Many claim that the relationship between Saudi Arabia and Islamic State (IS) is one of patron and client. IS, they argue, is a pawn of the Saudi regime, used to check the ”rising” Shi'a power of Iran in the Middle East.

This allegation typically presents certain shared principles between the official Saudi interpretation of Islam and the doctrine motivating IS as damning evidence of complicity between the two.

Although there is a certain truth to this, it assumes a wilful agency on Saudi Arabia’s part that simply isn’t there. Saudi citizens supporting IS’s activities in Iraq and Syria are not the result of a coherent plan directed by the kingdom’s rulers, but the overflow of a long-standing system used to maintain its domestic legitimacy.

Evolution of state control

The Saudi state has relied on the ultra-conservative Wahhabi movement since both emerged in the mid-18th century.

Wahhabism was built on the desire to stamp out religious innovation and restore the “proper” Islam. Its initial power rested on two sources – the common distaste among the inhabitants of Central Arabia for such innovation and preacher Muhammad Abd al-Wahhab’s ability to channel this grievance into a populist doctrine.

The call produced something never encountered before in the region: a proper mass movement.

The Saudis, a small clan of oasis nobility, formed a symbiotic relationship with Wahhab. It lent him military support in return for the movement’s resources and legitimacy. Wahhab agreed to defer all matters of state and politics, restricting clerical activities to administering the social and metaphysical spheres.

As “guardians” of Islam, the Saudis were able to differentiate themselves from their local competitors. Revivalism attached a mass appeal to their mission of conquest in an environment typified by disparate local identities and “petty sheiks”. The resultant state came to be viewed as key to safeguarding the Wahhabi community, a central factor in its expansion over much of the Arabian Peninsula by the late 19th century.

Realizing the importance of the ongoing ideological support of its subjects, the Saudi regime sought to instill Wahhabism throughout conquered territories. The primary motivation for Saudi leaders was political. By instilling the revivalist identity into greater numbers of its subjects, the state was creating demand for its own rule.

Key to this effort was the securitisation of heterodox sects, such as the Shi'a. These “others” were presented as a threat to the community’s metaphysical integrity due to their inauthentic practices, which were not encountered during Islam’s early period. The logic dictated that their existence necessitated a higher authority to moderate society and ensure the correct Islamic form was maintained.

This is hardly a novel concept. States commonly construct threats of external war and terror in order to gain domestic power. A by-product of such activities has often been the rise of destructive exclusivist nationalism and xenophobia.

Where the Saudi state remains novel is in its use of a purely metaphysical threat, the extent that it has relied on this to maintain its position, and the longevity of the effort itself. Supplied

Glitches in the system

The state’s arms have commonly been employed to ensure this status quo. Saudi Arabia’s education system has been criticized for promoting a radicalizing, sectarian narrative that encourages violence against those outside the sanctioned community.

But while Saudi Arabia has carefully crafted an image as Islam’s protector, it nevertheless has aimed to keep policy-making pragmatic, not ideological. Decisions of economic and foreign policy have tended to be dominated by technocrats, not clerics. In this, religion is often invoked, but generally when it is instrumental to a wider political goal.

Ironically, for Saudis this arrangement has meant that the state has been a prominent promoter of the “innovation” so detested in classical revivalist thought.

This tension has occasionally produced outbreaks of violence. The 1927 Ikhwan revolt was sparked in part by King Abd al-Aziz’s refusal to exterminate the Shi'a of al-Hasa and his diplomatic relations with external “infidel” powers.

Similarly, the 1979 Siege of Mecca was a rejection of the previous two decades of radical modernization initiated by King Faisal. The 2003 attacks by al-Qaeda inside Saudi Arabia were partially motivated by its accommodation of “infidels”.

Historically, this blowback has been largely domestic. Only since the 1990s have these types of unintended outcomes been felt internationally.

This shift can be attributed to several factors. The most prominent among them was Saudi Arabia’s tacit support for participation in the Afghanistan wars of the 1980s.

The primary motivation for this was not one of ideology, but political pragmatism. Saudi Arabia was experiencing an economic downturn in which household incomes fell by more than half and unemployment skyrocketed. At the same time the regime was struggling with a rising Islamist current in the wake of the Iranian revolution, which was increasingly calling into question its legitimacy to rule.

With a large number of disenfranchised young men at home, a rival power walking into a geopolitical beartrap and a need to appear to the Muslim community to be increasingly activist, the decision was aimed at killing three birds with one stone. Thanks to its strong influence over domestic Islamic identity, it took little encouragement to mobilize thousands of young Saudis into a conflict with a new infidel threat. Although Saudi Arabia began actively discouraging such behavior after the Soviet withdrawal in 1989, the genie had been let out of the bottle.

Saudis continued to flock to “pan-Islamic” conflicts throughout the 1990s and the 2000s – in Kosovo, Tajikistan, Chechnya, Iraq and, most recently, Syria. They gravitated towards religiously hard-line groups, whose ideologies meshed well with the sectarian narrative of their upbringing.

Treating the symptom, not the wound

While Saudi Arabia has made several attempts to stem the flow of fighters and finances to groups like IS, it has been careful not to appear overly oppressive for fear of antagonizing its own constituents. It may decry such groups, but it continues to promote a system that inadvertently supports them.

Revivalist scholars claim that Saudi Arabia’s doctrine is intrinsically opposed to the IS worldview. They cite esoteric textual minutiae to support such assertions. But such arguments miss a wider point: the issues at play are far less about literary nuance than the wider emotional, psychological and sociological themes that Saudi Arabia promotes in its populace.

Such structures created a demand for sectarian confrontation in some people that cannot be met by the state and which drives them towards radical action. Until such deeper issues are dealt with, other responses will merely be token.

Unfortunately, the domestic efficacy of Saudi Arabia’s control means that it is unlikely to be reformed any time soon. The state’s manipulation of its population’s sectarianism during the Arab Spring, for example, was key to its effective management of the 2011 crisis.

Within this wider context, the ruling elite see the extremist habits of a small number of Saudis as an unfortunate yet tolerable side-effect of a system that has allowed them to remain in power for nearly 300 years.

This certainly does not diminish the Saudi state’s culpability. But it does pose the question: how does one change an entire system of popular governance that inadvertently produces such outcomes and appears structurally incapable of preventing them?

SEE ALSO: Saudi Arabia 'is in a confrontational mood'

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: PUTIN: People like Sepp Blatter deserve a Nobel Prize

The National Endowment for Democracy, a U.S.-based non-profit that promotes the spread of democratic government worldwide, is the first victim of a new law in Russia that allows the country’s prosecutor general to declare foreign entities “undesirable organizations” and bar them from operating in the country.

In a statement issued Tuesday, Prosecutor General Yury Yakovlevich Chayka’s office declared, “Given the general orientation of the Fund, the prosecutor's office concluded that it is a threat to the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation, defense and security.”

The decision appears to be the first use of the new authority granted to the Prosecutor General earlier this year, and which appears to be another effort by the government of President Vladimir Putin aimed at stifling dissent.

Though structured as an independent organization with a board of directors made up of private citizens, NED it is widely seen an arm of the United States government, receiving almost all of its funding from congressional appropriations. And while its board members are not current government employees, many have had considerable careers in the government prior to joining.

