Government Business, Government Finance
Article | July 12, 2022
With Iran in escalation mood to get n to "Holy War" or "War For Survival of Islam" with Air Striking US and Allied Bases in Iraq which though has hardly given any blow to US Confidence and its Marines deployed there,Iran is going to architect a full blown war which as we know it would feature a series of moves and countermoves, we know it’d be very messy and confusing, and we know it’d be extremely deadly.
But unlike with the path to war, it’s less useful to offer a play-by-play of what could happen. So with that in mind, it’s better to look at what the US and Iranian war plans would likely be — to better understand the devastation each could exact.
How the US might try to win the war
The US strategy would almost certainly involve using overwhelming air and naval power to beat Iran into submission early on. “You don’t poke the beehive, you take the whole thing down,” Goldenberg said.
The US military would bomb Iranian ships, parked warplanes, missile sites, nuclear facilities, and training grounds, as well as launch cyberattacks on much of the country’s military infrastructure. The goal would be to degrade Iran’s conventional forces within the first few days and weeks, making it even harder for Tehran to resist American strength.
That plan definitely makes sense as an opening salvo, experts say, but it will come nowhere close to winning the war.
“It’s very unlikely that the Iranians would capitulate,” Michael Hanna, a Middle East expert at the Century Foundation in New York, told me. “It’s almost impossible to imagine that a massive air campaign will produce the desired result. It’s only going to produce escalation, not surrender.”
It won’t help that a sustained barrage of airstrikes will likely lead to thousands of Iranians dead, among them innocent civilians. That, among other things, could galvanize Iranian society against the US and put it firmly behind the regime, even though it has in many ways treated the population horribly over decades in power.
There’s another risk: A 2002 war game showed that Iran could sink an American ship and kill US sailors, even though the US Navy is far more powerful. If the Islamic Republic’s forces succeeded in doing that, it could provide a searing image that could serve as a propaganda coup for the Iranians. Washington won’t garner the same amount of enthusiasm for destroying Iranian warships — that’s what’s supposed to happen.
An Iranian Army soldier stands guard on a military speedboat, passing by a submarine during the “Velayat-90” navy exercises in the Strait of Hormuz on December 28, 2011. Ali Mohammadi/AFP/Getty Images
Trump has already signaled he doesn’t want to send ground troops into Iran or even spend a long time fighting the country. That tracks with his own inclinations to keep the US out of foreign wars, particularly in the Middle East. But with hawkish aides at his side, like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, there’s a chance they could convince him not to look weak and to go all-in and grasp victory.
But the options facing the president at that point will be extremely problematic, experts say.
The riskiest one — by far — would be to invade Iran. The logistics alone boggle the mind, and any attempt to try it would be seen from miles away. “There’s no surprise invasion of Iran,” Brewer, who is now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank in Washington, told me.
Iran has nearly three times the amount of people Iraq did in 2003, when the war began, and is about three and a half times as big. In fact, it’s the world’s 17th-largest country, with territory greater than France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and Portugal combined.
The geography is also treacherous. It has small mountain ranges along some of its borders. Entering from the Afghanistan side in the east would mean traversing two deserts. Trying to get in from the west could also prove difficult even with Turkey — a NATO ally — as a bordering nation. After all, Ankara wouldn’t let the US use Turkey to invade Iraq, and its relations with Washington have only soured since.
“IT’S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO IMAGINE THAT A MASSIVE AIR CAMPAIGN WILL PRODUCE THE DESIRED RESULT. IT’S ONLY GOING TO PRODUCE ESCALATION, NOT SURRENDER.” —MICHAEL HANNA, A MIDDLE EAST EXPERT AT THE CENTURY FOUNDATION
The US could try to enter Iran the way Saddam Hussein did during the Iran-Iraq war, near a water pass bordering Iran’s southwest. But it’s swampy — the Tigris and Euphrates rivers meet there — and relatively easy to protect. Plus, an invading force would run up against the Zagros Mountains after passing through, just like Saddam’s forces did.
