is believed to have infected at least one million computers globally and raked in an estimated $100 million.

The Russian’s charges are exhaustive and include computer fraud, bank fraud, conspiracy, and aggravated identity theft. He’s considered a major threat to the US banking industry and the possible head of a cybercrime “gang” working out of Russia and Ukraine, which has made him a high priority.

There are rumors that Russian authorities have willingly turned a blind eye. According to a Telegraph report from last year, he is even seen as a hero of sorts among the residents of his hometown. That makes catching him much more difficult — though it’s still not impossible.

“Cybercriminals like normal people like to travel,” says Chantzos. “[Russians] might go to Cyprus for holiday. Well, guess what, there’s a European arrest warrant waiting for him. The moment he arrives in Cyprus, he’s going to get picked up.”

Many hackers, regardless of nationality, are known to have traveled in the hopes of evading capture, but it may give the FBI a chance. Latvian Alexsey Belan, wanted for hacking US ecommerce companies, was last known to be in Greece. Peteris Sahurovs, who allegedly sold fraudulent security software, may still be in Latvia. These hackers, if picked up in their travels, can be extradited regardless of nationality.

An unsolved mystery

As criminals like Bogachev have proven, there are still major gaps in international cyber-crime enforcement, and a smart hacker can exploit them to operate with near impunity.

Nevertheless, international stings have become more commonplace, and much more intensive. In recent news, the FBI is seeking the extradition of two Israeli suspectsfollowing their arrest over the JPMorgan hack. And in June, Europol successfully shut down a major cyber-crime organization in Ukraine.

“There’s a lot of countries that will not extradite. That will not stop us from pressing forward and charging those individuals and making it public,” Robert Anderson, the FBI’s Executive Assistant Director of the Criminal, Cyber, Response, and Services Branch, told a conference in May, promising more arrests under his tenure.

Bogachev may still be in Russia, but with a $3m incentive for his arrest, hacktivists and online sleuths could end up being the FBI’s friend. Countries across the globe are well aware of the threat foreign hackers can pose, and are working together to tighten the noose. Today’s Internet at times feels a bit like the wild west, it will in all likelihood be tamed. Eventually.

Join the conversation about this story »

The fight to rid the military of graft faced a backlash and remained serious, the PLA's official newspaper warned on Sunday, three days after the announcement of a former top general's prosecution for corruption.

The front-page editorial in the PLA Daily, which also warned that an army beset by corruption would not be able to win in combat, signaled the authorities knew of the influence wielded by generals implicated in the crackdown, observers said.

President Xi Jinping has made cracking down on corruption a priority since coming to power more than three years ago.

Two former vice-chairmen of the powerful Central Military Commission, Xu Caihou and Guo Boxiong , have since come under suspicion.

The investigation into Xu was announced last year, but he died of bladder cancer in March. Guo was expelled from the Communist Party and handed over to military prosecutors on Thursday. "The gun will rust and the pillar will collapse if corruption is allowed to spread," the editorial said, adding that Xu and Guo had undermined the army's morale and jeopardize soldiers' values.

"History has repeatedly proven that if corruption is not eliminated, we will defeat ourselves even before a war."

The campaign had achieved results, it said, but the challenges remained daunting as some officers were still affected by "bad influence" over the past years.

"We have to be clear that the situation is still serious and complicated," it said. "There are still many problems to be tackled.

"The movement to clamp down on irregularities sometimes faces a backlash. There is still a long way to go to construct a healthy political atmosphere. There is still no overwhelming victory in the fight against corruption."

A statement issued by the party's Politburo on Thursday said Guo allegedly accepted bribes "personally and through his family members" in exchange for granting promotions in the military.

The report said that in line with party disciplinary rules, the Central Committee decided on April 9 to put Guo under investigation. "His acts seriously violated party discipline and left a vile impact," the Politburo said.

The buying and selling of senior jobs in the military is an open secret, but observers say the practice worries reformers who fear it will sideline talented people and lead to factions inside the army - which could challenge the leadership.

State media have run extensive commentaries in recent months, calling on officers to straighten up and decide where their allegiances lay.