A grant-making organization, NED has provided millions of dollars in financial support to civil society groups in Russia, some of which have challenged official state policies. The decision makes it illegal for Russian citizens to interact with the organization, on pain of fines or prison time.

In addition, NED’s operations in Russia will be shut down immediately. According to state-run media outlet Russia Today, when a group is designated as undesirable,  “all its assets in Russia must be frozen, offices closed and distribution of any of its information materials must be banned. If the ban is violated, both the personnel of the outlawed group and Russian citizens who cooperate with them face punishments of heavy fines, or even prison terms in case of repeated or aggravated offence.”

In a statement issued Tuesday, a NED spokesman said, “The law on undesirable organizations is the latest in a series of highly restrictive laws that limit the freedom of Russian citizens. This law, as well as its predecessors, contravenes Russia’s own constitution as well as numerous international laws and treaties.  The true intent of these laws is to intimidate and isolate Russian citizens.  NED remains committed to supporting human rights and fundamental freedoms throughout the world.”

Though it was the first, NED is likely not the last U.S.-based non-profit to be targeted under the new law. Russian lawmakers have compiled a “patriotic stop list” of foreign organizations that they say are “known for their anti-Russian orientation.” The list was forwarded to the Prosecutor General for follow up.

In addition to NED, the list contained such well-known entities as the MacArthur Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation. There was also the George-Soros-backed Open Society Foundation, the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, Freedom House, the Education for Democracy Foundation, and others.

Join the conversation about this story »

A year ago, Congress passed a more than $16 billion overhaul of the scandal ridden Veterans Affairs Department that included a solemn vow: if veterans couldn’t get timely treatment from one of the scores of VA health centers across the country, they could turn to a private doctor or hospital for assistance. Shame-faced government administrators vowed that would never happen again.

To help the beleaguered agency, Congress allocated $10 billion for the “choice card” program, which allowed tens of thousands of veterans to get private treatment as part of the Care in the Community Program. Demand proved so great that VA had to tap funds from other accounts to keep the effort going and now may have to shut down the program, and shutter some hospital operations, unless Congress authorizes a major transfer of $3 billion from another part of the agency’s budget.

Sounds like a relatively simple budgetary move to make – but not when it falls to Congress to authorize.

House Republican leaders have decided to link the new VA budget authority to the star-crossed highway funding bill that is being batted about between the House and Senate and may not see a permanent solution until later this year. Congress is the master of complicating issues by tying them to grossly unrelated measures, and veterans are being treated to this recurring spectacle.

Within the three-month highway extension bill the House plans to take up on Wednesday “we will also deal with the shortfall in the [Veterans Affairs] when it comes to funding," House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) said Tuesday during a Capitol Hill press conference.

The GOP measure lets the VA shift roughly $3.4 billion to the department’s Care in the Community Program.

The House’s proposed three-month bill expires October 29. But the VA funding would only last until September 30, or the end of the fiscal year. The measure also directs VA Secretary Robert McDonald to inform lawmakers about the agency using the money.

The VA lobbied Capitol Hill for most of the summer for the ability to move funds around. McDonald and other top department officials warned lawmakers that the agency would have to start closing hospitals next month to make up for the looming budget shortfall.

The VA sent a formal legislative proposal laying out its scheme to lawmakers earlier this month.

House Veterans’ Affairs Committee chair Jeff Miller (R-FL) who has accused the VA of blindsiding lawmakers with the budget gap said he was fine with the approach laid out by leadership.

“They’re both must-pass bills. It’s very appropriate. We have to get it done before we leave for the August recess and so it is appropriate to attach two must-pass bills together,” he told The Fiscal Times on Tuesday.

The transportation bills includes other provisions related to veterans, including one that would consolidate all non-VA medical providers who provide healthcare under a single effort.

The latest VA fix, which the House could vote on as soon as Wednesday and the Senate is expected to match, comes almost a year after Congress voted in overwhelming bipartisan majorities to approve a roughly $16.5 billion bill to revamp the agency.

Media reports prompted an investigation last year that found veterans had waited an average of 115 days for initial appointments at a VA hospital in Phoenix, and 40 people had died waiting to see a doctor. However, officials could not conclusively link the deaths to the long wait times.

Then VA chief Eric Shinseki resigned over the scandal and prompted lawmakers to take action to shore up the agency.

Join the conversation about this story »

Just a few hours after the agreement was announced, Iraqis were heatedly discussing the topic on the streets, in cafes and on social media forums: did the United States sell them out? Will Iran now be able to interfere in Iraq with impunity?

As with most topics related to its eastern neighbour, with whom Iraq shares a 1,500-kilometre border and a war-tainted history, the public’s reactions to the nuclear deal were divided along the ethnic and sectarian fault lines present in Iraqi society.

Those favouring the deal were mostly Shia muslims. They suggested that a better relationship between Iran and the United States would improve security in their own country, where competition between US-backed Sunni and Iran-backed Shia proxies often contributes to instability. Detente between Iran and the United States - Iraq’s two strongest allies - could allay sectarian conflict and unify resistance to the Islamic State, their argument goes.

“I went to Tehran three months ago and I saw what suffering the economic sanctions have caused,” said Haider Kadhim, a shop owner in the upmarket Karrada area in central Baghdad. “It made me remember the problems that sanctions on Iraq caused here: poverty, disease, lack of services. They are our neighbours and we are close to them. If they’re good, then we’re good.”

But those opposed to the deal - most often Sunni muslims - argue that the agreement gives Iran the right to interfere in Iraq without any US opposition.

“The nuclear deal is against Iraq’s interests,” said Safaa Abdel-Meguid, an employee of the ministry of electricity who lives in the Sunni-dominated neighbourhood of Saidiya in southern Baghdad. “Iran and the US have allied to destroy this country. Ali Khamenei has repeatedly stated his country’s military involvement in Iraq would continue after the deal.”

Iran’s nuclear deal also brought back unpleasant memories for many Iraqis – of the nuclear programme that was initiated by former Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein. On Facebook and at family dinner tables, proponents of the agreement lodged accusations against those who opposed the deal, accusing them of covert collaboration with Saudi Arabia and the Arab Gulf states.

“Every time there is a contentious topic like this, Iraqis come down on one or the other side,” said Majid Kathem, a professor of sociology and psychology who lectures at the University of Baghdad and the University of Mustansiriyah. “They cannot agree.”

The nuclear deal also gave critics of the Iraqi government an opportunity to vent about local politicians, especially Iraq’s foreign minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, a Shia. His dismal performance on several fronts – the fight over water with neighbouring Turkey and the dispute over Kuwait’s Mubarak al-Kabir Port - was compared with that of Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, who was seen as triumphant after nearly two years of long and difficult negotiations.

Most senior-level politicians in Iraq welcomed the agreement, though some of their statements were more lukewarm than others.

“The agreement will help in strengthening security and stability in the Middle East,” Iraqi president Fuad Masum, a Kurdish politician, told local media.

Ayad Allawi, one of Iraq’s three vice presidents, said: “Unfortunately the agreement did not discuss the issue of respect for other nations’ sovereignty and Iranian interventions in the region.” Although Allawi is Shia, he leans towards the secular lobby and is well known for his antipathy toward Iran. “However,” Allawi conceded, “the agreement remains significant.”

