Friday, January 19, 2018

Dangerously, the national security deep state is undermining protection of the nation’s electric grid and other life-sustaining critical infrastructures from electromagnetic pulse (EMP)

While the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC and a major proportion of the mainstream  media  still focuses  on the so-called "Russian collusion" and is hysterical over  whether Pres.  Trump called several tyrant dominated dysfunctional governments "hellholes" or "shitholes",dangerous threats to the existence of the United States  go largely underreported.

Several years ago I made sure that the congressional offices of Adam Schiff, Cory Booker, and Ted Lieu were in receipt of information documenting : a.the threat to the Middle East and to the United States posed by the Iranian  nuclear/missile development active program and b. the Revolutionary guard Corp active worldwide terrorism plans and activities.

Ted Lieu, a liberal Democrat was courageous. Not only did Congressman Lieu  vote against the Iranian nuclear deal ,he issued a detailed memorandum explaining his opposition.

 On the other hand Adam Schiff willingly joined in the echo chamber explicitly created by Ben Rhodes to subvert supposedly independent organizations and to plant stories in the US media to generate support for the Obama nuclear deal. 

Ben Rhodes, a top national security adviser to President Obama, admitted  manipulating journalists and online commentators  to win  their support for the Iran nuclear deal. “We created an echo chamber,” Rhodes told David Samuels [ New York Times Sunday Magazine on May 5, 2016. ]

The goal of Rhodes’ strategy was to generate cover for  the Obama  Administration negotiations with Iran’s repressive, totalitarian state that has stayed in power by brutally suppressing its people, and is one of the leading purveyors of state-sponsored terrorism and genocidal antisemitism in the world today.

 Once the con was successful, Rhodes, who bragged of sharing a “mind meld” with President Obama, couldn’t resist telling everyone how he pulled it off.

 In Samuels’ piece, Rhodes admits to  withholding the truth from the American  people he supposedly serves. Rhodes’ goal was  to pacify the American people — to make them more willing to tolerate negotiations with a regime that most Americans view with deep suspicion. A key part of Rhodes’ pacification strategy was to fund  non-profit organizations (“outside groups”), to broadcast his message. “We had test drives to know who was going to be able to carry our message effectively, and how to use outside groups like Ploughshares, the Iran Project and whomever else. So we knew the tactics that worked.”

Partially thanks to Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Richard Durbin, Cory Booker, Adam Schiff, etc. many of  the real  world threats the United States of America faces from Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran are obscured and America’s  ability to respond to them is substantially diminished.

It is ironic that the Russians, without making any really significant efforts on their own ,are well on the path of reaching their goal of undermining the American people's confidence in the integrity and in the competence of the US government.

Draining the US national security swamp

Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, Dr. William Graham   1-18-20

 Dr. Peter Vincent Pry was EMP Commission chief of staff and served in the House Armed Services Committee and the CIA.

Dr. William Graham was chairman of the congressional EMP Commission, White House science advisor to President Reagan and director of NASA

 Reposted from the Washington Times 

Political bias across the US government bears the fingerprints of the deep state. Trump must act.

One year into President Trump’s tenure, anti-Trump political bias in the FBI and Department of Justice is now so obvious that objective observers should fear for the future of our constitutional republic from the “deep state.”

Frighteningly, the deep state has been exposed as a real thing, with names and faces. Senior officials in FBI and DOJ are conspiring with the national liberal media and allies in Congress to delegitimize, criminalize and ultimately unseat a legitimately elected president.

Yet there is an even graver threat to the American people and the very existence of the United States.

Deep Staters dominating bureaucracies within the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, Department of State, and intelligence community, are undermining national security policies Mr. Trump was elected to implement.

The deep state thinks it knows better than Mr. Trump and the voters. They would “stay the course” on failed policies that are now reaching the point of crisis with North Korea, Russia, China, and Iran.

Mr. Trump’s national security administration so far comprises only a thin veneer of senior officials in DOD, DHS, DOS, and the intelligence community. Beneath relatively few Trump appointees are thousands of officials and the permanent bureaucracy inherited from the Obama and Clinton administrations.

One great mistake of President George W. Bush was failure to purge his administration of Clinton appointees, many of whom wormed into the permanent bureaucracy. Since President Clinton’s administration, the federal bureaucracy, including national security departments and agencies, has moved steadily leftward, pausing under the second President Bush, but rapidly accelerating hard-left during President Obama’s 8 years.

Today’s deep state, hostile to Mr. Trump, Republicans and conservative policies generally, has been in the making a quarter-century, or more. The left that so hated “the establishment” in the 1960s has today become “the establishment” in the government, media, and universities.
Today, “anti-establishment” enemies of the deep state are Reaganites, conservatives, and independent thinkers who have for years been exiled from government for “political incorrectness.”