As vice-chairman of the military commission, Guo decided how the defense budget was spent and which companies received contracts.

Yue Gang, a retired colonel and a Beijing-based military affairs commentator, said factions had formed within the military and Xu and Guo interfered in the promotion process.

"They held their power for too long and had already cultivated their support base," Yue said.

"It's going to take a long time to completely eradicate their influence with the anti-corruption investigation and personnel reshuffle."

Additional reporting by Reuters

Join the conversation about this story »

China and Russia have been front and center in the Central Asia conversation.

Beijing has been pushing westward — in part aiming to find new countries to which it can export its goods as Western demand slows and China transitions into a consumption-based economy.

Meanwhile, Moscow keeps trying to maintain its decaying influence in the same region, worried that its sometimes-friend, sometimes-adversary China is getting a little too involved there.

But there's another notable player getting into Central Asia: Japan.

Last week Tokyo announced that Prime Minister Shinzo Abe will visit five Central Asian countriesin October, which is significant as the last time a Japanese prime minister toured the region was back in 2006.

Government officials stated that Abe's trip is "part of efforts to strengthen economic relations with the resource-rich region," according to The Japan Times. And this wouldn't be Tokyo's first attempt: In 2014 Japan and Turkmenistan signed a $1.7 billion deal to build a gas-to-liquids plant.

Furthermore, Japan's interest in the region could have underlying geopolitical reasons.

"The visit could also counter China’s growing clout in the region, as well as boost leverage with Russia, according to the officials," as cited by The Japan Times."They noted Moscow is concerned by Beijing’s surging influence in Central Asia, which Russia hopes to keep within its sphere of influence."

“If Japan competes with China [in Central Asia], Russia would welcome it,” one official said, according to The Japan Times. “As a result, Japan would have one diplomatic card [to play] against Russia.”

Still, others maintain that it's just about economics: Japan is looking for alternative energy markets and warm-water ports.

"Japan’s Eurasia strategy is two-pronged. First, Japan is stepping up its technological investment in Central Asian energy markets to compensate for the abrupt end of its reliance on nuclear power. Second, Japan wants to prevent China’s One Belt, One Road project from monopolizing control over the region’s warm water ports,” argues Samuel Ramani,Oxford master's student and journalist, in The Diplomat.

"Analysis of the recent rise in Japanese involvement in Central Asia should be detached from broader geopolitics, as Japan’s interests are in competition with those of both China and Russia," he added.

Nevertheless, regardless of the reason, it’s clear that Japan is taking Central Asia seriously — and Abe's trip could be something to watch come October.

SEE ALSO: The Middle East is about to change in 3 major ways

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: How not to behave in 7 countries around the world

The United States has decided to allow airstrikes to defend Syrian rebels trained by the U.S. military from any attackers, even if the enemies hail from forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, U.S. officials said on Sunday.

The decision by President Barack Obama, which could deepen the U.S. role in Syria's conflict, aims to shield a still-fledging group of Syrian fighters armed and trained by the United States to battle Islamic State militants -- not forces loyal to Assad.

But in Syria's messy civil war, Islamic State is only one of the threats to the U.S. recruits. The first batch of U.S.-trained forces deployed to northern Syria came under fire on Friday from other militants, triggering the first known U.S. airstrikes to support them.

U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity to confirm details of the decision, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, said the United States would provide offensive strikes to support advances against Islamic State targets. 

The United States would also provide defensive support to repel any attackers. 

U.S. officials have long played down the idea that Assad's forces - which have not fired on U.S.-led coalition aircraft bombing Islamic State targets in Syria - would turn their sights on the U.S.-backed Syrian rebels. But they cannot rule out the possibility, perhaps in an unintentional clash.

The Pentagon and the White House declined to discuss the decision on rules of engagement or confirm comments by the unnamed U.S. officials. 

White House National Security Council spokesman Alistair Baskey said only the U.S.-trained forces were being provided a wide range of support, including "defensive fires support to protect them" and pointed to Friday's U.S. airstrikes as proof.