It’s for these reasons that the private intelligence firm Stratfor called Iran a “fortress” back in 2011. If Trump chose to launch an incursion, he’d likely need around 1.6 million troops to take control of the capital and country, a force so big it would overwhelm America’s ability to host them in regional bases. By contrast, America never had more than 180,000 service members in Iraq.
And there’s the human cost. A US-Iran war would likely lead to thousands or hundreds of thousands of dead. Trying to forcibly remove the country’s leadership, experts say, might drive that total into the millions.
That helps explain why nations in the region hope they won’t see a fight. Goldenberg, who traveled recently to meet with officials in the Gulf, said that none of them wanted a US-Iran war. European nations will also worry greatly about millions of refugees streaming into the continent, which would put immense pressure on governments already dealing with the fallout of the Syrian refugee crisis. Israel also would worry about Iranian proxies targeting it (more on that below).
Meanwhile, countries like Russia and China — both friendly to Iran — would try to curtail the fighting and exploit it at the same time, the Century Foundation’s Hanna told me. China depends heavily on its goods traveling through the Strait of Hormuz, so it would probably call for calm and for Tehran not to close down the waterway. Russia would likely demand restraint as well, but use the opportunity to solidify its ties with the Islamic Republic.
President Donald Trump and Mohammed bin Salman, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, stand side by side in the group picture at the G20 summit on June 28, 2019. Bernd von Jutrczenka/picture alliance via Getty Images
And since both countries have veto power on the UN Security Council, they could ruin any political legitimacy for the war that the US may aim to gain through that body.
The hope for the Trump administration would therefore be that the conflict ends soon after the opening salvos begin. If it doesn’t, and Iran resists, all that’d really be left are a slew of bad options to make a horrid situation much, much worse.
How Iran might try to win the war
Retired Marine Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart left his post as the No. 2 at US Cyber Command in 2019, ending a decorated four-decade career. Toward the end of it, he spent his time at the forefront of the military intelligence and cybersecurity communities.
If anyone has the most up-to-date information on how Iran may fight the US, then, it’s Stewart.
“The Iranian strategy would be to avoid, where possible, direct conventional force-on-force operations,” he wrote for the Cipher Brief on July 2, 2019. “They would attempt to impose cost on a global scale, striking at US interests through cyber operations and targeted terrorism with the intent of expanding the conflict, while encouraging the international community to restrain America’s actions.”
In other words, Tehran can’t match Washington’s firepower. But it can spread chaos in the Middle East and around the world, hoping that a war-weary US public, an intervention-skeptical president, and an angered international community cause America to stand down.
That may seem like a huge task — and it is — but experts believe the Islamic Republic has the capability, knowhow, and will to pull off such an ambitious campaign. “The Iranians can escalate the situation in a lot of different ways and in a lot of different places,” Hanna told me. “They have the capacity to do a lot of damage.”
Take what it could do in the Middle East. Iran’s vast network of proxies and elite units — like Soleimani’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — could be activated to kill American troops, diplomats, and citizens throughout the region. US troops in Syria are poorly defended and have little support, making them easy targets, experts say. America also has thousands of civilians, troops, and contractors in Iraq, many of whom work in areas near where Iranian militias operate within the country.
US allies would also be prime targets. Hezbollah, an Iran-backed terrorist group in Lebanon, might attack Israel with rockets and start its own brutal fight. We’ve heard this story before: In 2006, they battled in a month-long war where the militant group fired more than 4,000 rockets into Israel, and Israeli forces fired around 7,000 bombs and missiles into Lebanon.
About 160 Israelis troops and civilians died, according to the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and about 1,100 Lebanese — most of them civilians — perished, per Human Rights Watch, a US-headquartered advocacy organization. It also reports about 4,400 Lebanese were injured, and around 1 million people were displaced.