Nouri al-Maliki, former prime minister of Iraq and now another of the country’s vice presidents, described the agreement as a “victory for those who love peace in this region and in the world.” By the end of his administration last year, al-Maliki was known for his close links with Iran.

Influential cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who leads the millions-strong Sadrist movement and who has been critical about Iran’s policy toward Iraq in the recent past, refrained from commenting on the deal.

One of al-Sadr’s counterparts, Ammar al-Hakim, a cleric who heads a major Shia political party, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, issued a statement: “We congratulate the noble Iranian people, its wise leaders and brave negotiators... We believe the nuclear deal is key to solving many of the thorny problems in the region.”

In the long term, the agreement is expected to impact Iraq’s economy by lowering global oil prices. This portends a fiscal challenge for the Iraqi government, which needs prices to rise to overcome its current budget deficit.

“The talks focused on more than just the nuclear issue,” said Ahmad al-Allusi, a local political analyst based in Baghdad. “And we will doubtless learn…whether the two sides have agreed to resolve other conflicts in a conciliatory manner, through negotiation, or whether they will simply maintain the status quo.”

This article is presented in partnership with Niqash.org

This article originally appeared on guardian.co.uk

This article was written by Mustafa Habib for Tehran Bureau from The Guardian and was legally licensed through the NewsCred publisher network.

https://images3.newscred.com/cD03MzBlYjg2YWI1OWYwZDQxOTI2YWM2NWIwMWY4M2UyZiZnPTgxNGU2MGE3MDQ0MjJhN2U0Y2ZmM2U5ZGY5MmUwY2Yy https://pixel.newscred.com/px.gif?key=YXJ0aWNsZT0xZjNmM2I3MDM0ZGUzM2E0MjM3NjFiYjc3ODczZGRlZiZwdWJsaXNoZXI9NzMwZWI4NmFiNTlmMGQ0MTkyNmFjNjViMDFmODNlMmY=

Join the conversation about this story »

The US is having increasing trouble distinguishing between armed groups that are allied with and opposed to the American-led anti-ISIS coalition in Iraq, Andrew Tilghman reports for the Military Times. 

The Pentagon's strategy for Iraq is based upon allied ground forces battling ISIS while the US and its partners provide aerial support and military advisers and training.

On paper, the US is working alongside the Iraqi Security Forces, Kurdish militias, Sunni tribal groups, and sectarian Shiite militias. 

But it's becoming difficult for the US to identify which Shiite militias operate independently of Iran. And the US does not want to become a force multiplier for sectarian groups who are an extension of the clerical regime in Tehran's policies in Iraq.

Every militia functions under Iraq's Ministry of Interior. But the Iranian-sponsored militias have informal ties to Tehran that can be difficult to identify US personnel to identify. 

"It's a shadow military operating side by side, if you will, with the Iraqi government forces. But these are the forces that the U.S. says it will not support. It becomes very difficult when you try to identify where the units that we'll be supporting are," Rand Corp. senior political scientist Rick Brennan told the Military Times. 

This opacity could lead to extremely dangerous situations for US personnel. Tehran previously mobilized many of the Iranian-backed Shiite militias to carry out attacks against US soldiers during the US's operations in Iraq last decade. If cooperation with the militias sours during the war against ISIS, these groups could easily turn their guns on US personnel currently in Iraq. 

"When you talk to military people who have fought in Iraq and they are looking at all of these individuals who are now part of the Popular Mobilization Force, they are the worst of the people who were fighting the US when we were there," Brennan said to the Military Times. "They all have blood on their hands, and there is an uneasiness about where this leads."

Aside from the potential danger that the Iranian-backed militias present to US advisers, the existence of the groups further undermines the Iraqi central government while exacerbating sectarian tensions throughout the country. 

Shiite militias have burned down Sunni villages and barred Sunni internally displaced persons from returning to their homes, further antagonizing Iraq's largest sectarian minority.

"The political solution is to have a unified, stable, neutral Iraqi central government that represents the interests of the people," Christopher Harmer, a senior naval analyst at the Institute for the Study of War, told Business Insider recently.

"If we have a Shia militia inside Iraq that is loyal to Tehran, that is not helping achieve the political outcome. From a military perspective, the Shia militias are a good thing. From a political perspective, it's destabilizing."

Michael B. Kelley contributed to this report. 

SEE ALSO: Here's what the world could look like in ten years after the Iran deal

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The 6 coolest phrases only people in the military use

A spate of ISIL terrorist attacks against Turkey is the reason President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has agreed to allow US warplanes access to Turkish air bases

First, the good news. After months of dithering, the Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan has given his approval for America to use the Incirlik air base in southern Turkey to mount air strikes against Islamic State (Isil) positions across the border in Syria.

Nearly a year after coalition planes began bombing Isil forces in Syria and Iraq, there is already much excitement being expressed in Washington that the Turkish decision could prove to be a game-changer in the campaign to defeat the Islamist menace. It will allow coalition forces to monitor more closely Turkey’s 500-mile border with Syria, which has been the main conduit through which Isil has smuggled arms and recruits, as well as enabling American warplanes to respond more quickly against likely Isil targets.

The bad news, though, is that the Turks’ decision has been somewhat undermined by Ankara’s renewal of hostilities against its long-standing foe, the Syrian Kurds .

The Syrian conflict is complicated enough without the Turks confusing matters even more by opening up another front against the Kurds, the majority of whom are seen as vital allies of the West.

On one side you have the Assad regime desperately trying to cling to power with the help of their allies in Tehran and the Iranian-backed Hizbollah militia in southern Lebanon. On the other, you have an estimated 1,200 Syrian opposition groups trying to lay claim to Damascus, with Isil and other more moderate ones, such as the Syrian Free Army, leading the charge.

Amid this chaotic landscape, the Syrian Kurds are one of the few combatant groups that have proved themselves to be heroic allies of the West’s cause. Backed by American air strikes, the Kurds fought valiantly to reclaim the strategically important border town of Kobani after it had been captured by Isil last year, one of the few high points for the West in a campaign that has otherwise failed to impress.

So the fact that Turkish planes are now bombing Kurdish positions in Syria, as well as those belonging to Isil, is counter-productive to the coalition effort, to say the least. In their defence, the Turks say they are only attacking positions held by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, an extreme nationalist group that has a long history of committing acts of terrorism against Turkish citizens, as a result of which it is officially designated a terrorist organisation by a number of states and organisations, including the US and Nato.

Before the Syrian civil war erupted four years ago, the PKK enjoyed the active support of the Assad regime, so much so that on several occasions Syria and Turkey came close to hostilities.

This bad blood was one of the reasons that Mr Erdogan aligned himself with the struggle to overthrow the Assad regime, an alliance that has prompted accusations that Ankara has colluded with Isil militants in Iraq.

The Turks’ ambivalent relationship with Isil, as well as their insistence that the coalition should concentrate its efforts should on removing Assad, have been the main stumbling blocks to closer cooperation between Ankara and the US.

Now, so far as Ankara’s dealings with Isil are concerned, the Turks are paying a heavy price for their double standards. The Isil suicide bomb attack against the border town of Suruc this month, in which 32 people were killed and 100 injured, has finally persuaded Mr Erdogan’s government that Isil poses just as great a threat to Turkey’s security as it does to the rest of the region.