"We won't get into the specifics of our rules of engagement, but have said all along that we would take the steps necessary to ensure that these forces could successfully carry out their mission," Baskey said.

Pentagon spokeswoman Commander Elissa Smith also declined comment on the rules of engagement, saying only that the U.S. military's program focuses "first and foremost" on combating Islamic State militants.

"We recognize, though, that many of these groups now fight on multiple fronts, including against the Assad regime, (Islamic State) and other terrorists," Smith said.

The U.S. military launched its program in May to train up to 5,400 fighters a year in what was seen as a test of Obama's strategy of getting local partners to combat extremists and keep U.S. troops off the front lines.

The training program has been challenged from the start, with many candidates being declared ineligible and some even dropping out. 

Obama's requirement that they target militants from Islamic State has sidelined huge segments of the Syrian opposition focused instead on battling Syrian government forces. The United States has sought to avoid a direct confrontation with Assad. 

Once the Syrian rebels have returned to the battlefield, the U.S. recruits and other fighters aligned with them have turned into targets of rival militants. 

Al Qaeda's Syria wing is suspected of being behind the attack on Friday against them at a compound in Syria, which was also being used by members of a Western-aligned insurgent group, known as Division 30.

U.S. recruits have hailed from Division 30. Nusra Front last week claimed to have abducted Division 30's leader but U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said he had not undergone U.S. training

One of the most powerful insurgent groups in northern Syria, Nusra Front has a record of crushing rebel groups that have received support from Western states, including the Hazzm movement that collapsed earlier this year.

Join the conversation about this story »

World powers are reporting surges in airspace violations and instances where aircraft are scrambled to intercept foreign jets, amid a sharp rise in geopolitical tensions in Europe and Asia.

Nato member aircraft were forced to conduct more than 500 scrambles over Europe in 2014 – a fourfold increase on the previous year. Nearly 85% of these were to intercept Russian aircraft.

This year, there have already been more than 300 scrambles, according to data provided by Nato to the Guardian.

These are some of the highest numbers since the end of the cold war.

Russia alleges that Nato sorties near its borders doubled last year. Nato called the claim “deliberately vague”.

Elsewhere, Japan has been scrambling aircraft in record numbers because of Chinese activity. Airspace violations by Turkish aircraft over Greek waters increased three and a half times last year compared with the previous two years.

Although nearly all of these interventions are described by those close to operations as “almost routine”, several incidents reveal there is a risk of escalation because of the sheer volume of incidents.

Despite the increase in interceptions, Nato will be halving the number of aircraft used in its Baltic air-policing mission later this year.

Russia v Nato

A scramble doesn’t imply a breach of sovereign airspace or military aviation rules. In fact, in most cases, there is no breach. Last year, there were 10 incursions by Russian aircraft into airspace belonging to Nato members. Eight of these were over islands belonging to Estonia (six over remote Vaindloo alone). The others were into Norwegian and Polish airspace in March and April respectively, and both lasted seconds.

There have been no incursions recorded by Nato’s 28 members in 2015. A Russian aircraft did, though, briefly enter airspace belonging to Finland, which is not a Nato member, on 26 June. While Swedish armed forces have counted nine incursions into Sweden’s sovereign airspace so far this year. The country’s airspace was breached 12 times last year.

A Nato official explained to the Guardian that it was difficult to understand what motivated Russia and to know for certain if these events were provocations or could be explained by other factors such as weather.

What is clear is there has been an increase in Russian activity. In comparison with current levels of activity, there were, for example, only seven Russian incursions into Estonian airspace between 2006 and 2013.

Russian activity has included several more provocative – albeit isolated – incidents. These have included aircraft flying several times over military ships and bombers taking unconventional paths in proximity to US, Portuguese and British airspace.

But, according to Russia, this is all driven by an increase in the activities of “Nato countries and their partners” encroaching on its airspace.

A Russian government official told the Guardian that Russian air force flights, consisting mostly of training sorties in international airspace, needed to be seen within the context of “a drastic increase in the activity of foreign reconnaissance and combat planes near Russian borders”.