But that’s not all. Iran could encourage terrorist organizations or other proxies to strike inside Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and other Gulf nations. Last year, it planned and executed drone strikes on two major Saudi oil facilities deep inside the kingdom, convulsing world markets. Its support for Houthis rebels in Yemen would mostly certainly increase, offering them more weapons and funds to attack Saudi Arabia’s airports, military bases, and energy plants.
The US government on April 8, 2019, said it had designated the IRGC as a terrorist organization, marking the first time a US government has made such a designation on a foreign government’s organization. Rouzbeh Fouladi/NurPhoto via Getty Images
Experts note that the Islamic Republic likely has sleeper cells in Europe and Latin America, and they could resurface in dramatic and violent ways. In 1994, for example, Iranian-linked terrorists bombed the hub of the Jewish community in Argentina’s capital, Buenos Aires, killing 85 people and injuring roughly 300 more.
That remains the largest terrorist attack in Latin America’s history, and the possibility for an even bigger one exists. In 2018, Argentina arrested two men suspected of having ties with Hezbollah.
But Chris Musselman, formerly the National Security Council’s counterterrorism director under Trump, told me the US and its allies may have the most trouble containing the proxy swarm in Western Africa.
“We could see a conflict that spread quickly to places the US may not be able to protect people, and it’s a fight that we are grossly unprepared for,” he said, adding that there’s a strong Hezbollah presence in the region and American embassy security there isn’t great. Making matters worse, he continued, the US isn’t particularly good at collecting intelligence there, meaning some militants could operate relatively under the radar.
“This isn’t really a law enforcement function that US can take on a global scale,” he said. It would require that countries unwittingly hosting proxies to lead on defeating the Iranian-linked fighters, with US support when needed.
The chaos would also extend into the cyber realm. Iran is a major threat to the US in cyberspace. Starting in 2011, Iran attacked more than 40 American banks, including JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America. The attack made it so the banks had trouble serving its customers and customers had trouble using the bank’s services.
In 2012, Iran released malware into the networks of Saudi Aramco, a major oil company, which erased documents, emails, and other files on around 75 percent of the company’s computers — replacing them with an image of a burning American flag.
In the middle of a war, one could imagine Tehran’s hackers wreaking even more havoc.
“WE COULD SEE A CONFLICT THAT SPREAD QUICKLY TO PLACES THE US MAY NOT BE ABLE TO PROTECT PEOPLE, AND IT’S A FIGHT THAT WE ARE GROSSLY UNPREPARED FOR” —CHRIS MUSSELMAN, FORMERLY THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL’S COUNTERTERRORISM DIRECTOR UNDER TRUMP
“I would expect them to have begun selected targeting through socially-engineered phishing activities focused on the oil and gas sector, the financial sector and the electric power grid in that order,” Stewart wrote. “There may be instances now where they already have some persistent access. If they do, I expect they would use it, or risk losing the access and employ that capability early in the escalation of the crisis.”
Recent reports indicate that Iranian cyberwarriors have stepped up their online operations, with a particular emphasis on preparing to attack US firms. Among other moves, they’re aiming to trick employees at major businesses to hand over passwords and other vital information, giving them greater access to a firm’s networks.
“When you combine this increase with past destructive attacks launched by Iranian-linked actors, we’re concerned enough about the potential for new destructive attacks to continue sounding the alarm,” Christopher Krebs, a top cybersecurity official at the Department of Homeland Security, told Foreign Policy last July.
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei attends a graduation ceremony of the Iranian Navy cadets in the city of Noshahr on September 30, 2015. Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images
All of this — proxies striking around the world, cyberattacks on enterprise — would happen while Iran continued to resist conventional American forces.
In the Strait of Hormuz, for instance, Iranian sailors could use speedboats to place bombs on oil tankers or place mines in the water to destroy US warships. The Islamic Republic’s submarines would also play a huge part in trying to sink an American vessel. And the nation’s anti-ship missiles and drones could prove constant and deadly nuisances.
