Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) unveiled a formal declaration of war against the jihadist group Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) on Monday morning.

In a statement, Paul's office said he would introduce the resolution declaring war on ISIS when the Senate begins its next session in December. 

Paul, a libertarian-oriented conservative looking at a 2016 presidential bid, is among those who have repeatedly argued President Barack Obama has overstepped his constitutional authority by not having Congress authorize the US fight against the jihadists in Syria and Iraq. Instead, the White House has relied on resolutions passed by Congress in 2001 and 2002 that authorized the use of force in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition to declaring war on ISIS, Paul's resolution would terminate the 2002 authorization of military force in Iraq and set an expiration date for the 2001 resolution that applied to Afghanistan. 

The White House has argued the earlier authorizations of military force can still be used since they were aimed at Al Qaeda, which was a forerunner to ISIS. 

Paul's resolution was first reported by The New York Times on Sunday night. His office released the full text in its statement on Monday morning. In it, Paul cited several founding fathers to bolster his arguments.

"Whereas President George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention, lectured: 'The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress. Therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure," the resolution declared.

Both the Obama administration and Paul have faced accusations of flip-flopping in the fight against the Islamic State. Obama, who vowed to withdraw troops from Iraq, has nevertheless gradually expanded the US' military's role in the effort to battle ISIS in both that country and Syria. Meanwhile, Paul has sent mixed signals about how much whether he supports any the US military intervention in the region and whether Obama is at fault for the growth of jihadist militants there.

Paul told the Times the war authorization issue should be a rallying point for conservative critics of the Obama administration.

"Conservatives are mad at him about immigration. And they’re mad about him using executive authority on Obamacare," Paul said. "But this is another example where he doesn’t have much respect for Congress, and some conservatives don’t quite get that."

View Paul's full resolution below:

Whereas Article I, section 8, of the United States Constitution provides, ‘‘The Congress shall have the Power to . . . declare war’’;

Whereas President George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention, lectured: ‘‘The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress. Therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure.’’;

Whereas James Madison, father of the Constitution, elaborated in a letter to Thomas Jefferson: ‘‘The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature.’’;

Whereas James Madison wrote in his Letters of Helvidius: ‘‘In this case, the constitution has decided what shall not be deemed an executive authority; though it may not have clearly decided in every case what shall be so deemed. The declaring of war is expressly made a legislative function.’’;

Whereas the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State has declared war on the United States and its allies; And

Whereas the Islamic State presents a clear and present danger to United States diplomatic facilities in the region, including our embassy in Baghdad, Iraq, and

Whereas the Islamic State presents a clear and present danger to United States diplomatic facilities in the region, including our embassy in Baghdad, Iraq, and consulate in Erbil, Iraq:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Declaration of War against the Organization known as the Islamic State’’.

SEC. 2. DECLARATION OF A STATE OF WAR BETWEEN THE PEOPLE AND GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST THE ORGANIZATION KNOWN AS THE ISLAMIC STATE.

(a) DECLARATION.—The state of war between the United States and the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which has been thrust upon the United States, is hereby formally declared pursuant to Article I, section 8, clause 11, of the United States Constitution.

(b) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is hereby authorized and directed to use the Armed Forces of the United States to protect the people and facilities of the United States in Iraq and Syria against the threats posed thereto by the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

(c) RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.—

(1) SCOPE OF AUTHORITY.—Nothing in this section shall be construed as declaring war or authorizing force against any organization—

(A) other than the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS); or

(B) based on affiliation with the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

(2) LIMITATION ON USE OF GROUND COMBAT FORCES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing the use of ground combat forces except—

(A) as necessary for the protection or rescue of members of the United States Armed Forces or United States citizens from imminent danger posed by the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS);

(B) for limited operations against high value targets; or

(C) as necessary for advisory and intelligence gathering operations.

(d) WAR POWER RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—

Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1547(a)(1)), Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(b)).

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.). 

SEC. 3. REPEAL OF PRIOR AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST IRAQ.

The authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107–243; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) is hereby repealed. 

SEC. 4. NO EXISTING AUTHORITY.

The Authorization for the Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) does not provide any authority for the use of military force against the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, and shall not be construed as providing such authority.

SEC. 5. SUNSET OF 2001 AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

The Authorization for the Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) shall terminate on the date that is one year after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution.

SEC. 6. EXPIRATION.

The declaration and authorization in this joint resolution shall expire on the date that is one year after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution.

Join the conversation about this story »

President Barack Obama made his statement on the resignation of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel from the White House on Monday morning.

Hagel and Vice President Joe Biden stood alongside Obama during the remarks. 

The president began by sharing an anecdote form Hagel's visit to troops in Korea "about a year ago." During that trip, Obama said Hagel was asked about his favorite college football team by one of the soldiers in attendance. Obama went on to say a soldier "might have been reluctant" to ask an earlier secretary of defense a similar question. The president said this was an example of how Hagel's leadership at the Pentagon was different. 

"Chuck Hagel has been no ordinary secretary of defense," Obama said. 

Obama went on to explain he feels Hagel was a unique leader for the military because he was the first former enlisted soldier to hold the position. Hagel was a Vietnam veteran who earned two Purple Hearts. Obama said Hagel understood the challenges soldiers face "like few others." 

"He sees himself in them and they see themselves in him," said Obama.  

Hagel, a former senator who was sworn in last February, is reportedly stepping down due to pressure stemming from dissatisfaction with the Obama administration's handling of the Ebola epidemic in West Africa and the military operations against the jihadist group Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL). However, a senior administration official who spoke to Business Insider characterized Hagel's departure as a part of "the natural post-midterms transition time." The official said Hagel's successor would be announced "in short order."

Obama described Hagel as an "exemplary" secretary of defense. He said it was Hagel's decision to step down and characterized it as a decision made after overseeing the Pentagon through a department of "transition." 

"On behalf of a grateful nation, thank you Chuck," Obama said. 

Hagel spoke following the president and thanked Obama for his "generous words" and "friendship."

"I have today submitted my resignation as secretary of defense," said Hagel. "It's been the greatest privilege of my life. ... I am immensely proud of what we've accomplished during this time." 

Hagel said he believed that, during his tenure, he and the Obama administration set the country and the Department of Defense on a "stronger course" for "security" and "prosperity." He is staying on as secretary of defense until his successor is confirmed by the Senate. 

This post was last updated at 11:28 a.m. 

Join the conversation about this story »

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has tendered his resignation and is set to announce his resignation alongside President Obama at 11:00 a.m. 

Hagel has been the Secretary of Defense for almost two years after being sworn in on February 27, 2013. During his tenure, Hagel has been characterized as an invisible man who was content to work behind the scenes.

As Secretary of Defense, Hagel has faced a multitude of challenges and has suffered from a less than glamorous track record of successes and failures. 

Below are some of the major events of Hagel's time as defense secretary. 

April 3, 2013

Hagel said that North Korea presented a clear and real danger to the US after expectations that North Korea may launch a missile test. The declaration occurred simultaneously with the movement of a US missile defense battery to Guam. North Korea carried out a missile launch the following month.