According to data collected by Russian authorities, and shared with the Guardian, Nato carried out more than 3,000 tactical aviation sorties near Russian borders in 2014, more than double the previous year. Nato patrols over Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia increased 3.5 times.

However, according to Lieutenant-Colonel Jay Janzen, chief of media operations at Nato’s Supreme HQ Allied Powers Europe, Russia is regularly using disinformation and propaganda to confuse the public regarding current events.

“Scrambles are launched in response to Russian activity. The sole aim is to preserve the integrity of Nato European airspace and to safeguard Nato nations from air attacks.”

He acknowledged that Nato had increased the numbers of surveillance flights in recent months, but insisted they remained “hundreds of kilometres from Russia’s borders”.

Despite the increased interactions with Russian aircrafts, Nato will be scaling back the number of the Baltic patrolling mission’s aircraft to about eight this autumn, from 16. Before events in Ukraine, the patrolling mission consisted of four aircraft. Janzen said the reduction was appropriate to the scale of the task.

There are mitigating factors at play in the surge in airspace incursions. National aviation boundaries are tight in eastern Europe, and the Ukraine conflict has heightened political sensitivities, with some capitals occasionally keen to exaggerate the risk.

The single biggest reason for the huge number of scrambles is the fact that Russian aircraft often do not abide by international conventions, western officials say.

Russian military aircraft often keep their transponders switched off and, as a result, don’t “squawk”, leaving air traffic controllers in the dark. They also do not share their flight plans.

In an analysis by the European Leadership Network (ELN) of 66 incidents, one of the three “high-risk” incidents recorded between March 2014 and March 2015 involved a near-collision between a Scandinavian Airlines 737 with 132 passengers taking off from Copenhagen and a Russian reconnaissance aircraft. This was due to the latter not broadcasting its position.

The Russian government said: “Russian pilots are training under strict orders to follow the requirements of international and national laws and rules. The flights take place over uninhabited areas, mostly open seas, without violating the state borders. Russian aircraft are constantly shadowed by Nato fighters. Russia respects all international and national restrictions imposed on such activities, and will do so in the future.”

China v Japan

Russia doesn’t only dice with European airspace. Last year, Japan initiated 943 scrambles – one incident short of the highest figure on record (in 1984). Pracically all involved Russian (473) and Chinese (464) warplanes.

In 2000, Japan was involved in only 155 interceptions. Most of the increased activity has coincided with a significant rise in China’s military spending (from less than 50bn yuan in 1990 to 850bn yuan last year), increased capabilities, and in more recent years, intensified presence and activity on land, in waters and in the airspace near Japan on the back of an ongoing dispute over uninhabited islands in the East China Sea.

Of the 173 interceptions in the first three months of 2015, 57 were of Russian aircrafts compared to 114 incidents involving Chinese aircrafts.

One characteristic of China’s behaviour, according to several western aviation experts, is that its aircrafts are more “aggressive” than Russia’s.

Turkey v Greece

Half a world away from the East China Sea, another disputed area has seen an increase in airspace violations.

In 2014, Greece’s military authorities recorded 2,244 violations of Greek airspace by Turkish aircraft, three and a half times more incursions than in 2013.

This year, 1,204 violations have already been tracked by the Hellenic national defence general staff.

The vast majority of interceptions have taken place over a strip of the Aegean sea, an area disputed since the 1970s. Greece and Turkey contest the extent of Greek airspace around the islands, Athens claiming 10 miles while Ankara only recognises six.

A spike in tensions between Greece and Turkey over the Aegean dispute is not unprecedented. In 2006, a mid-air collision between Greek and Turkish fighter planes risked a crisis. A Greek pilot died in the accident. While in 1987 and in 1996, the two countries almost went to war.

A Nato official told the Guardian that the Aegean dispute was a matter for Greece and Turkey.

There has also been an increase in the number of interceptions in North America.

North American Aerospace Defense Command (Norad) has intercepted and visually identified Russian long-range aviation about 25 times over the past five years, or on average about five times per year. That number doubled to about 10 in 2014, with particular spikes in July and early August, which Norad believes is related to training.