But if the Suruc bombing, together with a number of other Isil cross-border attacks against the Turkish military, has been the catalyst for Mr Erdogan’s change of heart, the Turks’ obsession with the Kurds means they are still a long way from becoming reliable allies.

As James Clapper, the US director of intelligence, notably remarked during a recent briefing to Congress, Turkey has “other priorities and other interests” so far as the Syrian conflict is concerned.

Mr Erdogan’s determination to confront the Kurds, moreover, has deepened as a result of the strong showing by the moderate Kurdish People’s Democratic Party (HDP) in last month’s parliamentary elections, which dealt the president a severe blow as his Justice and Development Party (AKP) lost its overall majority for the first time in more than a decade.

Mr Erdogan is desperate to regain ground against the Kurds, and many opposition politicians see his sudden enthusiasm for reopening hostilities with the PKK as a clumsy attempt to portray Kurds – be they Turkish, Syrian or Iraq – as being sympathetic to the PKK’s terrorist agenda.

The tactic may help Mr Erdogan to regain his parliamentary majority, but it will do nothing to assist the coalition war effort against Isil.

What Mr Erdogan needs to understand it that, even if the Turks disown Isil, they cannot bomb the Kurds and still be considered dependable allies.

Syrian/Turkish relations: A timeline Turkey is being dragged further into the four-year conflict in neighbouring Syria following a deadly suicide attack, blamed on Isil, that killed 32 activists near the border.

September 13, 2011:"The Syrian people do not believe al-Assad, I do not either," says Recep Tayyip Erdogan, then premier, a few months after calling the Syrian leader his "friend". Mr Erdogan warns of civil war in Syria.

October 2, 2011: Following a series of meetings in several Turkish cities, Syrian opposition leaders announce the creation of the Syrian National Council (SNC), which groups political factions opposed to the Assad regime.

November 15, 2011: Turkey passes its first sanctions against Syria, and halts joint oil exploration with the country.

June 22, 2012: A Turkish plane that Ankara says was on a training mission in international airspace is shot down by Syrian forces.

May 11, 2013: Twin attacks kill 52 people in Reyhanli, a large Turkish town near the border with Syria.

September 16, 2014: Isil militants attack the Syrian border town of Kobane, and seize parts of it. Kobane becomes the scene of fierce battles.

May 16, 2015: Turkey says it has shot down a Syrian helicopter that violated its airspace.

July 20, 2015: At least 32 people die when a suspected Isil suicide bomber attacks a gathering of activists in the town of Suruc, near the Syrian/Turkish border. July 22, 2015 The Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) claims the killing of two Turkish policemen in the border town of Ceylanpinar in revenge for the Suruc massacre.A government spokesman denounces the murders as "a terrorist act perpetrated by a terrorist organisation."

July 23, 2015: Jihadists inside Syria open fire on a Turkish army border post in the Kilis region, killing a non-commissioned officer and wounding two soldiers. In Diyarbakir, a majority Kurdish city in south-eastern Turkey, gunmen kill a Turkish policeman and seriously wound another.

July 24, 2015: Turkish F-16 jets hit Isil targets just inside Syria for the first time, killing nine Isil militants. Late in the day, airstrikes also target PKK militants in northern Iraq.

July 25, 2015: Turkish air strikes intensify against Isil jihadists in Syria and PKK militants in Iraq.

July 26, 2015: Ankara launches F-16 attacks for the third day, striking Kurdish command posts in northern Iraq. Turkish protesters battle security forces in Istanbul, a policeman is shot and killed. Turkey asks for an extraordinary Nato meeting to discuss its cross-border offensive, but has not asked for help, the group's chief says.

July 27, 2015: Turkish tanks pound a Kurdish-held village in northern Syria, wounding at least four fighters and several villagers, Kurdish groups and a Syrian monitor say, while a Turkish official maintains the army is not targeting Syrian Kurds.

This article was written by Con Coughlin Defence Editor from The Daily Telegraph and was legally licensed through the NewsCred publisher network.

https://pixel.newscred.com/px.gif?key=YXJ0aWNsZT00MzVkZjRlYjBjZjRiZDQzNzkwY2M2Zjk0MjMwM2NjMiZwdWJsaXNoZXI9NzMwZWI4NmFiNTlmMGQ0MTkyNmFjNjViMDFmODNlMmY=

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Scientists are astonished by these Goby fish that can climb 300-foot waterfalls

When the stakes are high, only the best can get the job done. These are 5 of the most elite special forces around the world.

Produced by Lamar Salter. 

Follow BI Video: On Facebook

Join the conversation about this story »

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. State Department has approved the possible sale to Saudi Arabia of $5.4 billion in additional PAC-3 missiles built by Lockheed Martin Corp, the Pentagon said on Wednesday.

The Defense Security Cooperation Agency said the sale would benefit a key U.S. partner in the Middle East. Notification to Congress was sent on Tuesday and follows a major nuclear deal with Iran. The missile sale approval could help reassure Saudi Arabia about the U.S. commitment to its security.

"Lockheed Martin is supporting the U.S. government and the kingdom of Saudi Arabia as they discuss the potential sale of additional PAC-3 Missiles as part of the upgrade of the Royal Saudi Air Defense Force," Lockheed said in a statement.

The company said the PAC-3 missile defends against incoming aircraft and missiles, and it is currently used by the United States, the Netherlands, Germany, Japan, Taiwan and the United Arab Emirates.

SEE ALSO: Almost half of this US defense contractor's new business is coming from non-US customers

Join the conversation about this story »

The story of notorious Mexican drug lord Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman has captivated millions of people. Here's a look inside the life of the billionaire kingpin. 

Produced by Eames Yates

Follow BI Video: On Facebook

Join the conversation about this story »

Last week, Raytheon — the maker of the Tomahawk and Patriot missile systems — reported strong revenue and earnings growth, and the stock rallied.

According to Bank of America Merrill Lynch analysts, this isn't the end of the good news for Raytheon, or for the rest of the defense industry. In fact, this kind of good news comes around only every four years.

In a note outlining its optimism on Raytheon, BAML brought up research it conducted a few months ago finding that defense stocks beat the market during presidential elections.

"Defense outperformed the S&P 500 in seven of the last nine presidential-election years since 1980," the note said, "with an average return of 17.2% versus 4.3% for the S&P 500."

The reason is the nature of how the companies make money. "Defense firms rely so heavily on contracts and funding from the federal government, so their earnings and performance are more closely tied to political changes rather than market forces," the note said.

During the most recent presidential-election year, 2012, the stocks of the defense companies tracked by BAML — Raytheon, L-3 Communications, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Huntington Ingalls, and General Dynamics — grew an average 19.1%, compared with 13.4% for the S&P 500.

In some presidential years the difference can be massive. In 2000, defense stocks beat the S&P by 44.7%, and in four presidential years tracked by BAML — 1980, 1992, 2000, and 2008 — the difference was at least 10%.

Additionally, even midterm years are good for defense companies. "Defense outperformed the S&P 500 in 12 of the last 18 election years since 1980, with an average return of 12.6% versus 5.6% for the S&P 500," BAML said.

The note also projected that these companies should have a vested interest in the outcome.