May 2013 

During a tour of Asian countries and allies whose main concern was a lack of US staying power in the region, Hagel called the decline of US military power a "good thing."

July 3, 2013

Egyptian General Abdel Fatah al-Sisi launches a military coup against the democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood government. The coup took place despite Hagel's warnings and consultations in the days leading up to the event. 

August 27, 2013 

Hagel told the BBC following a chemical weapons attack by military forces loyal to the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad that the US was ready to launch retaliatory strikes against Syria. Obama put the decision to Congress and the strikes never occurred. 

March 2014 

Russian forces quietly invaded and annexed Crimea, prompting a quickly elevating cross-border conflict in Ukraine and eastern Europe. NATO allies in the region have been uneasy ever since.

April 5, 2014

On a trip to Japan, Hagel said he welcomed Tokyo's steps in amending its constitution to allow for collective defense agreements. This support of Japanese militarization led to increased tensions with China, which is deeply opposed to a resurgent military power in Tokyo. 

May 31, 2014

The White House performed a prisoner swag with the Taliban in order to win the release of US soldier Bowe Bergdahl. The US traded give Taliban prisoners from Guantanamo Bay to win Bergdahl's release.

The prisoner swap was immediately criticized as Bergdahl may have purposefully deserted his post prior to his capture, and the White House failed to notify Congress thirty days ahead of the exchange as is required by law. 

Also in May, the Pentagon dispatched troops to Chad to aid in the search for over 200 girls kidnapped by the Nigerian jihadist group Boko Haram.

July 2014

US special operations forces carry out a daring attempt to free Steven Sotloff and James Foley, two American citizens held captive by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS). The raid failed to free the captives, who were both executed by the terrorists later in the summer — although its existence was leaked to the media in late August as the fight against ISIS heated up.

August 2014

Hagel infuriated the White House by contradicting the claims of President Obama that ISIS was equivalent to a junior varsity basketball squad in comparison to established terrorist networks. In Hagel's eyes ISIS remained an "imminent threat to every interest we have."

October 2014 

Hundreds of US soldiers began to fly to Liberia to fight the rapidly expanding Ebola epidemic in western Africa. Thousands more were expected to be deployed afterwards. Hagel was at odds with the White House at times during the response.

November 21, 2014

The White House secretly ordered a continuation of military operations in Afghanistan, despite assurances that the US's military role would end in the country by 2014. Hagel resigned three days after the decision to continue the war in a sign of possible contention with Obama. 

Reactions to Hagel's departure:

One former Obama official told Zeke Miller of Time that an administration without Hagel would be an improvement: “Not sure what kind of Kool-Aid they are drinking if they think that getting rid of Hagel — and not the national security advisor who’s flailing to handle the [ISIS] problem — is going to make things better." 

Ouch RT @DavidCloudLAT: The Hagel Legacy:

— Blake Hounshell (@blakehounshell) November 24, 2014

# of people in the Pentagon upset about Hagel leaving? Three, maybe four.

— Noah Shachtman (@NoahShachtman) November 24, 2014

Now that we know how Gates and Panetta felt about him, Obama is 0-3 in bonding with his SecDef.

— Paul Kane (@pkcapitol) November 24, 2014

Israeli official: It is a real shame Hagel is leaving he was great with us

— Barak Ravid (@BarakRavid) November 24, 2014

Throughout his tenure

A significant observation given the range of crises that occurred over the last two years is that Hagel has been criticized for being inarticulate. The New York Times noted that Hagel was often overshadowed by both Secretary of State John Kerry and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey. 

The following compilation video from The Washington Free Beacon highlights Hagel's general reticent style during questioning. 

SEE ALSO: Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is resigning

Join the conversation about this story »

Secretary of State John Kerry said on Monday that carving out a nuclear deal with Iran simply takes a lot of time, as he explained why the talks blew past yet another deadline that very day.

"This takes time, the stakes are high are the issues are complicated and technical. And each decision affects other decisions," Kerry said. "And each decision deeply affects international security and national interests. It also takes time to do this because we don't want any agreement — we want the right agreement."

Kerry was speaking in Vienna, Austria, where negotiators had been working on a "a frenetic six days of diplomacy," according to the Associated Press. 

The US and other international powers have imposed biting sanctions against Iran to pressure the country to curtail its nuclear program. They accuse Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons while Iran insists its efforts are for strictly peaceful purposes.

After missing a previous deadline for a deal, negotiators agreed last July to reach a final agreement by Monday. However, diplomats revealed earlier in the day that the deadline would not be met and would instead be extended to the following July.

"[We are] extending these talks for seven months with a very specific goal: of finishing the political agreement within four months," Kerry said. "At the end of four months, if we have not agreed on the major elements by that point in time, and there is no clear path, we can revisit then how we want to choose to proceed."

However, Kerry refused to give any details on the potential agreement between the US and Iran.

"If facts are out there being bandied back and forth in the public game with specificity, they can often end up defeating good ideas before they can get off the ground. So we need to continue working the way we have been: exclusively among the negotiators with respect to the details," he said. 

Pushing back against critics, Kerry said negotiators have already achieved "real and substantial progress" with Iran.

Many members of Congress have been skeptical of the negotiations and have argued that even more sanctions should be imposed if the process fails.

"We look for your support for this extension and for continued talks," Kerry said to any federal lawmakers who happened to be watching. "And I would say to those who are skeptical, those who wonder whether we should rush ahead down a different course: I believe the United States and our partners have earned the benefit of the doubt at this point."

Join the conversation about this story »

A prominent geopolitical expert believes Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel wasn't given the full set of tools he needed to succeed in his position before his resignation Monday morning. 

According to NBC News, "senior defense officials" said Hagel was "forced to resign" because "the White House has lost confidence in Hagel to carry out his role at the Pentagon." One official said of Hagel: "He wasn’t up to the job."

Ian Bremmer, the president of Eurasia Group, offered Business Insider a different take.

Bremmer argued Hagel wasn't a "good fit" for President Barack Obama's administration. However, he also said the White House may have itself to blame for Hagel's departure because he was not offered a clear foreign policy vision.  

"Once the secretary of defense post became primarily about policy (as opposed to managing the bureaucracy and keeping the budget under control), Hagel was a challenge for the Obama administration," Bremmer wrote in an email. "It's true that he wasn't a good fit for that job, but he also wasn't given a chance — they needed clear policy alignment, and pushed him out."

Bremmer claimed military policy is "driven by the White House." He suggested this may have led to Hagel's issues at the Pentagon. 

Due to the fact he believes the White House is not looking for a secretary defense to determine its military policy, Bremmer posited Hagel's exit won't have a major impact on the US approach to the Middle East, where the conflicts rage around the Islamic State, Israel, and nuclear negotiations with Iran.

"I don't think there's much impact on Middle East policy, which has been and will be driven by the White House," Bremmer said. "The decisions on what to do and, more to the point, what not to do in Syria and Iraq have been political, not military." 