A Norad official said it was important to note that, in all these instances, Russian aircraft remained in international airspace at all times.

In the two separate incidents recorded in July this year – around the south coast of Alaska, near the Aleutian islands, and off the central California coast – at no time did the Russian bombers involved enter North American sovereign airspace.

*All figures for aircraft interceptions in this piece are approximations because of security reasons

SEE ALSO: Incredible photos of 10 Russian warplanes intercepted over the Baltic Sea

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 11 facts that show how different Russia is from the rest of the world

With the Iran nuclear deal in hand, President Obama appears ready to focus more of his attention on stemming the wars, mass atrocities and humanitarian catastrophes that have spread across the Middle East during his presidency.

He has articulated several big goals he wants to reach before the next president takes office: to put the United States and its allies "on track to defeat" the Islamic State; to "have jump-started a process to resolve the civil war in Syria"; and to defend Israel and other U.S. allies from aggression mounted by Iran and its proxies.

Here's the problem: The last two of those goals are, as the president conceives them, directly in conflict with each other.

At his post-deal news conference last month, Obama conceded that Iran might use some of the billions it will soon receive to supply the Lebanese Hezbollah militia with fresh weapons, and he vowed to do his best to stop it. "It is in the national security interest of the United States to prevent Iran from sending weapons to Hezbollah," he said.

At the same time, Obama described the solution to the Syrian war as requiring an "agreement among the major powers that are interested in Syria." He added, "Iran is one of those players, and I think that it's important for them to be part of that conversation."

That remark signaled a reverse of Obama's previous policy of excluding Iran from Syrian peace talks. At U.S. insistence, Tehran was left out of the two conferences held in Geneva in 2012 and 2014. More important, conceding an Iranian say on Syria contradicted Obama's goal of stopping its support for Hezbollah. That's because Iran's deep and so far unwavering support for the regime of Bashar al-Assad is driven almost entirely by its use of Syria as a land bridge to the Shiite militia.

Hezbollah "is Iran's aircraft carrier in the eastern Mediterranean," says Robert Ford, the former U.S. ambassador to Syria. The militia deploys tens of thousands of missiles in southern Lebanon aimed at Israel, and it ensures that no government in Lebanon can be formed without Tehran's consent. Thousands of its fighters are keeping the Assad regime standing in Damascus — not because of any love for Assad's Alawite sect but to preserve this link to Iran.

Lacking reliable sea access to Lebanon, Iran needs control over the Damascus airport and the border between Syria and Lebanon to ensure Hezbollah's resupply. That's why, as it loses ground to rebels in the north and south, the Assad regime's army — itself now largely an Iranian proxy — has begun to concentrate on defending a narrow strip of territory between Damascus and the border.

Ford and other experts on Syria say Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will never accept a settlement of the Syrian war that strands Hezbollah. To do so would be to surrender Iran's regional ambitions, including its ability to threaten Israel. "Iran's overall policy . . . is focused rigidly (in Syria) on Hezbollah," former State Department adviser Frederic Hof, now with the Atlantic Council, wrote me.

So how to agree with Khamenei on Syria's future? "What are we supposed to do?" asks Hof. "Help find an alternative to [Assad] who would work with Iran to keep rockets and missiles pointed at Tel Aviv?"

To be sure, Obama's description of the prospects for diplomacy on Syria start not with Iran but with Russia, the regime's other principal backer. U.S. officials say the president has had promising conversations with Vladi­mir Putin on Syria in recent weeks. It's at least possible to imagine the form a joint U.S.-Russian settlement formula might take: Assad would be removed, allowing the non-jihadist opposition to join with a new government in war against the Islamic State.

The problem, as Hof points out, is that Russia lacks the leverage to bring about a change in the Syrian leadership. The Assad regime is propped up almost entirely at this point by money, weapons and fighters supplied by Iran. And Tehran, says Ford, "is not ready to give up on Assad."

From the Iranian point of view, there is no reason to abandon the regime unless it proves unable to hold Damascus and the border zone. In the rest of the country, Shiite Iran is content — even happy — to watch the Sunni Islamic State and Sunni Syrian rebel forces fight to the death.

