On Wednesday, a group of former intelligence and Special Forces operatives released a 22-minute video accusing President Obama of jeopardizing sensitive information in order to take credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden. OPSEC, as they call themselves, is one of several new groups dedicated to attacking Obama on military issues, specifically on the Osama bin Laden raid. Now the founder of one of these organizations, Special Operations Speaks, has proudly come out as a birther.

Speaking to Foreign Policy’s Josh Rogin, Larry Bailey, a 27-year veteran Navy SEAL, embraced several conspiracy theories about Obama’s roots:

I have to admit it, I’m a Birther … In his books, Obama said his mentor was a fellow named Frank Marshall Davis. Frank Marshall Davis was a member of Communist Party USA, he wrote for the communist party’s Hawaii newsletter, he was a close friend of Obama’s mother, and there’s a strong case that Frank Marshall Davis rather than Barack Obama, Sr. was Barack Obama, Jr.’s father and that Barack Obama, Sr. was just an administrative father of convenience. … Barack Obama’s a born red-diaper baby. He’s a socialist. His beliefs are the very antithesis of my beliefs. As far as I am concerned he is one of the most unlikeable and unprepared politicians we’ve ever had.

Special Operations Speaks claims to simply be concerned veterans trying to stop leaks. But Bailey “admits freely that his extensive efforts to mobilize special operations veterans and their supporters around the country is rooted in his personal dislike of the president and his desire to see him replaced.” He has already produced an ad accusing Obama of leaking sensitive information and hopes to raise over a million dollars to finance more attack ads.

Bailey was also involved in Vietnam Vets for Truth, a 2004 campaign affiliated with the infamous Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth, and helped organized a “Kerry Lied” rally on Capitol Hill.

Watch it:

A Russian court sentenced three members of the feminist, anti-Putin punk band Pussy Riot on Friday to two years in jail for performing an anti-Putin song at a cathedral. The specific charge was “hooliganism motivated by religious hatred,” but the trial was widely seen as motivated by the anti-government sentiment in the song. Here’s the song in question (translated lyrics on the YouTube page):

The charged religious, political, and gendered context of the incident has generated a global outcry against the Putin regime’s suppression of free speech. In light of that, it’s worth remembering this isn’t an isolated incident. Another group of dissident Russians is facing massive prison time simply for participating in a legal anti-Putin rally:

With the eyes of Russia-watchers trained on Pussy Riot, the feminist punk performance-art group whose now-famous trio is bracing for a verdict over their iconoclastic performance at a Moscow cathedral, the plight of Artyom Savyolov has drawn little attention.

Savyolov and at least 11 other young Russians could face stiff prison sentences for taking part in a sanctioned antigovernment protest in Moscow that erupted into clashes between police and demonstrators.

More than 400 people were detained at the May 6 rally, which took place on the eve of the inauguration of Vladimir Putin for a third term as president.

Sixteen of the demonstrators remain in custody and at least 12 of them, including Savyolov, have been charged with calling for mass disorder and assaulting police officers. They could each face up to 10 years in prison if convicted.

The persecution of Pussy Riot and Savyolov’s group is par for the course in modern Russia. The Putin government routinely jails dissident journalists and activists as part of a broader campaign to undermine Russian democracy. Perhaps it’s fitting, then, to give the last word to convicted Pussy Riot member Yekaterina Samutsevich:

I now have mixed feelings about this trial. On the one hand, we expect a guilty verdict. Compared to the judicial machine, we are nobodies, and we have lost. On the other hand, we have won. The whole world now sees that the criminal case against us has been fabricated. The system cannot conceal the repressive nature of this trial. Once again, the world sees Russia differently than the way Putin tries to present it at his daily international meetings. Clearly, none of the steps Putin promised to take toward instituting the rule of law has been taken. And his statement that this court will be objective and hand down a fair verdict is yet another deception of the entire country and the international community. That is all. Thank you.

Two separate attacks on Palestinians civilians Friday morning raise serious questions about rising anti-Palestinian radicalism among Israeli youth. In the first incident, a mob of Israeli Jewish youth surrounded three Palestinians walking in Jerusalem’s Zion Square and assaulted them, yelling racist slogans including “Death to the Arabs.” According to the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, one of the victims remains in the intensive care unit in a nearby hospital. The second incident, a firebomb hurled at a West Bank taxi full of Palestinians, injured six of the passengers. Israeli authorities suspect extremist settlers were responsible for the attack.