While Bremmer described the secretary of defense as having to follow the White House's lead in policy matters, he argued losing Hagel will have an impact on one major Obama administration initiative. The White House has made a "pivot" to Asia a focal point of its foreign policy. Bremmer said Hagel recently became a point person in this effort after other officials left.

"There's a problem for Obama in Asia, where Hagel became the administration's lead in engaging (and reassuring)," Bremmer wrote. "Hagel was successful in soothing those nerves, particularly with Japan, and also helped create momentum for US-India Defense relations. If his replacement is seen as primarily a Middle East hand, the White House is going to need to address that gap quickly."

Join the conversation about this story »

Deep within the Arctic Circle in Greenland sits one of the US's most isolated, and potentially critical, air bases. 

At more than 700 miles north of the Arctic Circle, Thule Air Base is located at the strategic halfway point between Moscow and New York City and was intended as a potential staging area against the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Today, the base typically is used for allied surveillance of the northern polar region and has a stripped-down presence of approximately 400 Danes, 50 Greenlanders, 3 Canadians, and 140 American military and support staff. 

Thule's remote location makes serving on the base an experience far different from nearly anything else in the US military. The Air Force orientation guide to Thule explains how outside of the base, there isn't much of anything for miles — just an empty, icy wasteland surrounding one of the world's northern-most inhabited locations.

"There is no 'local town,'" the guide states. "The closest Inuit (native Eskimo) village, Qaanaaq, is located 65 miles away. There is no 'off-base' except for the bay, the ice cap and what appears to be thousands of miles of rocks and/or ice." 

Thule is also locked in by ice nine months out of the year. In the summer, a Canadian icebreaker ship clears the base's port to allow for a rapid resupply of food, fuel, construction materials, and cargo — before the bay freezes again in mid-October. 

For the few months of the year that Thule is not iced over, the surrounding tundra comes alive (perhaps improbably) with swarms of blood-sucking insects. 

"The summer will also bring out swarms of mosquitoes," the guide warns. "Locals refer to them as the 'Greenlandic Air Force.'" 

Due to limited space and the importance of knowing everyone's location in a dangerous and disorienting Arctic environment, all personnel regardless of rank live in dorms at Thule. Luckily for soldiers serving in one of the most remote places in the world, each of the rooms is provided with internet service.

Thule is too distant to be the target of a conventional enemy attack, but it faces a profound everyday challenge: the weather. It is not uncommon for the base to be wracked by massive snow storms that delay operations and trap personnel to their dorms. 

"Mother Nature has her own schedule of 'three-day weekends' for us," the guide advises. It also provides a handy photographic reference to the different levels of storm severity: 

"It's definitely a unique base," one airman formerly posted at Thule said on Reddit under the handle SilverHawk7. He explained that even the length of span of each day is different from just about anywhere else under the American flag: 

The sun will set for the last time around the end of October and won't rise above the south mountain again until the end of February. You'll get maybe a month or so of sunrises and sunsets until the sun stops setting and you enter the light season, where the sun draws a circle in the sky. During the dark season, SAD (Seasonal Affective Disorder) is a thing ... They have UV lamps in most of the offices to try and offset this.

The Air Force is aware of the hardships inherent in serving at a base over 700 miles north of the Arctic Circle, and makes an extra effort to attend to the needs of the small number of personnel it sends. 

"If you're into gaming, the community center has a game room with several networked consoles to play on," SilverHawk7 continues. "They bring in free pizza from the club and basically game until midnight." 

Not that there's much else to do — additional entertainment opportunities on base include a bowling center, a fitness center, an activities center, and a consolidated club that has events ranging from Halloween parties to Viking events.

Again, there's no town outside of the base for another 65 icy miles. Although there are still things to do beyond the wire: the welcome guide advertises a wide range of additional activities including the Thule marathon, local guided tours of the surrounding area, and a summer skeet shooting range. 

SEE ALSO: Thule Air Base could get a lot more important

Join the conversation about this story »

As tensions have continued to increase throughout eastern Europe and the Baltic States, famously neutral Finland is being forced to reconsider its decision to remain outside of the NATO alliance. 

Finland, which stayed neutral throughout the Cold War, shares an 800-mile-long border with Russia, and has an often-difficult history with its neighbor.

“We have a long history with Russia — not that peaceful all the time. So everything the Russians are doing, surely the Finns notice and think very carefully about what that might mean,” Finish President Sauli Niinsito told The Washington Post in an interview. 

According to Niinsito, Russia's recent spate of aerial incursions over Finnish territory was "testing how we'd react." 

These military actions have led many Finns to question how to best protect their nation of 5 million people against the possibility of Russian aggression. For some, NATO appears to be the best option for preserving the country in the event of a war with Russia. 

“It’s going in a terrifying direction,” Elisabeth Rehn, a former Finnish defense minister in favor of joining NATO, told The Washington Post. “It’s only been 100 years since we gained our independence from Russia. Crimea was a part of Russia, too. Will they try to take back what belonged to them 100 years ago?”

Finland's concerns over a Russian invasion may not be entirely far fetched.

Andrej Illarionov, a former chief economic adviser for Russian president Vladimir Putin, warned that Moscow may well be eyeing Finland and the Baltic States for a further extension of a new Russian empire.

"[Putin] could well say that the Bolsheviks in 1917 committed treason against Russian national interests by granting Finland's independence," Illarionov told the Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet. “Putin’s view is that he protects what belongs to him and his predecessors." 

Finland had previously been an autonomous Grand Duchy in the Russian empire for 108 years until the country became independent in 1917, after World War I. During World War II, the Soviets invaded Finland and annexed 11% of the country's territory. 

This history has contributed to an uneasy relationship between the two countries. Despite joining the European Union, Finland has maintained a centrist relationship with the West and with Russia. But Russia's increasingly bellicose direction may force Finland to seek additional security through NATO. 

“We don’t have a normal relationship with Russia,” Rehn told The Washington Post. “We all like the Russians. They sing the same melancholic songs that we do. But we are afraid of their leadership.”

SEE ALSO: Here are 2 ways Russia's provocative stunts could lead to war

SEE ALSO: Here's a map of the Russia-NATO confrontation

Join the conversation about this story »

The nuclear negotiations between Iran and a US-led group of countries over Tehran's nuclear program have once again fallen short.

On the one-year anniversary after the signing of the landmark Joint Plan of Action in Geneva, diplomats from Iran and the PP5+1 — the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany — announced that the negotiating period would be extended for another seven months after the parties failed to reach a final deal during a marathon session in Vienna.

This round of talks was punctuated with reports that the P5+1 had softened its position on issues considered central to resolving the nuclear standoff.

The Jerusalem Post cited an anonymous Israeli official who said the P5+1 offered a deal that would expire after only 10 years. News reports and expert analysis suggested that the US was willing to allow Iran to leave as many as 5,000 uranium centrifuges in place under a final deal, effectively conceding that Iran would be able to keep much of its uranium enrichment infrastructure even after an agreement was signed. And The Wall Street Journal reported that the P5+1 was no longer demanding the closure of Iran's heavy water reactor at Arak — a facility capable of producing weaponized plutonium —and didn't plan on using the deal to scale back Iran's ballistic missile program.