Based on BAML's evaluation of congressional role calls and other data, a victory by a Republican nominee will have much bigger benefits for defense investments and in turn their earnings. "Our analysis shows that the best-case scenario for defense in FY19 is a Republican president with a FY16-FY19 [compound annual growth rate] of 8.4%," the note said in respect to the growth in federal defense investments.

If a Democrat wins the White House, BAML expects a growth rate of only 2.8% per year.

According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, the US spent $581 billion on defense last year, which accounted for 36% of all defense spending in the world. The budget, however, has been declining since 2011, when the US spent $695 billion, according to the BAML research.

The report did warn, however, that in the year after elections defense stocks fell back to earth. "Defense underperformed the S&P 500 in nine of the last 17 post-election years since 1980, with an average return of 12.6% versus 14.7% for the S&P 500," BAML said. That included five of the nine post-presidential-election years.

If history is any guide, it's a good time for investors to jump into defense stocks before the presidential race, and their prices, really takes off.

Join the conversation about this story »

As many as 12 Russian military aircraft were spotted Wednesday near Latvia’s sovereign airspace in the Baltic region of Eastern Europe, a statement by the Latvian Armed Forces said.

Russia has flown hundreds of aircraft and positioned dozens of ships during the last 18 months near the territory of the former Soviet republics of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, prompting alarm across Eastern Europe and inside NATO.

"Patrol aircraft have identified on Wednesday four Mikoyan MiG-31, four Sukhoi Su-24, three Antonov An-26 and one Ilyushin IL-76 aircraft of the Russian air force over the international waters of the Baltic Sea near Latvia’s external sea border," the statement said.

While the flights were often over international waters, many of Russia’s aircraft do not fly with flight transponders on, making it nearly impossible for other aircraft and air traffic control to locate them. This can be dangerous for commercial aircraft flying in the area.

Sweden and Denmark summoned Russian ambassadors in December to complain about one such incident when a Russian jet traveled in a commercial flight path between Copenhagen and Sweden. Russia denied it has been a hazard to commercial flights.

In light of this threat, NATO could employ what’s known as the Baltic Air Policing mission, which is a group of alliance members that monitor the otherwise unprotected skies of the three Baltic states, none of which has an air force.

Russian Ambassador to Latvia Alexander Veshnyakov met in January with Latvian government officials to discuss the issue. “All flights of the Russian Air Force and the movements of warships were made in strict accordance with international legal norms,” Veshnyakov said, before adding the maneuvers of the Russian armed forces "were conducted transparently within the framework of international agreements and arrangements." 

In June, a U.S. sailor recorded footage of Russian jets flying over a U.S.-led NATO mission in the Baltic Sea.

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

Join the conversation about this story »

WASHINGTON (AP) — Construction to upgrade North Korea's main rocket launch site now appears complete amid expectations in rival South Korea that a launch could take place in October, a US research institute said Tuesday.

South Korean officials are predicting the North will mark the upcoming 70th anniversary of the ruling communist party with a "strategic provocation"— possibly a blastoff from the west coast site of Sohae from where Pyongyang launched its first rocket into space in December 2012, drawing international condemnation.

The US-Korea Institute at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies says commercial satellite imagery taken July 21 shows Pyongyang has made quick work since spring of constructing a support building on the launch pad where rockets would be prepared.

It has also apparently completed a moveable structure on rails, several stories high, that would be used to shift rockets or rocket stages to the launch tower.

But the institute says there's no evidence that launch preparations are yet underway.

"Despite the fact that the facility is ready after completing a construction program begun in 2013, we still see no sign of preparations at the Sohae facility for an October event," said Joel Wit, a former State Department official and editor of the institute's website, 38 North.

The North's unpredictable leader, Kim Jong Un, has closely associated himself with the impoverished nation's space program, which it says is peaceful. In early May, state media quoted Kim as saying the North would launch satellites into space at the time and locations chosen by the ruling party.

North Korea is barred under UN Security Council resolutions from launching rockets as that technology can also be used to launch ballistic missiles.

South Korea's Yonhap news agency last week cited unnamed government sources as saying that North Korea has almost completed modifications at Sohae, including an extended launch tower, and that it would be used to fire a long-range missile bigger than the rocket launched three years ago. This would mark the Oct. 10 anniversary of the Workers' Party of Korea.

"I'm sure we'll have a grand celebration," North Korean Ambassador to the United Nations, Jang Il Hun, told reporters Tuesday in response to a question about a possible missile test for the anniversary. He added, "We are free to do whatever we want."

Jang spoke at his country's mission to the UN.

Satellite imagery expert Tim Brown also notes in the institute's analysis that North Korea has recently completed a 240-meter long shelter to conceal a rail line that would be used to transport equipment to the launch pad. He said it would prevent observation by satellite of missile-related rail cars and shipping containers.

Much of the concern over North Korea's development of ballistic missile capabilities is that they could be used to deliver nuclear weapons.

The North Korean ambassador to China, Ji Jae Ryong, said in Beijing Tuesday that his country has no interest in the kind of nuclear deal that Iran reached this month with the U.S. and other world powers because North Korea is a "nuclear weapons state."

SEE ALSO: Report: Russia's construction industry is using tens of thousands of North Korean "slave laborers"

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 11 mindblowing facts about North Korea

On July 29th, the government of Afghanistan announced that it believed Mullah Muhammad Omar, the leader of the Afghan Taliban, had died in a hospital in Pakistani in 2013.

From 1996 to 2001, when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, Mullah Omar was the country's de-facto head of state. The US, and most of the rest of the international community, didn't recognize the Taliban regime as Afghanistan's legitimate government. But the late jihadist leader still had a single, very strange interaction with US diplomats. 

In retaliation against the al Qaeda bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998, President Bill Clinton ordered cruise missile strikes against terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. 

Two days after the strikes, Mullah Omar called the US State Department and issued the country a dire warning, according to Lawrence Wright's acclaimed book "The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda And The Road To 9/11." 

Over the phone, Omar told State Department official Michael E. Malinowski that "the strikes would only arouse anti-American sentiment in the Islamic world and provoke more acts of terrorism ... The best solution was for President Clinton to resign." 

In response, Wright notes, Malinowski replied that the strikes against al Qaeda and bin Laden specifically were justified, as the al Qaeda chief, who was living under Taliban protection in Afghanistan, was "behaving like a guest who was shooting at neighbors from the host's windows." Malinowski reiterated the US' demand that the Taliban cease providing bin Laden with support and force him to leave Afghanistan. 

Ultimately Omar continued to give bin Laden sanctuary despite US and Saudi pressure. His support for al Qaeda culminated in the September 11 attacks and the subsequent US-led invasion of Afghanistan. 

Since the overthrow of the Taliban regime in late 2001, Omar has not been seen in public. 

The government of Afghanistan considers the latest news of Omar's death to be credible. But multiple previous reports of the Taliban leader's death that have proven false, and the Taliban have yet to comment on the most recent claims of Omar's death. 

SEE ALSO: Taliban leader Mullah Omar has been reported dead

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's how the world's most notorious drug lord escaped from his high-security prison cell

John Kerry has spent the better part of the past 20 months working towards the landmark nuclear deal with Iran, a stretch that included some of the longest continuous negotiations in the history of American diplomacy.