These incidents fit into a disturbing pattern of growing violence committed by radical Israelis, particularly in the West Bank. Last December, Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned about “homegrown terror” attacks committed by extremist settlers against Israeli soldiers and Palestinian civilians. There had been an uptick in “price tag” attacks, referred to as such because the terrorists were intending to exact a price for any moves by the Israeli government towards dismantling illegal settlements or withdrawing from the West Bank.

A new report written by two experts on Israeli counterterrorism at the Brookings Institute, Daniel Byman and Natan Sachs, suggests that the problem may be more serious than some had previously thought. Byman and Sachs, citing UN numbers, find that the number of “price tag” attacks had roughly doubled from 2009 to 2011 with limited response from Israeli authorities: over 90 percent of investigations into incidents of settler violence over the past ten years ended without indictments. The attacks have escalated recently, Byman and Sachs argue, as a consequence of the rise of an extremist subculture among young, religious settlers:

[O]ver the last several years, the evolution of the settler community has also led to the growth of a small but significant fringe of young extremists, known as the “hilltop youth,” who show little, if any, deference to the Israeli government or even to the settler leadership. No matter how strongly Gush Emunim opposed government policy, it always officially avoided vigilante violence. But these young radicals, who largely live in settlements deep in the West Bank and do not affiliate with traditional religious authorities, have embraced it. These settlers — likely no more than a couple thousand, a small but dangerous minority within the broader community — are the ones leading the “price tag” attacks against Palestinian civilians and Israeli soldiers. They have lost faith in the notion that the state, under its current leadership, is key to settling the Land of Israel. Instead, they see it as an obstacle to God’s will.

Indeed, Barak’s December comments were prompted by a hilltop youth raid on an IDF base, which ended in the arrests of five radical settlers and a major public debate in Israel about settler. However, as today’s attacks suggest, the problem has yet to be solved: an EU statement from this May cited settler violence as one of several key factors holding back progress on a two-state solution.

Byman and Sachs recommend several ways Israeli authorities can more effectively address the problem, including coordinating with more moderate settlers as part of a targeted counterterrorism campaign. Both they and Andrew Exum, an expert on irregular warfare at the Center for a New American Security, suggest that stepped-up condemnation from Jewish religious authorities and the United States could limit the hilltop youth’s ability to commit further violence.

Byman’s recommendations in particular draw on his recent study of Israel’s counterterrorism policies, which have quite a long history: Israel has been forced to confront radical Arab nationalist and/or Islamist groups almost since its creation. These groups have not been eliminated: Israel today is still threatened by terrorist organizations, particularly in and around the Hamas-run Gaza Strip.

War chatter is on the rise in Israel, where the prime minister and his defense chief seem to be preparing their public for an attack on Iran this fall. The increasingly dire warnings from Israel that pressure and diplomacy have failed and a unilateral strike might be in the offing, however, have been met by American pronouncements that war is not the answer, not yet at least.

Enter Israeli president Shimon Peres, who said yesterday on Israeli television what many analysts and others have long-since realized: That Israel does not have the military capabilities to go-it-alone and inflict a significant delay on Iran’s nuclear program. Peres said:

Now, it is clear to us that we cannot do it alone. We can delay. It is clear to us that we have to proceed together with America. There are questions about coordination and timing, but as serious as the danger is, this time at least we are not alone.

A poll of Israelis released yesterday found that 61 percent of them “believe Iran should not be attacked without U.S. consent.”

Peres’s sentiment echoed one by Israeli opposition Shaul Mofaz, who, amid a curse-filled tirade against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu threat’s of a unilateral attack, singled out his selection of a confidant, Avi Dichter, as home front defense minister:

A home front defense minister should not be a rubber stamp in the hands of those planning a hasty attack [on Iran’s nuclear facilities] that has not been coordinated with the United States.

President Obama considers a potential Iranian nuclear weapon a threat to both the security of the U.S. and its allies in the region, as well as the nuclear non-proliferation regime. And he’s vowed again and again to keep all options on the table to deal wtih it. Peres said yesterday, contra attacks by Republicans, he had confidence in Obama’s resolve:

I am convinced this is an American interest. I am convinced he recognizes the American interest and he isn’t saying this just to keep us happy. I have no doubt about it, after having had talks with him.

U.S., U.N. and Israeli intelligence estimates give the West time to pursue a dual-track approach of building international pressure and using diplomacy to resolve the crisis. Questions about the efficacy and potential consequences of a strike have led U.S. officials to declare that diplomacy is the “best and most permanent way” to resolve the crisis.