The P5+1 was reportedly willing to settle for an agreement that delivered a strict verification regime theoretically capable of cutting off Tehran's pathway to a bomb — while leaving in place much of the infrastructure needed to actually build and deliver a nuclear weapon. 

It's an arrangement that would seem to favor Tehran in some respects, winning it sanctions relief along with some limited international recognition of the legitimacy of the nation's nuclear program. So why didn't Iran take it? And given that the negotiations have gone on for over a year now — with a White House committed to a negotiated way out of the nuclear impasse — what else does Iran really think it can get out of the process?

One possibility is that Iran simply doesn't want a deal or isn't in a position to sign even a generous one. Iran is a compartmentalized authoritarian state with several often-competing and only semi-accountable centers of power. If one of them doesn't want a deal — if, for instance, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei winces at the possibility of any grand bargain with the West — it isn't getting done. It's easier, from that perspective, for Iranian negotiators to keep extending the talks rather than dealing with the implications of a final deal, especially when Iran will be allowed to access an additional $700 million a month in frozen assets as long as the talks continue.

Another possibility is that Iran's intransigence is not only intentional but actually a highly effective negotiating tactic.

As Tom Moore, a former Senate Foreign Relations Committee staffer and Luger Center senior fellow who has followed the Iranian nuclear issue for over a decade, told Business Insider, Tehran's strategy toward the US hasn't actually changed much over the years. Iran has always used the possibility of near-term concessions to keep the West interested in negotiating — while slowly building its program and resisting a final resolution to the nuclear issue.

"They've made the decision they get more out of doing this than out of a final deal," Moore says of the post-Geneva agreement series of negotiating extensions. Moore recalled the 2004 Paris Agreement between Iran and three EU countries, in which Tehran agreed to curtail certain aspects of its nuclear program. The deal came around the same time Iran agreed to the International Atomic Energy Agency's additional protocols for nuclear monitoring. 

Ten years later, Iran has never actually allowed the inspection protocol to be implemented while the expansion of Tehran's program has turned the Paris Agreement is a now-obscure footnote. "Nothing changed much between 2004 and 2014 ... it's the same dynamic all over a again," Moore says. "The only difference is that the P5+1 is now involved."

In taking an incremental approach, Iran gets the benefits of a short-term agreement — benefits like sanctions relief and diplomatic good will — while not giving up anything major and at least preserving the long-term option of ramping up its program again.

In that respect, the Geneva interim agreement is actually favorable for Tehran, as Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Business Insider.

"Advanced centrifuge research and development, weaponization, ballistic missiles — none of these are prohibited under the JPOA," Dubowitz said. "They get time to work on what they haven't perfected while freezing the parts of the program they have perfected. They don't pay any price for continuing to run out clock."

The Vienna extension suggests that Iran doesn't really see much urgency in completing a deal — or even that only one side thinks there's much of a benefit to a comprehensive nuclear agreement. If an agreement comes, it may be less far-reaching than a lot of observers hope, with an over year-long negotiating process lurching towards an anticlimactic end. 

SEE ALSO: This Is What It's Like To Live At The Most Remote US Airbase

Join the conversation about this story »

The US is teetering on the edge after a grand jury chose not to indict Ferguson, Missouri police officer Darren Wilson over the shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown.

In the aftermath of the decision, protests have erupted in Ferguson and across the country

In Ferguson, the protests have been especially bad, where at least 12 buildings have been set on fire and at least 29 people have been arrested.

This morning the story of the grand jury decision and the protests have plastered the front page of nearly every major newspaper in the US. 

Here's how it's being covered around the country:

Join the conversation about this story »

Russia tightened its control Monday over Georgia's breakaway province of Abkhazia with a new treaty envisaging closer military and economic ties with the lush sliver of land along the Black Sea.

The move drew outrage and cries of "annexation" in Georgia and sent a chill through those in Abkhazia who fear that wealthy Russians will snap up their precious coastline. It also raised further suspicions in the West about Russian President Vladimir Putin's territorial aspirations after his annexation of Ukraine's Black Sea peninsula of Crimea in March.

Under the treaty signed by Putin and Abkhazia's leader in the nearby Black Sea resort of Sochi, Russian and Abkhazian forces in the territory will turn into a joint force led by a Russian commander.

Putin said Moscow would also double its subsidies to Abkhazia to about 9.3 billion rubles (over $200 million) next year.

"I'm sure that cooperation, unity, and strategic partnership between Russia and Abkhazia will continue to strengthen," he said.

"Ties with Russia offer us full security guarantees and broad opportunities for socio-economic development," Abkhazian President Raul Khadzhimba said.

Russian troops have been deployed in Abkhazia for more than two decades since the region of 240,000 people broke away from Georgia in a separatist war in the early 1990s. Still, Monday's agreement reflected a clear attempt by Moscow to further expand its presence and came only after a change of leadership in the territory.

Coming amid a chill in Russia-West ties over the Ukrainian crisis, the deal raised concern about Moscow's plans. The Black Sea region has always been important for Putin, who justified the annexation of Crimea by saying it would guarantee that NATO warships would never be welcome on the peninsula, the home base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet.

NATO's secretary-general condemned the treaty, stressing that the alliance supported Georgia's sovereignty. He also called on Russia to reverse its recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, another breakaway province, as independent states.

"This so-called treaty does not contribute to a peaceful and lasting settlement of the situation in Georgia," Jens Stoltenberg said. "On the contrary, it violates Georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity and blatantly contradicts the principles of international law, OSCE principles and Russia's international commitments."

The US also said it wouldn't recognize Russia's move and expressed continued support for Georgia's sovereignty.

"The United States will not recognize the legitimacy of any so-called 'treaty' between Georgia's Abkhazia region and the Russian Federation," the US State Department said in a statement.

Abkhazia's former leader, Alexander Ankvab, was forced to step down earlier this year under pressure from protesters who reportedly were encouraged by the Kremlin. Khadzhimba, a former Soviet KGB officer, was elected president in an early vote in August that Georgia rejected as illegal. Unlike Ankvab, who had resisted Moscow's push to let Russians buy assets in Abkhazia, Khadzhimba has appeared more eager to listen to Russia's demands.

The Georgian Foreign Ministry denounced the new agreement as a "step toward the de-facto annexation" of Abkhazia and called on the international community to condemn the move.

Russian-Georgian relations were ruptured by war in August 2008 after former Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili attempted to restore control over South Ossetia. The Russian military routed the Georgian forces in five days and Moscow recognized both rebel provinces as independent states.

The Georgian Dream bloc led by Russia-friendly billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili, which unseated Saakashvili's party in the 2012 vote, has sought to repair ties with Moscow. But while economic relations have improved, political ties have remained frozen because of Moscow's refusal to compromise on the status of Georgia's separatist regions.