Nevertheless, there are parts of a major related agreement signed the same day as the deal that not even the US Secretary of State has seen yet.

During a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on Tuesday, and then again during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Wednesday, Kerry acknowledged that he had not seen the details of the side agreements reached between the International Atomic Energy Agency and Iran on on July 14.

These agreements likely deal with the implementation of a "roadmap" meant to resolve nearly a decade of Iranian stalling on disclosing the extent of its suspected nuclear weaponization program. 

That roadmap is public. It gives the IAEA until Dec. 15 to issue a report on Iran's disclosure of its previous weaponization activities, a process aimed at giving weapons inspectors much-needed knowledge of Iran's illicit supply lines, level of expertise, weaponization infrastructure, and military oversight of components of its nuclear program.

The "roadmap" will help create an inspection baseline for future monitoring of Iran's nuclear program and is considered crucial to the successful implementation of the nuclear deal, which is known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

The side agreements, which probably lay out the terms by which the IAEA will actually perform its five-month investigation under the "roadmap," aren't public. And they're so secret that the US Secretary of State isn't able to read them.

Kerry told the Foreign Affairs Committee that he had been briefed on the documents but hasn't had a first-hand look at them.

"No, I haven't seen it," Kerry said, adding that "we don't have access to the actual agreement."

Kerry also clarified that national security advisor Susan Rice had not seen them either.

On Wednesday, Kerry told the Senate Armed Services Committee that a single US diplomat, possibly Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman, "may have" looked at the side agreements during a meeting at an IAEA facility.

But he couldn't recall whether that official had seen the final version: "I don't know whether she read a summary or a draft," said Kerry. "I have no idea." 

During both hearings, Kerry contended that the IAEA often enters into highly technical agreements with individual governments that are not made available to other states. In other words, the administration is advocating for the secrecy of documents that its top diplomats acknowledge they haven't seen yet.

And Kerry's logic implies that, on at least the narrow question of divulging its side agreements with the IAEA, Iran is entitled to the same treatment as any other Non-Proliferation Treaty signatory. Neither does the importance of the broader nuclear deal seem to necessitate the utmost possible transparency.

In spite of the administration's viewpoint, there were and still are ways of making these side agreements available to American diplomats — if Iran, the US, or one of its allies on the IAEA's Board of Governors really wanted them disclosed.

"According to the IAEA rules and practices such documents could be made available to the Members of the IAEA Board," Olli Heinonen, a senior fellow at Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and the IAEA's former Deputy Director-General for Safeguards, wrote to Business Insider in an email.

Heinonen explained that the IAEA secretariat can't divulge these side agreements to other member states on its own initiative. But there are two ways US diplomats could access them.

In one scenario, Iran would agree to divulge the documents: "Iran can make it available by asking to distribute it as an [Information Circular] document to all IAEA member states as they did with the 2007 Work Plan," Heinonen explained, referring to a publicly available agreement between the IAEA and Iran on nuclear safeguards.

US diplomats could also view these side agreements if a member state of the IAEA's 35-member Board of Governors requests their distribution.

Such a move would stand a decent change of success: "If a Board Member asks it and others resist the distribution ... this can be overcome by a vote. Simple majority is enough and no vetoes exist in the IAEA system," Heinonen explained. "The board can also request the whole document to be made public. Such a request could be best done by a country which is not part of the JCPOA process; my favorite is Canada."

The IAEA could conceivably have made the signing of the roadmap contingent on Iran's willingness to distribute the entirety of the agreement. It's little surprise the IAEA didn't win this concession, as even analysts with a generally favorable view of the nuclear agreement have acknowledged that the roadmap was settled on terms favorable to Tehran.

In fact, the IAEA was "using Iranian language" in framing how disclosure issues would be settled, as the Royal United Services Institute's Aaron Stein put it in an interview with Vox. And in a conference call with reporters a few days after the deal was announced, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace nonproliferation expert George Perkovich, who has a positive view of the deal, speculated that "you're never going to have many of these questions fully resolved."

Already, US and Iranian diplomats appear to disagree on the status of the IAEA roadmap, and its relationship to the JCPOA. 

As The Wall Street Journal notes, Ali Akbar Sahelhi, the head of Iran's atomic energy agency, recently said "the IAEA's investigation was independent of the broader deal."

At the same time, the Journal notes that the US and IAEA officials have said "that sanctions on Tehran won't be lifted if the country doesn't cooperate in the probe."

Giving US officials access to the entirety of the agreement could provide much-needed insight into the extent of Iranian cooperation in the IAEA's investigation, something that could help smooth over potential early challenges in how the broader nuclear deal is interpreted and implemented. 

It may now be up to a US ally on the IAEA board to ensure that the agreement's American negotiators have access to documents that might prove crucial to one of the most important US diplomatic agreements in decades. 

"In my view, the document should me made available to demonstrate the credibility of the verification efforts," Heinonen said.

SEE ALSO: A critical unknown is emerging in the Iran deal

Join the conversation about this story »

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

The chief prosecutor in the case of Gu Kailai — who was convicted of murdering a British businessman — was found dead hanging in his apartment by the police on July 28, the Financial Times reports.

Gu, the wife of top Chinese leader Bo Xilai, was convicted of murdering British businessman Neil Heywood in 2012 and given a suspended death sentence.

Prosecutor Man Mingan was appointed to the case in 2012, taking part in one of China's most dramatic court cases in decades.

So far, police are saying the 60-year-old Man committed suicide but are still investigating the death. Some state media also reported that the Communist party had a meeting to discuss his death.

Gu is the daughter of one of China's most important revolutionary generals. Her husband, Bo Xilai, is a once powerful member of the politburo in China and potential candidate for promotion to the top of the Communist party, whose downfall is directly linked to the murder case. 

Bo, the son of one of China’s revolutionary founding fathers, is now serving a life sentence for corruption.

The poisoning of Heywood was made public after a former chief of police — who initially helped cover up the murder — alerted US diplomats out of fear that he would be killed himself. The murder took place in the city that Bo served as Communist party secretary.

Gu's trial was held in Hefei, which is far away from any areas that be under her husband's influence.

The Financial Times notes that "the outcome was decided beforehand by senior political leaders" and media could not freely cover the highly politicized trial. 

After the trial, Man who had been thrusted in the center of public attention, received a special meritorious award for how he handled the trial.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Police in Colombia just seized $240 million worth of cocaine

Sometimes in life, the guy with the drunken, so-crazy-it-just-might-work ideas hits one out of the park and saves the day.

This is clearly what happened in 1942 aboard the HNLMS Abraham Crijnssen, the last Dutch warship standing after the Battle of the Java Sea.

Originally planning to escape to Australia with three other warships, the then-stranded minesweeper had to make the voyage alone and unprotected.

The slow-moving vessel could only get up to about 15 knots and had very few guns, boasting only a single 3-inch gun and two Oerlikon 20 mm canons — making it a sitting duck for the Japanese bombers that circled above.

Knowing their only chance of survival was to make it to Australia, the Crijnssen‘s 45 crew members frantically brainstormed ways to make the retreat undetected. The winning idea? Turn the ship into an island.

You can almost hear crazy-idea guy anticipating his shipmates’ reluctance: “Now guys, just hear me out…” But lucky for him, the Abraham Crijnessen was strapped for time, resources and alternative means of escape, automatically making the island idea the best idea.