Should US troops try to enter Iranian territory on land, Iranian ground forces would also push back on them fiercely using insurgent-like tactics while the US painfully marches toward Tehran.
Put together, Brewer notes succinctly, a US-Iran war would be “a nasty, brutal fight.”
Aftermath: “The worst-case scenarios here are quite serious”
Imagine, as we already have, that the earlier stages of strife escalate to a major war. That’s already bad enough. But assume for a moment not only that the fighting takes place, but that the US does the unlikely and near impossible: It invades and overthrows the Iranian regime (which Trump’s former National Security Adviser John Bolton, at least, has openly called for in the past).
If that happens, it’s worth keeping two things in mind.
First, experts say upward of a million people — troops from both sides as well as Iranian men, women, and children, and American diplomats and contractors — likely will have died by that point. Cities will burn and smolder. Those who survived the conflict will mainly live in a state of economic devastation for years and some, perhaps, will pick up arms and form insurgent groups to fight the invading US force.
Second, power abhors a vacuum. With no entrenched regime in place, multiple authority figures from Iran’s clerical and military circles, among others, will jockey for control. Those sides could split into violent factions, initiating a civil war that would bring more carnage to the country. Millions more refugees might flock out of the country, overwhelming already taxed nations nearby, and ungoverned pockets will give terrorist groups new safe havens from which to operate.
Iran would be on the verge of being a failed state, if it wasn’t already by that point, and the US would be the main reason why. To turn the tide, America may feel compelled to help rebuild the country at the cost of billions of dollars, years of effort, and likely more dead. It could also choose to withdraw, leaving behind a gaping wound in the center of the Middle East.
In some ways, then, what comes after the war could be worse than the war itself. It should therefore not be lost on anyone: A US-Iran war would be a bloody hell during and after the fighting. It’s a good thing neither Trump nor Iran’s leadership currently wants a conflict. But if they change their minds, only carnage follows.
“The worst-case scenarios here are quite serious,” Hanna told me.
Read More
Article | April 14, 2021
Blockchain has started to take off. It is now seen as an important part of development. More and more countries and governments are optimistic about joining the race of leveraging blockchain to commence different projects. It can be used in process optimization, cybersecurity, or integrating connected devices. This distributed ledger format is intended to support both public and government sectors, concluding, identity management, digital currency, payments, health care, land registration, voting, and management of legal entities.
Need For Blockchain in Government Sector
To provide maximum governance, the government must transform itself digitally from both intra-departmental and interdepartmental perspectives. As different departments run on different disjoint technologies, it leads to the concern of data consistency and data integrity. Due to which it becomes highly essential to incorporate multiple digital identities based on citizens in each department to make cross-referencing an easier task. And this is what Blockchain is for and should be used by the government.
Moreover, all over the world, banks are turning towards blockchain technology as a support for their complicated economy. They are going to utilize blockchain for issuing digital currencies. That’s the reason why the central banks of Russia, Japan, Britain, China, and the US are planning to meet and explore digital potential before launching CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency).
Advantages Of Blockchain
By using Blockchain, governments can acquire several benefits. Some of which are:
1. Data Protection
Personal data has always been higher risk in the unique ids saved by the government. Crucial details have sometimes been open to public records leading to data breach attacks. With the use of blockchain, these intensities can be easily avoided as the blocks are secured from cyber attacks.
2. Transparency
It has been found that citizens have low trust in government bodies due to the unawareness of the reason behind their decisions. However, blockchain tends to remove the barrier of secrecy by creating a distributed network that enables participants to verify data that led to the decision.
3. Reduced Corruption
Every public service department has at least one corrupt officer. So the government is taking measures to remove such personals which indeed is not possible due to other corrupt officials. However, with the inclusion of the Blockchain system, the mediator link will be terminated from the government system leading to the dumping of the corrupted officials.