Saakashvili's United National Movement party has accused the Georgian government of kowtowing to Moscow.

"The Georgian government has done practically nothing," said party leader David Bakradze, who urged the government to join Western sanctions against Russia and opt out of political talks with Moscow.

The deal with Abkhazia appears to reflect Moscow's concerns that Saakashvili's party could mount a political comeback and push for stronger ties with the West. 

Lynn Berry in Moscow and Misha Dzhindzhikhashvili in Tbilisi, Georgia contributed to this report.

Join the conversation about this story »

The US and Turkey are headed for a showdown over Syria, as evidence mounts that Ankara is enabling groups that Washington is actively bombing.

Discord between the two allies is now more public than ever following a new report by Dr. Jonathan Schanzer and Merve Tahiroglu of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

"Bordering on Terrorism: Turkey’s Syria Policy and the Rise of the Islamic State" details Turkey's apparent willingness to allow extremists — including militants from the Islamic State (aka IS, ISIS, or ISIL) — and their enablers to thrive on the 565-mile border with Syria in an attempt to secure the downfall of Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.

"The IS crisis has put Turkey and the US on a collision course," the report says. "Turkey refuses to allow the coalition to launch military strikes from its soil. Its military also merely looked on while IS besieged the Kurdish town of Kobani, just across its border. Turkey negotiated directly with IS in the summer of 2013 to release 49 Turks held by the terrorist group. In return, Ankara reportedly secured the release of 180 IS fighters, many of whom returned to the battlefield. 

"Meanwhile, the border continues to serve as a transit point for the illegal sale of oil, the transfer of weapons, and the flow of foreign fighters. Inside Turkey, IS has also established cells for recruiting militants and other logistical operations. All of this has raised questions about Turkey’s value as an American ally, and its place in the NATO alliance."

Schanzer, a former counterterrorism analyst for the US Treasury Department, told Business Insider that Ankara was "like that guy at the casino who keeps doubling down on a bad bet. Each time the policy has failed, Turkey appears to have decided to go back and do it again, but with higher stakes." 

Throughout the Syrian civil war, Turkey's southern border has served as a transit point for cheap oil, weapons, foreign fighters, and pillaged antiquities. As the conflict progressed, the fighters taking advantage of Ankara's lax border policies were more and more radical.

"What began with scattered opposition forces exploiting the border became something that was really focused on the Muslim Brotherhood, which then became something that was utilized by [the Salafist rebel group] Ahrar al Sham, which was then utilized by [the Al Qaeda affiliate] The Nusra Front, which is now utilized by ISIS," Schanzer told Business Insider.

He added that given various reports of jihadi financiers sitting in hotels on the border between Syria and Turkey, "it is impossible that [Turkey's intelligence agency] MIT is not aware" of what's going on. 

The financiers "are doling out cash to those who come back with videos of attacks, proof of what they've done against the Assad regime or other enemies," said Schanzer, who previously detailed Turkey's terrorism finance problem to Business Insider. Those videos are then used as propaganda to raise more money for funding fighters.

America's Role

The report notes that policy of the administration of US President Barack Obama regarding Syria may have indirectly instigated Turkey's dangerous policy.

After supporting Turkey's cause of ousting Assad, Washington didn't follow up with significant support to the moderate opposition while Assad dropped Scud missiles and barrel bombs on playgrounds and bakeries.

Obama then balked at enforcing his "red line" after Assad's forces killed an estimated 1,400 people in four hours by firing rockets filled with nerve gas on rebel-held territory near the capital.  

"I was in Turkey during the Ghouta attacks, and [Turkish officials] were incredulous," Schanzer said. "They believed that the United States was squarely behind [Turkish President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan, not only just in terms of steering Syria into soft landing, but also that it would back up its words with deeds and take action in light of an ongoing slaughter.

"So I think in a sense once it became clear that the US was not going to be holding to its word, there was a sense among the Turks that they had to do this themselves."

ISIS And Blowback

"Turkey does not have a conflict with ISIS, doesn't want a conflict with ISIS, and ISIS is benefiting from [Turkey's] border policies," Schanzer said. "Beyond that it gets a lot more fuzzy, but the point is that the Turks are not being forthcoming about this relationship."

He added that despite no evidence that Turkey was actively working with ISIS, "it cannot be denied that Turkey is helping to facilitate the activities of a terrorist organization that has killed Americans and is destabilizing the region."

Furthermore, ISIS is gaining a following in the country. The report cites an email from Turkey-based BuzzFeed reporter Mike Giglio that highlighted his concern about the "level of ISIS support among the 1-million-plus Syrians living in Turkey. I don't see how they can successfully weed out ISIS supporters from among these refugees."

Schanzer said that as the suspected presence of ISIS inside Turkey increased, and with it support inside Turkey for ISIS and other extremist groups, it becomes that much more difficult for Turkey to do anything.

"They've inadvertently created a mechanism that can yield blowback for them that could be extremely painful," Schanzer said. "You have a lot of people now that are invested in the business of extremism in Turkey. If you start to challenge that, it raises significant questions of whether" the militants, their benefactors, and other war profiteers would tolerate the crackdown.

Impossible To Maintain

Tensions between Ankara and Washington won't dissipate "so long as Turkey tries to remain neutral with regard to ISIS while all of these things are happening on its border," according to Schanzer.

Consequently, the report argues, Washington must find a way to work with Turkey. Outgoing Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel described Turkey as "absolutely indispensable" to the ISIS fight. Turkey would need to shut down the border, wrap up known nodes of Nusra and ISIS supporters, remove ISIS recruitment cells, and dismantle ISIS logistical operations inside the country. (Schanzer noted that the US or NATO could assist.)

"A lot of this is going to come down to the will of Ankara right now," Schanzer said, adding that a lack of cooperation could result in Treasury Department sanctions against "individuals who are taking an active role in these illicit pipelines" on the Turkish side of the border.

"After that, I think we do begin to question whether security or intelligence cooperation can continue when there isn't an honest give and take with what's happened," Schanzer added.

The report concludes that Ankara must understand that "while America's Syria policy may have been feckless, its border policy has been reckless." And the repercussions of doubling down even further would jeopardize relations with a crucial ally. 

"No one wants to scuttle this relationship. But I do think that as more and more of this comes to light, it becomes ... essentially impossible to maintain the status quo," Schanzer said. "If we've decided that ISIS is an enemy worth defeating, it becomes impossible to maintain the relationship as it is."

SEE ALSO: Obama's Policy On Assad, In One Word

Join the conversation about this story »

Britain and New Zealand have adopted an uncommon style of policing. Their cops typically don't carry guns on the job.

You might assume this would lead to more officer fatalities, but that's not the case.

In Britain, this tradition stretches back to the 19th century. When the Metropolitan Police force was formed, people feared the military and wanted to avoid a police force that was oppressive, according to the BBC.

If police officers don't have guns, then they can't use firearms against citizens. Moreover, police can't have their own guns used against them.

By only allowing some officers to be armed — like a firearms unit in every police force in Britain and cops who patrol security-sensitive places like airports, for example — the logic goes, there's less of a risk of gun violence overall.