Now it was time to put the plan into action.

The crew went ashore to nearby islands and cut down as many trees as they could lug back onto the deck. Then the timber was arranged to look like a jungle canopy, covering as much square footage as possible.

Any leftover parts of the ship were painted to look like rocks and cliff faces — these guys weren’t messing around.

Now, a camoflauged ship in deep trouble is better than a completely exposed ship. But there was still the problem of the Japanese noticing a mysterious moving island and wondering what would happen if they shot at it.

Because of this, the crew figured the best means of convincing the Axis powers that they were an island was to truly be an island: by not moving at all during daylight hours.

While the sun was up they would anchor the ship near other islands, then cover as much ocean as they could once night fell — praying the Japanese wouldn’t notice a disappearing and reappearing island amongst the nearly 18,000 existing islands in Indonesia. And, as luck would have it, they didn’t.

The Crijnssen managed to go undetected by Japanese planes and avoid the destroyer that sank the other Dutch warships, surviving the eight-day journey to Australia and reuniting with Allied forces.

SEE ALSO: It's been 70 years since the worst disaster in the history of the US Navy

Join the conversation about this story »

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

The Chinese hackers that stole the personally identifying information of more than 20 million people from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) last year also hacked into United Airlines, Bloomberg reports.

And Dave Aitel, CEO of cybersecurity firm Immunity, Inc., notes that the hackers' breach of United is especially significant as it's the main airline in and out of Washington, DC's Dulles International — the nearest international airport to the CIA's headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

"Every CIA employee and visitor coming from abroad flies in and out of Dulles, and chances are they're flying United," Aitel told Business Insider.

"The combination of information [the hackers] obtained from OPM with the travel information they now have from United is hugely powerful" for the Chinese, Aitel said, "and it will make the kind of work the CIA does much more difficult."

Mike Oppenheim, the manager of threat intelligence at the cybersecurity firm FireEye, told The New York Times that Beijing is building "a massive database of Americans, with a likely focus on diplomats, intelligence operatives and those with business in China."

The OPM hack — described by top counterintelligence official Joel Brenner as a "significant blow" to American human intelligence — has the CIA especially worried about American spies working in Beijing with diplomatic cover, sources told The Times.

“The information that was exfiltrated was valuable in its own right,” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-California), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told The Times. “It’s even more compromising when it is used in combination with other information they may hold. It may take years before we’re aware of the full extent of the damage.”

This "other information"— such as stolen medical and financial records — may now include US intelligence officials' travel itineraries from the world’s second-largest airline.

“You’re suspicious of some guy; you happen to notice that he flew to Papua New Guinea on June 23 and now you can see that the Americans have flown there on June 22 or 23,"James Lewis, a senior fellow in cybersecurity at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Bloomberg.

"If you’re China, you’re looking for those things that will give you a better picture of what the other side is up to.”

FireEye estimates that the Chinese-based hackers have infiltrated at least 10 US companies and organizations, according to Bloomberg.

United Airlines claims it detected the breach in late May or early June. But the hackers' digital footprints appear to be well over a year old, dating back to April 2014, according to Bloomberg.

The hackers who infiltrated OPM similarly had access to the agency's security-clearance computer system for over a year before they were detected.

"The average time Chinese hackers have access to a compromised system is 356 days and the longest recorded was four years and 10 months," Mark Wuergler, a senior cybersecurity researcher at Immunity Inc., told Business Insider last month.

"They are really good at what they do, and when they break into something it's not just smash and grab."

SEE ALSO: 'We should be very clear: China is at virtual war with the United States'

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: We went inside a secret basement under Grand Central that was one of the biggest World War II targets

In early 2015, Amira Abase and Shamima Begum, both 15-year-old girls, and Kadiza Sultana, 16, boarded a plane from England to Turkey. From there the teens crossed over to Syria to join the Islamic State (otherwise referred to as ISIS, ISIL, or Daesh).

The story of these London schoolgirls captured widespread media attention, driving headlines and leaving the world haunted by Shamima Begum’s last words to Umm Layth, a female ISIS member, on Twitter: “follow me so I can dm [direct message] you back.”

Twitter, in particular, has proven to be a powerful recruitment tool for ISIS, allowing members of the terrorist group to engage with young people anywhere in the world on a daily basis in an ever-changing cascade of DMs, hashtags, and private accounts that bedevil even the most diligent surveillance efforts.

Just as ISIS managed to cow the much larger Iraqi Army, the terrorist organization has also succeeded in convincing the world that legions of social media followers are fueling a huge surge in recruits coming from Western nations and elsewhere.

That isn't necessarily true. According to the ISIS Twitter Census, a research project by the Brookings Institution to map Twitter usage by the terrorist group, the ISIS global social media juggernaut on Twitter consisted primarily of a few hundred accounts with thousands more (69%) tweeting only a few times or getting suspended. Overall, the study found, a small group of highly effective ISIS social media users has captured global attention and amplified impressions of the organization far beyond its actual numbers.

But on average, ISIS-supporting accounts still tweeted with greater frequency than the typical Twitter user. In total, an estimated 133,422 tweets per day were sent from all suspected ISIS-linked users, according to the Brookings study.  

The census study, by researcher J.M. Berger and data scientist Jonathan Morgan, surveyed 20,000 Twitter accounts that through content or hashtag usage appeared to be affiliated with ISIS. The researchers not only observed a decrease in Twitter activity, primarily due to suspensions, but also ultimately found that the ISIS follower base actually represents a “small number of people” and that the network itself is “internally focused.”

In other words, a lot of the activity comes from a prolific inner circle. According to the findings, nearly half of all followers of ISIS-supporting accounts were also ISIS tweeters within the dataset.  

The 2014 ISIS surge happened on Twitter, too

The year 2014 was huge for ISIS: they intensified their recruitment efforts, made dramatic territorial gains, cut their ties with al-Qaeda, and declared an Islamic caliphate with Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as its leader.  

Twitter handles apparently under the sway of ISIS and its predecessor organization Al Qaeda in Iraq have been gradually increasing between 2008-2014. By 2014, the number of ISIS-supporting Twitter accounts reached an estimated 11,902. Nearly 60% of all ISIS-supporting accounts were created in 2014 and only 1.3% of existing accounts were created prior to 2010.

What’s more, the bulk of this ISIS Twitter account creation surge took place in a single month: September 2014.

During that month, the US and its allies launched air strikes against ISIS militants in Syria while Twitter began an energetic crackdown on ISIS-affiliated accounts. Since the fall of 2014, ISIS’s Twitter activity has actually declined, especially in terms of retweets and replies within the network, according to the study.

Locating ISIS's Twitter army

Where were ISIS-supporting users actually tweeting from?

Surprisingly, some ISIS-supporting users had tweets with a location-enabled coordinate; in fact, 1.5% of the sample size enabled location data “on at least one tweet out of their last 200.” Approximately 28% of Twitter users that enabled their location were located in either controlled or contested areas in Iraq and Syria, places that were either inside or near the ISIS "Caliphate."

Beyond this 1.5%, the majority of ISIS-supporting users opted out of enabling their location. Researchers still attempted to pinpoint these users by analyzing their accounts by the location selected in their profile.