Final Thoughts
One of the most intimidating things about blockchain is the absence of regulatory bodies that can cause any theft or scams. For a modern digital world, blockchain resembles a key-tool for securing digital records, developing economic transition, budgeting, and so much more. Companies that want to establish themselves as the pioneer in the upcoming blockchain revolution should also hire developers to develop their own blockchain-based apps or platforms for secured transactions.
Read More
Article | May 27, 2021
While Americans wait to see if Congress will pass an infrastructure bill, alternative funding and collaborative initiatives are becoming the norm. Even the recent announcement that the U.S. is now in a designated recession has not caused Congress to focus specifically on economic recovery. Economists, financial experts, industry leaders, and elected officials all know that funding large public projects stimulates the economy and creates jobs. They also know that throughout history, infrastructure reform has been a proven path to economic recovery.
Currently, private sector investors stand ready to fund infrastructure projects in America and local government leaders are moving forward to launch projects of all types. Soon, there may be little need for Congress to do anything. The opportunity to lead in this area may soon be usurped by visionary regional leaders and private sector partners.
Destruction brought on by climate change, the devastation resulting from COVID-19, cyber threats on public networks, lack of adequate broadband, and a desperate need for new sources of revenue – these are the problems that have forced visionary leaders to take action and not wait for Congress. Now, change is coming on strong, and that’s a very good thing!
Airports are not waiting to launch critical and long-overdue expansions. State leaders already are combating rising seas and finding ways to install broadband. Wastewater plants are being constructed or upgraded, and various transportation projects are being launched. Because local leaders lacked the luxury of waiting to see if Congress would endorse or partly fund infrastructure projects, they found alternative funding sources.
Congress could have, and should have, already passed an infrastructure bill, even if it only established guidelines or outlined best practices. The Canadian Council for Public Private Partnerships would have been a good model to follow. An endorsement or a statement of support from Congress related to public-private partnerships (P3s) would still be encouraging.
But, with or without encouragement, regional leaders throughout the country are working with industry, nonprofit organizations, academia, and investors to launch large infrastructure projects. And, as that happens, local economies benefit and jobs are created. Entire communities and numbers of citizens benefit from the good that emanates from public safety, quality of life, asset preservation, sustainability, and taxpayer relief.
But, to the surprise of no one, infrastructure projects are costly and many of them require a number of consolidated funding sources. Infrastructure projects also may be funded through a revenue repayment model that compensates private sector investors over a decade or two. Other projects are funded by bonds, grants, and federal programs such as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act which incentivizes investment into designated Opportunity Zone regions of the country.
Additionally, funding is still available from federal programs that have been in existence for decades. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Community Development Block Grant programs all have funding that may be merged with other alternative funding sources.
Many state legislatures have allocated funding for ‘rainy days’, emergencies and/or ‘resiliency’ efforts. Special Districts also may be created by cities, a process that authorizes citizens to tax themselves for critical infrastructure projects. Finding numerous funding sources is not difficult and not a hurdle that stops infrastructure reform.
Two rather important issues, however, have slowed public acceptance of alternative funding and public-private partnerships – a lack of understanding by citizens about the cost and danger of not doing anything and the fact that the public at large does not completely understand the history or the success of P3s. Too many citizens view private sector investment into public projects as a new or risky concept, which is not the case. Collaborative initiatives have been responsible for the building of America’s infrastructure for more than 100 years. And, the public-private partnership model is common throughout the world and has been tested over many decades.
Here are but a few examples of visionary infrastructure initiatives happening now in America.
In Virginia, the Greene County Board of Supervisors has approved guidelines for establishing strategic public-private partnerships to develop numerous types of P3 projects in the county. This action will enable the Greene County School Board to enter P3s for the purpose of building educational facilities. Other possible projects likely will include landfills, drinking water production, and distribution systems. Projects also may include fire department facilities, education construction including stadiums, public safety buildings, utility and telecommunications initiatives, and broadband infrastructure.