A New Zealand police commissioner wrote in an editorial in 2009:

I have no doubt that carrying handguns would compromise officers' ability to do their regular work, because when you carry a weapon, your primary concern is to protect that weapon. If this was balanced by a clearly demonstrable increase in personal protection, it would be a price to consider paying. But the protection offered by a firearm — particularly a pistol — is more illusory than real.

This has actually worked out quite well. The UK and New Zealand fare rather well compared to other countries when it comes to violent crime. They have some of the lowest homicide rates in the world:

Gun deaths are lower in Europe and Oceania overall, too:

Police shootings are far less prevalent in Britain than they are in the US. In the wake of the Michael Brown shooting in August, The Economist noted that British citizens are about "100 times less likely to be shot by a police officer than Americans."

Protests erupted in Ferguson, Missouri after a white police officer shot and killed Brown, an unarmed black teenager, during a routine patrol, leading to a national conversation about police brutality and use of force.

What helps Britain and New Zealand pull off unarmed policing is that gun ownership rates in these countries are much lower than in the US, which means that fewer criminals are armed with guns.

And police in Britain do have access to tasers to subdue suspects, which is a much safer alternative to guns.

SEE ALSO: Most Americans Couldn't Answer These Basic News Questions — Can You?

Join the conversation about this story »

Protests erupted in Ferguson, Missouri, last night following the decision by a grand jury to not indict police officer Darren Wilson, who shot and killed unarmed 18-year-old Michael Brown in August.

Authorities published Wilson's grand jury testimony and photos of his injuries following the decision.

About 25 buildings were set on fire in a wave of civil unrest, and CNN reports that several flames were still burning as of 6 a.m. ET on Tuesday.

After the crowd heard the prosecutor announcement of the grand jury's decision via radio and phone, a portion of the crowd sprinted towards a barricade in front of the Ferguson police headquarters, according to the Washington Post.

The protesters hurled water bottles at the officers who blocked them with plastic shields. It wasn't long before the scene turned to chaos as the protesters were divided by those demonstrating peacefully and others tuned to violence. Police fired tear gas and rubber bullets. Numerous businesses and buildings were destroyed or broken into, with some being looted. At least two police cars were burned.

St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar also said he personally had heard about 150 gunshots fired during a night of looting, arson, and clashes between demonstrators and police.

After the night of chaos, those in Ferguson and St. Louis paused to take stock of the destruction.

At least 61 people have been arrested in the area overnight after the protests grew violent. According to Al Jazeera, arrest records indicated that the charges included burglary, trespassing, and unlawful possession of a firearm. 

In addition to the Ferguson arrests, there were 21 arrests in St. Louis.  At least 14 people were injured during the protests, according to the AP.

Here are some photos of the aftermath in Ferguson and the St. Louis-area. 

SEE ALSO: Here Is Cop Darren Wilson's Official Account Of The Michael Brown Shooting

Join the conversation about this story »

Over the past 14 years, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Russian President Vladimir Putin have shared an understanding. After all, Putin served as a KGB officer in Germany from 1985 to 1990. 

So they work together often — although not always smoothly.

"When Putin and Merkel meet, they sometimes speak in German (he’s better in her language than she is in his), and Putin corrects his own interpreter to let Merkel know that nothing is lost on him," George Packer of The New Yorker writes in a profile of Merkel. "Putin’s brand of macho elicits in Merkel a kind of scientific empathy." 

Recently, Merkel has come down hard on Putin's ongoing aggression against Ukraine. And the profile shows how tensions between the two leaders have been brewing for several years.

During discussions about energy supplies at Putin's home in Sochi back in 2007, the Russian President called his black lab, Koni, into the room with Merkel. From The New Yorker (emphasis ours):

As the dog approached and sniffed her, Merkel froze, visibly frightened. She'd been bitten once, in 1995, and her fear of dogs couldn't have escaped Putin, who sat back and enjoyed the moment, legs spread wide. 'I'm sure it will behave itself,' he said. Merkel had the presence of mind to reply, in Russian, 'It doesn’t eat journalists, after all.' ...

Later, Merkel interpreted Putin's behavior. 'I understand why he has to do this — to prove he's a man,' she told a group of reporters. 'He's afraid of his own weakness. Russia has nothing, no successful politics or economy. All they have is this.'

The Kremlin has used animals to antagonize world leaders before. Putin once played the "my dog is bigger than your dog" game with then-president George W. Bush. The incident actually served as inspiration for one of Bush's strange paintings. 

Even more recently, Russia's deputy prime minister Dmitry Rogozin tweeted a picture of President Barack Obama, holding a white poodle juxtaposed with Putin petting a leopard. "We have different values and allies," the tweet read. 

The Russian president, who filmed his own instructional jiu-jitsu video, makes no secret of his physical prowess. Through various propaganda events portraying his manliness, Putin markets himself as a tough guy running an even tougher country. 

No wonder Merkel, considered the most powerful woman in the world, wanted to cut him down to size. 

SEE ALSO: Merkel Has Hit A Diplomatic Dead-End With Putin

Join the conversation about this story »

In the 1950s France, in the midst of dealing with insurgencies in its colonies in Algeria and Indochina, recognized a military need for easily transportable artillery that could quickly be deployed to the front lines. It happened upon one very novel solution: a militarized Vespa scooter with a built-in armor-piercing gun. 

The Vespa 150 TAP, built by French Vespa licensee ACMA, was designed expressly to be used with the French airborne special forces, the Troupes Aéro Portées (TAP). 

The Vespa TAP was designed to be airdropped into a military theater fully assembled and ready for immediate action. This high level of mobility made the TAP the perfect anti-guerilla weapon, since enemy irregulars could appear at a moment's notice even in remote locations.

Outfitted with an M20 recoilless rifle, the TAP proved more than capable of destroying makeshift fortifications used by guerrillas in Algeria and Indochina. The M20 was designed as an anti-tank recoilless rifle that was outfitted with a high-explosive anti-tank warhead. Under ideal circumstances, the rifle could penetrate 100mm of armor from 7,000 yards away.  

The M20 outfitted on the Vespa was never actually meant to be fired while the vehicle was in motion. Instead, the Vespa frame functioned as a way of transporting the artillery to the front line. Once there, the rifle would be removed from the Vespa and placed on a tripod for accurate firing. 

Remarkably, aside for a slight overhaul of the engine, plus the inclusion of the rifle and ammunition mounts, the standard Vespa and the TAP were designed almost identically. The TAP had a strengthened frame and lower gearing, but besides that it drives just as any Vespa would. 

About 500 total TAPs were produced throughout the 1950s.

However ingenious the TAP was, the vehicle was never used outside of the French military during engagements in Algeria and French Indochina.  

Here's a video of a TAP being driven.

SEE ALSO: The Marine Corps is testing a monster of a new amphibious assault vehicle

Join the conversation about this story »

Thousands of North Koreans gathered in Kim Il Sung Square in Pyongyang on Tuesday to show their support for their government's rejection of a recent UN resolution on human rights in North Korea.