The bottom line is that a serious effort to end Syria's war will require Obama to choose between challenging Iran's Syrian land bridge to Hezbollah through more vigorous support for anti-Assad forces, or accepting a settlement that tacitly sanctions a continued Iranian proxy army on Israel's border. Considering his investment in the nuclear deal, it wouldn't be surprising if he shrinks from both options — and hands a Syrian nightmare to his successor.

SEE ALSO: The limits of engagement with Iran

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Turkey's Latest Plan To Drain $3 Million A Day From ISIS Is Working

1. The bomb ended the war.

The notion that the atomic bombs caused the Japanese surrender on Aug. 15, 1945, has been, for many Americans and virtually all U.S. history textbooks, the default understanding of how and why the war ended.

But minutes of the meetings of the Japanese government reveal a more complex story.

The latest and best scholarship on the surrender, based on Japanese records, concludes that the Soviet Union's unexpected entry into the war against Japan on Aug. 8 was probably an even greater shock to Tokyo than the atomic bombing of Hiroshima two days earlier.

Until then, the Japanese had been hoping that the Russians — who had previously signed a nonaggression pact with Japan — might be intermediaries in negotiating an end to the war .

As historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa writes in his book "Racing the Enemy,""Indeed, Soviet attack, not the Hiroshima bomb, convinced political leaders to end the war." The two events together — plus the dropping of the second atomic bomb on Aug. 9 — were decisive in making the case for surrender.

2. The bomb saved half a million American lives.

In his postwar memoirs, former president Harry Truman recalled how military leaders had told him that a half-million Americans might be killed in an invasion of Japan. This figure has become canonical among those seeking to justify the bombing.

But it is not supported by military estimates of the time. As Stanford historian Barton Bernstein has noted, the U.S. Joint War Plans Committee predicted in mid-June 1945 that the invasion of Japan, set to begin Nov. 1, would result in 193,000 U.S. casualties, including 40,000 deaths.

But, as Truman also observed after the war, if he had not used the atomic bomb when it was ready and GIs had died on the invasion beaches, he would have faced the righteous wrath of the American people.

3. The only alternative to the bomb was an invasion of Japan.

The decision to use nuclear weapons is usually presented as either/or: either drop the bomb or land on the beaches. But beyond simply continuing the conventional bombing and naval blockade of Japan, there were two other options recognized at the time.

The first was a demonstration of the atomic bomb prior to or instead of its military use: exploding the bomb on an uninhabited island or in the desert, in front of invited observers from Japan and other countries; or using it to blow the top off Mount Fuji, outside Tokyo.

The demonstration option was rejected for practical reasons. There were only two bombs available in August 1945, and the demonstration bomb might turn out to be a dud.

The second alternative was accepting a conditional surrender by Japan. The United States knew from intercepted communications that the Japanese were most concerned that Emperor Hirohito not be treated as a war criminal.

The "emperor clause" was the final obstacle to Japan's capitulation. (President Franklin Roosevelt had insisted upon unconditional surrender, and Truman reiterated that demand after Roosevelt's death in mid-April 1945.)

Although the United States ultimately got Japan's unconditional surrender, the emperor clause was, in effect, granted after the fact. "I have no desire whatever to debase [Hirohito] in the eyes of his own people," Gen. Douglas MacArthur, supreme commander of the Allied powers in Japan after the war, assured Tokyo's diplomats following the surrender.

4. The Japanese were warned before the bomb was dropped.

The United States had dropped leaflets over many Japanese cities, urging civilians to flee, before hitting them with conventional bombs. After the Potsdam Declaration of July 26, 1945, which called on the Japanese to surrender, leaflets warned of "prompt and utter destruction" unless Japan heeded that order. In a radio address, Truman also told of a coming "rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this Earth."

These actions have led many to believe that civilians were meaningfully warned of the pending nuclear attack. Indeed, a common refrain in letters to the editor and debates about the bomb is: "The Japanese were warned."