Large percentages of users claimed that they were in Saudi Arabia (866), Syria (507), Iraq (453), or the US (404). However, this data may not necessarily be accurate as location selection on Twitter is a “free-form” text field where users can enter any unverified or metaphorical location — whether it’s Baghdad or “in the kitchen making a sandwich.” So although hundreds of ISIS supporters selected the US as their location, the authors believe that this was misleadingly done “to create the appearance of a homeland threat.”

Smartphones and bots

A majority of ISIS-supporting users that use smartphones to access Twitter are likely Team Android, not Team Apple.

An estimated 69% of users tweeted with an Android smartphone, while a smaller percentage of users, 30%, used an Apple iPhone. Only 1% of users used a Blackberry phone.

Although ISIS announced an iPhone ban in mid-December 2014 for security reasons, the ISIS Twitter Census only found a 1% decrease in iPhone usage among ISIS-supporting accounts in February 2015. It seems that some ISIS supporters are either not adhering to directions or are just too thrilled by the latest iPhone upgrade to make the switch to Android.

Some ISIS-supporters don't even write their own organic tweets, resorting to bots and applications to facilitate their activity on Twitter. Some used popular Twitter client-apps such as Hootsuite and Tweetbot, while others used non-client apps such as Knz Muslim, Du3a, and Twitquran. These applications automatically sent tweets daily — from tweets of prayers to verses of the Quran and other related content.

Knz Muslim, the most popular Twitter non-client app, yielded over a million tweets per day, on average, or 1,000 tweets per minute, sometime in January 2015.

As for what the whole range of ISIS-supporting Twitter users were tweeting and sharing: An analysis of 5.3 million tweets revealed that at least 26% of the top-100 hashtags contained the “Islamic State” in its four alternate spellings. In fact, ISIS-references represented approximately 40% of the top-100 hashtags, followed by hashtags referencing Twitter suspensions at 9%, and references to Syria, at 4%. Twitter suspensions are ISIS supporters’ worst nightmare; many users repeatedly stated that these suspensions were “devastating” and called upon supporters to continue creating new accounts.

For now, Twitter remains ISIS’ weapon of choice when it comes to both dissemination of information and recruitment of potential members. As Twitter wages aggressive account suspensions, ISIS supporters continue voicing their devastation and concern.

Frustration with ISIS’ online presence has grown — even leading hacktivist group Anonymous to target ISIS-supporting networks on social media and to flood ISIS-affiliated accounts with images of Japanese anime characters.  

Despite such efforts, the ISIS supporter population persists on the social networking site. In April 2015, Amira Abase, one of the schoolgirls that crossed to Syria in early 2015 to join the Islamic State, made headlines once again. She provided a short glimpse into her new life in the Islamic State, posting a brief tweet along with a public picture of a fast food meal of pizza, fries, and some kebab —before Twitter finally suspended her. 

Ruba Aleryani is an undergraduate at Brown University pursuing a degree in Development and Middle East Studies. She is currently a Data Journalism Intern at Silk.co. 

SEE ALSO: A former ISIS fighter explains why he joined the terror army — and left after just 3 days

Join the conversation about this story »

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) on Wednesday called former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's (R) recent controversial comments about the Iran deal "offensive," and said that they could actually be helping President Barack Obama sell what Christie has called a "bad deal."

In an interview with Bloomberg Politics, Christie said Huckabee's comments that the US-led nuclear deal would "take Israelis and lead them to the door of the oven," was underestimating the strength of Israel.

"I don't agree with the hyperbolic nature of the comment, and I also think that it's somewhat offensive to Israelis," Christie said. "Israelis have the right of self-determination. ... No one is going to lead them anywhere."

"I thought it was kind of off-key in a number of different ways, and something I wouldn't have said."

The New Jersey governor also argued that Huckabee's comments weren't "a smart statement to make politically," because they help Obama change the conversation around the Iran deal.

"It's distracting. It allows the president then to do what he did in Africa, which was talk about the statement rather than be pinned down on the specific deficiencies of the agreement," Christie said.

"When we say things like Governor Huckabee said, we give the president an out."

Christie isn't the only Republican candidate to distance himself from Huckabee's comments.

Though Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) said that he won't bash his rivals, he hinted that he wouldn't have used the language that Huckabee did. 

“Well, I’m certainly not gonna say it, but I’m telling you, they can speak for themselves,"Walker said in an interview with NPR. "I’m going to tell you what I’m for and you’re not hearing me use that sort of language. What I’m talking about are the issues and the specifics."

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) more directly scolded Huckabee earlier this week.

Though they may disagree on Huckabee's comments, the Republican presidential field is united in opposition to the nuclear agreement with Iran. Republicans have universally condemned the agreement. Candidates like Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) have made their opposition to it a central part of their stump speeches.

It's unclear overall, however, how the deal will continue to factor into the presidential race, as the politics around it are somewhat murky and it appears that few Americans are paying close attention. 

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: People were baffled by 50 sharks circling in shallow waters off the English coast

In the tumult and uncertainty that marked Russia after the Soviet Union imploded, when the state was weak and many institutions tottering, a vital lifeline was extended from the West.

The U.S. government, as well as foundations and philanthropies, responded generously. The financier George Soros, through his Open Society Foundations, provided small grants that sustained many impoverished scientists.

The MacArthur Foundation and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) were vital sources of support to civil society, education and human rights.

Now, President Vladimir Putin is forcing these organizations out of Russia, using law enforcement and a parliament that he controls. Mr. Putin's larger target is to destroy civil society, that vital two-way link in any democracy between the rulers and the ruled.

The latest move, announced Tuesday, is to declare the NED an "undesirable" organization under the terms of a law that Mr. Putin signed in May. The law bans groups from abroad who are deemed a "threat to the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation, its defense capabilities and its national security."

The charge against the NED is patently ridiculous. The NED's grantees in Russia last year ran the gamut of civil society. They advocated transparency in public affairs, fought corruption and promoted human rights, freedom of information and freedom of association, among other things.

All these activities make for a healthy democracy but are seen as threatening from the Kremlin's ramparts.

The new law on "undesirables" comes in addition to one signed in 2012 that gave authorities the power to declare organizations "foreign agents" if they engaged in any kind of politics and receive money from abroad. The designation, from the Stalin era, implies espionage.

While the NED is the first organization to be labeled "undesirable," on July 5, the Dynasty Foundation, which had provided millions of dollars for science and education in Russia, reported that it was closing after being labeled a "foreign agent."

Others are feeling the chill. On July 24, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation of Flint, Mich., an independent, private philanthropy that had supported community education in Russia and contributed more than $25 million since the early 1990s, announced that it would no longer support organizations in Russia. The Federation Council, Russia's upper house of parliament, had put the foundation on a list of potentially undesirable organizations that was submitted to authorities.

On July 21, the MacArthur Foundation, which had provided more than $173 million in grants in Russia since 1992 to further higher education, advance human rights and combat nuclear proliferation, said that it was closing its office in Moscow. MacArthur had also been put on parliament's hit list.

Mr. Putin fears competition, opposition and any cry of dissent. In pursuit of absolute power, he is suffocating his own society.

This article was written by Editorial Board from The Washington Post and was legally licensed through the NewsCred publisher network.

Join the conversation about this story »

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