Kim Ki Nam, Secretary of the Central Committee of the Worker's Party of Korea told the assembled crowd: "Our army and people will launch their fiercest and most intense battle on record to crush mercilessly the heinous and frenzied human rights racket against Korea."

Last week North Korea threatened to bolster its war capability and conduct a fourth nuclear test to cope with what it calls US hostility that led to the approval of the landmark UN resolution on its human rights violations.

A UN committee adopted the resolution last Tuesday - which was drafted by the European Union and Japan - urging the Security Council to refer the North's human rights situation to the International Criminal Court.

It's the first time a UN resolution included the idea that Pyongyang's absolute leader Kim Jong Un could be targeted by prosecutors.

Produced by Devan Joseph. Video courtesy of Associated Press.

Follow BI Video: On Facebook

Join the conversation about this story »

When protests broke out after a police officer shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Missouri in August, police in camouflage gear wielding assault rifles and stun grenades drove through the city in armored vehicles attempting to control the crowds. 

In the wake of the protests, Reuters photographed police officers around the world and asked them when they're legally permitted to use force to control crowds. While answers varied, most officers responded that their use of force must be preceded by a warning and proportional to the resistance they encounter.

In Italy, police must follow guidelines that allow for the use of weapons only in the line of duty, when it is an "unavoidable necessity to overcome resistance, stop violence, or prevent a [serious] crime," an officer said.

Afghan police "can use weapons or explosives against a group of people only if it has ... disturbed security by means of arms, and if the use of other means of force ... has proved ineffective," Afghan police officer Zabiullah, 24, said. Police must also issue at least six warnings — three verbal and three warning shots — before they use force. 

In Bosnia, police say they may use force ranging from batons to chemical irritants, water cannons, "binding agents, special firearms and explosive devices." They must issue a warning first, however, and can't use force against the young, old, or disabled (unless they are armed). 

The Indian Rapid Action Force responds when violence breaks out that the police can't contain. A magistrate must consent to their deployment, and they are required to warn crowds before they escalate their use of force from tear gas and rubber bullets to firearms. 

When violence erupts in Mexico City, the police apply a progressive scale of force much like the one used by the Indian RAF. They must first issue verbal warnings and try to contain protestors' movement. If that doesn't work, they may use non-lethal incapacitating weapons. Police use firearms and lethal force only as a last resort. 

British police guidelines state that the "lethal or potentially lethal force should only be used when absolutely necessary in self-defence, or in the defence of others against the threat of death or serious injury."

In Austria, police are only allowed to use force when less dangerous methods appear inappropriate or have proved to be ineffective. Police have to issue a warning before they use force, and they must also make an effort to avoid seriously injuring anyone where possible. 

Venezuelan police are not allowed to carry firearms at all when patrolling peaceful demonstrations. If violence erupts or order is threatened, police are instructed to warn crowds or demonstrators that there will be a "progressive, differentiated use of force." Officers must try to avoid harming children, the elderly, and other vulnerable groups. 

While Belgian police are allowed to use lethal force in self-defense or to confront armed perpetrators, they are never allowed to use firearms for the purpose of crowd control, according to human rights monitors. 

Malaysia's public order police, the Federal Reserve Unit, are only allowed to use firearms if the protestors are using firearms, too. The FRU was formed 59 years ago and firearms have never been used.  

SEE ALSO: 13 Photos From The Protests In Ferguson, Missouri, You Won't Believe Happened In The United States Of America

FOLLOW US: Business Insider is on Twitter!

Join the conversation about this story »

Japan is becoming increasingly uncomfortable with China, its powerful and often aggressive neighbor.

Although the two countries have sought to improve relations and find common ground over a daunting range of disagreements relating to everything from borders to Japanese actions during World War II, not much concrete progress has actually been made towards improving ties. 

Instead, Japan has found itself on the defensive as China has rapidly upgraded the capabilities of its military. The Chinese Navy is increasingly capable and developing nuclear submarines and ballistic missiles. China is also developing fifth-generation aircraft that could be a match for the US F-35 — a plane that Japan is seeking to purchase. 

Worried about finding itself on the defensive, Tokyo has signaled it will purchase billions in American-made aircraft, drones, and amphibious assault vehicles in an attempt to keep pace with Beijing's rapidly growing arsenal and protect the territorial integrity of Japan's outer islands. 

Here are some of the proposed purchases Japan will make under its five-year National Defense Program Guidelines for fiscal year 2014 and beyond.

E-2D Advanced Hawkeye

Northrup Grumman's E-2D Advanced Hawkeye is set to become Japan's next early warning and communications aircraft. The Advanced Hawkeye features a radio suite, satellite communications capabilities, and a flight management system that could function as a makeshift air traffic control tower.

The Hawkeye can also conduct sea and land surveillance and provide early warning for enemy aircraft and anti-ship missile attacks. 

Japan plans to have four E-2Ds by the end of the 2019 fiscal year. They'll likely help Japan keep an eye on disputed maritime territories that China also claims.

V-22 Osprey

Japan has signaled that it will purchase as many as 17 tilt-rotor aircraft by 2018. The Defense Ministry has announced that the Boeing MV-22 Osprey will be their airframe of choice and that the first Osprey should be delivered by 2015. 

The Osprey has been selected due to its capacity, speed, and versatility. It will be used in both defensive operations and disaster relief. The Osprey is the airframe of choice for the US Marine Corps, and a number of V-22s have been permanently stationed at the US Marine Corps base in Okinawa.

Global Hawk 

Japan will purchase three Northrup Grumman Global Hawk unarmed drones. The drones are used for surveillance and security measures, and it can cover as much as 40,000 square miles of terrain a day. The Global Hawk will help Japan better police its islands against possible Chinese action while also being able to keep an eye on North Korean missile tests. 

AAV7A1 Amphibious Vehicles

Over the next two years, the Japanese Ministry of Defense has plans to purchase 52 BAE Systems AAV7A1 amphibious vehicles. These landing craft will function alongside a projected Amphibious Rapid Deployment Brigade within Japan's Ground Self-Defense Force. 

The vehicles will function as a rapid response unit that could be deployed to Japan's outer islands in the event of a military encounter. The Japanese are already familiar with the AAV7A1, since its Western Army Infantry Regiment has trained on the vehicles alongside the US Marine Corps for a decade. 

SEE ALSO: This epic map shows the border disputes that could tear Asia apart

SEE ALSO: Japan's declining population could prevent it from being a military counterweight to China

SEE ALSO: Japan's military is revving up to meet China's growing regional ambitions

Join the conversation about this story »

Michele Flournoy is the early favorite to succeed Chuck Hagel as secretary of defense.

And while some commentators have wondered whether the Pentagon's former third-highest-ranking civilian and founder of the influential Center for a New American Security (CNAS) isn't better off waiting until Hillary Clinton's presidency to take the defense secretary job, on paper it's hers to lose.