But there was never any specific warning to the cities that had been chosen as targets for the atomic bomb prior to the weapon's first use. The omission was deliberate: The United States feared that the Japanese, being forewarned, would shoot down the planes carrying the bombs.

And since Japanese cities were already being destroyed by incendiary and high-explosive bombs on a regular basis — nearly 100,000 people were killed the previous March in the firebombing of Tokyo — there was no reason to believe that either the Potsdam Declaration or Truman's speech would receive special notice.

5. The bomb was timed to gain a diplomatic advantage over Russia and proved a "master card" in early Cold War politics.

This claim has been a staple of revisionist historiography, which argues that U.S. policymakers hoped the bomb might end the war against Japan before the Soviet entry into the conflict gave the Russians a significant role in a postwar peace settlement. Using the bomb would also impress the Russians with the power of the new weapon, which the United States had alone.

In reality, military planning, not diplomatic advantage, dictated the timing of the atomic attacks. The bombs were ordered to be dropped "as soon as made ready."

Postwar political considerations did affect the choice of targets for the atomic bombs. Secretary of War Henry Stimson ordered that the historically and culturally significant city of Kyoto be stricken from the target list. (Stimson was personally familiar with Kyoto; he and his wife had spent part of their honeymoon there.) Truman agreed, according to Stimson, on the grounds that "the bitterness which would be caused by such a wanton act might make it impossible during the long postwar period to reconcile the Japanese to us in that area rather than to the Russians."

Like Stimson, Truman's secretary of state, James Byrnes, hoped that the bomb might prove to be a "master card" in subsequent diplomatic dealings with the Soviet Union — but both were disappointed. In September 1945, Byrnes returned from the first postwar meeting of foreign ministers, in London, lamenting that the Russians were "stubborn, obstinate, and they don't scare."

SEE ALSO: Rouhani: The nuclear deal is a 'third way' for Iran's foreign policy

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: A Deadly Wall Street Bombing Still Remains Unsolved 94 Years Later

The head of the Sicilian Mafia, on the run for over 20 year, has been using "sheep code" to communicate with allies, the BBC reports. 

Eleven men associated with mob boss Matteo Messina Denaro were arrested recently, and according to the Italian police, Denaro communicated with them by leaving bits of papers under a rock in a field near a farm in western Sicily.

The communication method called "pizzini" includes writing the messages in a secret code, according to AFP.

Among the men arrested during raids across Sicily on Monday, two were over 70 years old, one of them, Vito Gondola, had the responsibility to call or text the members of the clan to let them know when a new message was ready.

Police said many of the messages used to alert fellow criminals that a new "pizzini" was ready referred to sheep.

Among the lines used were: "The sheep need shearing ... the shears need sharpening" or "The hay is ready." The Italian police said they do not believe the mafia members were discussing agricultural matters.

Another phrase used was "I've put the ricotta cheese aside for you, will you come by later?" 

The Italian police spied on the mafia day and night over several months by placing cameras in trees around the farm and fields, according to La Repubblica. 

The Sicilian mafia, or Cosa Nostra, used to be Italy's most powerful organized crime cell before massive crackdowns and government monitoring left it weakened by the late 1990's. They lost power to Calabria's Ndrangheta, which remains the most powerful mafia in Italy.

Another major blow to the Sicilian mafia came in 2009, when Italian police arrested one of its top bosses, Domenico Raccuglia, on the run for 15 years.

Denaro is the most wanted fugitive of the Cosa Nostra and has been convicted in abstentia for different mafia crimes, inlcluding murder. He is seen as the successor to two jailed Mafia godfathers and once said he could "fill a cemetery" with his victims, according to the BBC.

In a post on his Facebook page, Italy's Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, thanked the police for their capture and said that Italy was united against organized crime.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's the actual security footage of 'El Chapo' escaping from his prison cell

US-led coalition forces launched a successful airstrike last weekend against a crucial Islamic State explosives facility. 

The strikes destroyed a facility near Makhmur, Iraq, that was used to produce vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices (VBIEDs). These car bombs are one of the main weapons used by the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, ISIL, or Daesh, to devastating effect across both Iraq and Syria.