The University of California (UC) has provided a 2019-2025 Capital Finance Plan (CFP) that represents $52 billion of capital that will be required by the campuses and its medical centers. The CFP outlines plans for proposed capital projects, P3s and the acquisition of real property. UC has found the P3 model to be efficient, especially for campus housing. The Irvine campus has a long history of partnering with third-party entities to advance its strategic goals.
The Yuma, Arizona City Council has approved a $51.4 million increase from last year for a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget. The city expects 45 percent of the costs to be obtained through grants, reimbursements, and P3s. The plan outlines 54 projects and funding plans of $20.3 million for projects in the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area. The city also plans to augment funding with a federal grant and possibly private sector investment. It has scheduled a regional fiber optic infrastructure project for 2021 and has announced interest in a P3 engagement as the delivery model.
Florida’s Palm Beach Town Council recently approved $316,380 for a water supply feasibility study. An engineering firm will address the town’s need to explore different ways to provide residents potable water. A plan to determine how to meet future water demand is the objective. One option under consideration is to enter into a public-private-partnership to accomplish this objective.
Iowa State University is taking steps to become coal-free and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 35 percent over the next three years. A P3 is being considered for the operation of its utility system. The university’s Board of Regents this month gave approval for a planning process to begin.
The state of Nebraska is considering a public-private partnership to build a new 1,600-bed prison to deal with overcrowding and staffing issues. Cost of the new prison has been projected to be in the $200 million range or higher, and the state anticipates that a P3 will be the delivery method. The department announced that the project would potentially meet space needs for the next 100 years.
These projects offer just a sampling of what is happening throughout America. State and local leaders are moving forward and not waiting for guidance or encouragement. Instead, most have grabbed the reins of America’s race to the future, and started to address the country’s infrastructure needs. That’s comforting, because there is much to be done.
America’s global competitiveness truly hangs in the balance along with the well-being of millions of families impacted by unemployment. A recession is never good, but this one could be short. Here’s hoping the media, citizens at large, and others who understand the country’s critical infrastructure problems will find ways locally to step up and encourage other elected leaders to support this clear path out of the current recession.
Mary Scott Nabers is president and CEO of Strategic Partnerships Inc., a business development company specializing in government contracting and procurement consulting throughout the U.S. Her recently released book, Inside the Infrastructure Revolution: A Roadmap for Building America, is a handbook for contractors, investors and the public at large seeking to explore how public-private partnerships or joint ventures can help finance their infrastructure projects.
Read More
Government Business
Article | July 14, 2022
The pandemic has blown up entrepreneurs and start-up ecosystems, so government support for start-ups has become critical.
The majority of them faced cash shortages and a lack of venture capital. For start-ups, cash is the most pressing issue. Furthermore, start-ups experienced a slow fundraising process accompanied by investor indifference.
Furthermore, the global workforce was not left untouched by the spillover. Start-ups began to lay off employees and reduce pay. According to StartupGenome research, three out of every four employees were letting their employer down.
While 39% of them laid off 20% or more of their workforce, two-thirds admitted to laying off 60% or more of their full-time employees. In the United States, the economy experienced the sharpest decline in employment, with 20.5 million people losing their jobs.
Following that, in order to address this and reduce the pandemic's impact on start-ups, the governments of many countries have stepped in to save their country's start-up ecosystem.
We've listed a few of the government's initiatives to help start-ups during the current cash crunch.
Direct grants and zero-interest loans:
Right now, cash is the most important concern for new businesses. Grants are regarded as the most beneficial policy instrument (29%), followed by loans (12%).
Access to venture capital investment:
If history is any guide, venture capital activity will likely decline in 2020 as well. This creates a quandary for the 18% of start-ups that require access to financing tools to increase investment.
Employment support schemes:
COVID-19 has had an impact on workforces all over the world. The US lost a record 20.5 million jobs in April, the fastest and sharpest drop since the government began tracking the data. Given these circumstances, it's no surprise that 17 percent of start-ups rank immediate employee protection as one of their top priorities.
Read More