Flournoy was floated as a possible replacement for the outgoing Leon Panetta in 2012. She was on the winning side of many of the biggest national security decisions of Barack Obama's first term and helped create an institution in CNAS that's turned into the Democratic party's leading ideas factory on military and defense issues. Republican senator Lindsay Graham, an interventionist right-winger on foreign policy and one of the leaders of the opposition to Hagel's nomination, has already declared that he believes Flournoy to be a qualified and acceptable candidate. The fact that she'd be the first female secretary of defense in history surely isn't lost on the White House either.

Here are some of the most important things to know about Flournoy, the possible or even probable next secretary of defense nominee.

She's closely associated with the "counterinsurgency" school. During the 2008 campaign, then-Senator Barack Obama carefully packaged his opposition to the Iraq War in terms of the allegedly neglected effort in Afghanistan — a stance that bolstered his national security bona fides while allowing him to simultaneously run on his anti-war credentials.

When Obama made it to the White House, one of his earliest national security challenges was actually spearheading this promised change in Afghanistan policy. The resulting debate pitted two vocal camps against one another within his administration.

The "counter-terror" supporters (Vice President Joe Biden among them) wanted to narrowly recast the mission as an effort against Al Qaeda central and other terrorist groups committed to attacking the US. "Counter-insurgency" advocates wanted the US to commit to a hearts-and-minds, nation-building heavy strategy that would use a surge of US troops to backstop an ever-more capable Afghan government's gains. The "COIN" advocates wanted to reproduce the US's recent successes in Iraq, such as they seemed at the time.

Flournoy, then the Pentagon's third in command, was a major internal advocate of COIN. As a 2009 New York Times profile put it, Flournoy "was behind the development of Mr. Obama’s new strategy for Afghanistan, which called for an increase in development experts as well as troops."

COIN, which is manpower-heavy and requires US troops to engage in development and capacity-building work typically outside the purview of military personnel, has always been controversial. The recent disintegration of Iraq certainly casts the US's COIN efforts in a problematic light.

But the fact remains that Flournoy was a leader of the winning camp in one of the most significant policy debates of Obama's first term.

She thinks the US military is suffering from a new "Vietnam syndrome." In a 2012 article, Michael Hirsh of the National Journal included a fascinating insight into Flournoy's thinking.

Hirsch made the now-familiar point that the experience of fighting in Vietnam had made Chuck Hagel deeply skeptical of military adventurism. But he noted that Flournoy took a much different message from the conflict and its legacy.

"Flournoy warned in a speech this week that military planners might still be too 'risk-averse' because of the Vietnam experience," Hirsh wrote. "She said the military was endangered by a new 'Vietnam syndrome' in which planners might seek to avoid the lessons of counterinsurgency and guerrilla warfare simply because the last decade of this kind of conflict has been so costly in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Does this mean she thinks that the US checkered experiences over the past decade shouldn't prevent it from sinking resources into new conflicts — like the fight against ISIS, for instance? We may find out if she becomes defense secretary. At Hirsh's reporting suggests, she'll at least be somewhat less wary of the use of force than her predecessor.

She leads one of the most influential think tanks in Washington. Flournoy co-founded the Center for a New American Security in February of 2007. By November of 2008, Yochi Dreazen of the Wall Street Journal reported:"When President-elect Barack Obama released a roster of his transition advisers ... many of the national-security appointments came from the ranks of [CNAS]." He added that "The think tank's central role in the transition effort suggests that its positions — which include rejecting a fixed timeline for a withdrawal from Iraq — will get a warm reception within the new administration."

The administration ended up sticking to its Iraq timetable after all. But as Dreazen notes, several of its top officials — including National Security Advisor Susan Rice and top Iran negotiator Wendy Sherman — have ties to CNAS. Its current list of affiliates is a who's who of Obama-era national security figures, including Anne Marie Slaughter and General John Allen.

Flournoy is currently the Center's CEO, making her both the founder and leader of one of the Obama era's most important policy shops.

She grew up without knowing her father was a World War II hero. Flournoy's father died when she was 14. And while she'd heard that he had earned some kind of commendation in World War II, he never talked to her or really anyone else in the family about his experiences in combat. Flournoy grew up without hearing much in the way of specifics about the award and long dismissed the story an exaggeration, according to a 2009 New York Times profile.

It wasn't until she actually got a job at the Pentagon and pulled her father's war record that she learned the extraordinary truth:

“They were flying a nighttime bombing raid in Germany and the plane was shot up on coming back, and the co-pilot and pilot were either incapacitated or unconscious,” Ms. Flournoy said. “So there was nobody to land the plane. And he’d never landed a plane. And he got behind the controls and got talked down and landed the plane and saved the entire crew.” He was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, she said.

SEE ALSO: That time Angela Merkel destroyed Putin's machismo

Join the conversation about this story »

Moscow's answer to Wall Street and London is relatively empty — and its presence reflects the larger problems in Russia's economy, according to a report by The New York Times.

Not to be confused with the capital in which it is located, Moscow City is the skyscraper-filled financial center of Moscow. 

Originally called the Moscow International Business Center, Moscow City was envisioned as an international center for business, entertainment, and living.

The center was built incredibly quickly during the 2000's: eight skyscrapers are complete, eight more are under construction, and two more are planned. The entire project is expected to be complete by 2018.

However, the center has two problems: it's emptying out, and it's not quite a financial center.

"Vacancy rates in the newly built financial district have become acute," The Times reports. "The entire site, some 148 acres that now includes the tallest building in Europe, Mercury City Tower, had a vacancy rate of 32 percent at the end of October, according to Cushman & Wakefield, the real estate consultancy."

There's some discrepancy over the exact vacancy rate, however. The development management company for the financial sector, City, estimates that the vacancy rate is more like 20%.

In any case, financial services companies aren't the primary occupants of Moscow City anymore, according to City.

The Times notes that 58% of the companies who signed leases were "nonfinancial companies as well as local small and midsize businesses, like High Level Hostel."

Although the center is facing troubles, several years ago the project made sense.

Russia was growing at 7% per year from 2000 to 2007; the Russian Trading System opened in 1995 (now called the Moscow Exchange), and the country was waving good-bye to its Soviet past.

Everyone was expecting the Russian economy is flourish into a major international power worthy of an international finance hub.

But today, things are looking a little different: Russia's political agenda has taken center stage.

Following the sanctions imposed by the EU and the US, the Russian economy has taken a serious hit. The ruble is in free fall, inflation is way above target, and falling oil prices have put immense pressure on the economy. Two of Russia's largest state financial institutions being sanctions, Sberbank and VTB, both own real estate in Moscow City.

"Russia's tanks are now getting more international attention than its banks, leaving Moscow City as $12 billion reminder of the nation's economic woes," The Times writes.

Check out the full report at The Times >

NOW WATCH — Watch This Mesmerizing Time-Lapse Of All The Flights Across The North Atlantic In 24 Hours

SEE ALSO: Russia Is Losing Up To $140 Billion Per Year From Western Sanctions And Oil Price Fall

Join the conversation about this story »