"These strikes, conducted in coordination with the government of Iraq, will help reduce the ability of Daesh to utilize their weapon of choice – VBIEDs," US Brig. Gen. Kevin Killea said in a statement. "Daesh VBIEDs are responsible for many attacks against Iraqi Security Forces and atrocities committed against Iraqi civilians."

ISIS VBIEDs are advanced enough to produce even macabre amazement in their potential victims. One Baghdad police officer told Der Spiegel that these car bombs "were so sophisticated that they destroyed everything; there was nothing left of the car and nothing to investigate how the explosive charge was assembled."

Aside from smaller car bombs, ISIS has also perfected the use of multiton truck and Humvee bombs as military weapons. Among the group's favorite tactics is filling stolen armored US Humvees with explosives to decimate static defenses of the Iraqi Security Forces.

ISIS has used these bomb-laden Humvees in waves of suicide bombings across both Syria and Iraq, targeting strategic locations — including Syrian military bases and the Iraqi provincial capital of Ramadi, which fell to the militants at the end of May.

You can view a GIF of the coalition airstrike that destroyed the VBIED facility below. 

SEE ALSO: US-led warplanes are pummeling the de facto ISIS capital like never before

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Inside the dangerous life of Mexican drug lord 'El Chapo'

SEE ALSO: ISIS just received a 'gift' — and now 'there's a lot of opportunity for high drama'

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: People doing backflips on a two-inch wide strap is a real sport called slacklining

Filmed at the recent RIAT (Royal International Air Tattoo) at RAF Fairford, UK, the following video shows a Polish Air Force Mig-29 Fulcrum jet beginning its display with an amazing takeoff followed by a vertical climb.

Although other fast jets are able to perform the same maneuver, the video has gone viral because it clearly shows the sudden pull and subsequent fast, rocket-like ascension of the Polish Fulcrum.

By the way, the term “going ballistic” is used for the Mig-29’s vertical climb in full afterburner even though the term refers to the ballistic path (similar to the trajectory of a thrown or launched projectile) a jet put into a nearly-vertical climb would follow under the force of gravity, without propulsion.

SEE ALSO: NATO: Airspace violations and jet scrambles are surging

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Russia reveals new high-tech weapon vehicles in a rehearsal for the country's biggest military parade

GAZA (Reuters) - Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov met Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal in Qatar on Monday and invited him to visit Moscow, a Hamas official said, extending a diplomatic welcome to the Palestinian group shunned by the West.

Meshaal, who is based in Doha, last traveled to Moscow in 2010, four years after his first official visit to the Russian capital.

In a statement released in Gaza, the Hamas official said a delegation led by Meshaal briefed Lavrov on conditions in the Gaza Strip, which the Islamist movement rules, in the aftermath of last summer's war with Israel.

Meshaal also discussed with Lavrov "Zionist terrorism in the West Bank and its assaults on Muslim and Christian sites in Jerusalem", the official said, three days after an arson attack by suspected Jewish militants killed a Palestinian toddler.

"The (Russian) foreign minister extended an invitation to the leadership of (Hamas) to visit Moscow and the movement accepted the invitation and the date will be determined later," the official said.

Russia is one of the four international sponsors, along with the United States, the European Union and the United Nations, of an Israeli-Palestinian peace process opposed by Hamas. Peace talks have been suspended for more than a year.

Hamas is shunned in the West over its refusal to recognize Israel, accept existing Israeli-Palestinian interim peace deals and renounce violence. Russia says it should not be isolated.

In Doha, Lavrov was to meet U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who is in Qatar for talks with the six countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council on the nuclear agreement Western powers reached last month with Iran.

U.S. officials said Kerry's meeting with Lavrov, which will also be attended by Saudi Foreign Minister Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir, will focus on the civil war in Syria.

Russia has been trying to bring about rapprochement between the Syrian government and regional states, including Saudi Arabia and Turkey, to forge an alliance to fight Islamic State militants who have taken large amounts of territory in the Syrian conflict.

SEE ALSO: NATO: Airspace violations and jet scrambles are surging

Join the conversation about this story »