Our hope is that Mr. Trump, as the people’s “politically incorrect” and “anti-establishment” champion, would resume the Reagan Revolution to restore ideological balance and common sense to at least the national security establishment.

Alas, Mr. Trump’s administration is still largely manned by deep state Obama-Clinton apparatchiks hostile to his “America First” worldview and “Peace Through Strength” agenda.

The national security deep state is not only hostile to Mr. Trump — they are dangerously incompetent:

• The Intelligence Community (which also wrongly claims Russia rigged elections favoring Mr. Trump) grossly underestimated North Korea’s ICBM capabilities and proximity to the H-Bomb. Yet former Reagan administration officials and independent experts have warned for years the intelligence community is underestimating North Korea’s nuclear missile threat.

• Washington’s foreign policy establishment continues to seek denuclearization of North Korea through China, even though evidence is overwhelming that China and Russia helped build the North Korean nuclear threat to advance their geostrategic interests.

• Even many Republicans mistakenly accept as gospel the narrative of the Department of State and intelligence community “professionals” that Mr. Obama’s nuclear deal stopped Iran from getting the bomb. Yet there is compelling evidence, ignored by the deep state, that Iran has already clandestinely developed nuclear weapons, as North Korea did in 1994.

We have first-hand experience working inside government for the Congressional EMP Commission during Mr. Trump’s first year.

Dangerously, the national security deep state is undermining protection of the nation’s electric grid and other life-sustaining critical infrastructures from electromagnetic pulse (EMP), contrary to the president’s election promise in the Republican National Committee Platform and his recent National Security Strategy:

• The Obama administration’s classified Joint Atomic Energy Intelligence Committee report on EMP continues to inform White House and dominate DHS policy, even though the EMP Commission found the JAEIC report to be the worst and most erroneous study of EMP ever produced.

• Sen. Ron Johnson’s excellent Critical Infrastructure Protection Act required DHS to report to Congress in December 2017 on a strategic plan to protect the nation from EMP. Yet this requirement was ignored for nearly a year. A DHS EMP Task Force formed only a few months ago. It excludes those analysts most expert on EMP, refused briefings from the EMP Commission, and is proposing to use for the baseline EMP threat the discredited JAEIC report.

• The Obama administration’s “do nothing” policy on EMP continues at the Department of Energy where the Office of Electric Reliability plans to spend millions endlessly studying EMP in collaboration with the national labs and the electric power industry. Yet these studies are unnecessary. DOD has all the data needed to protect the national grid now, but has ignored the EMP Commission’s recommendation to share EMP data.

• Obama-holdovers in DOD slow-rolled and sabotaged the EMP Commission, hoodwinking Congress into terminating the EMP Commission in September 2017. That same month North Korea successfully tested an H-Bomb they describe as capable of “super-powerful EMP attack” and released a report accurately describing a Super-EMP nuclear weapon.

Mr. President, drain the national security swamp.

Dr. William Graham was chairman of the congressional EMP Commission, White House science advisor to President Reagan and director of NASA. Dr. Peter Vincent Pry was EMP Commission chief of staff and served in the House Armed Services Committee and the CIA. Reposted from the Washington Times at the request of the writers.

Tuesday, January 16, 2018

Wanted: An Honest FBI

The bureau’s handling of the Trump and Clinton probes dispirits a veteran.

The speaker is James Kallstrom, the agency his beloved Federal Bureau of Investigation. Like current special counsel and former FBI Director Robert Mueller, Mr. Kallstrom served as a Marine officer in Vietnam. Unlike Mr. Mueller, Mr. Kallstrom came up through the FBI ranks, eventually becoming an assistant director and heading the bureau’s largest field office in New York. Over his career Mr. Kallstrom is credited with revolutionizing the bureau’s electronic surveillance, as well as leading big cases ranging from the probe into the 1996 crash of TWA Flight 800 to mob investigations such as the one that helped send the “Teflon Don”—Gambino crime boss John Gotti —to prison.
Today Mr. Kallstrom has emerged as a critic of the FBI investigations into Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Over coffee in Manhattan he tells me that “99% of FBI agents are dedicated professionals. But the leadership in Washington has harmed the bureau’s reputation.” 
It isn’t so much the conclusions he objects to—though he has his doubts—as the irregular way the investigations have been conducted. If the FBI finds itself discredited, he says, it’s because of its own behavior and not any campaign against it.
Here are a few examples of what Mr. Kallstrom finds so alien:
James Kallstrom, then assistant director of the New York FBI office, in 1995.
James Kallstrom, then assistant director of the New York FBI office, in 1995. Photo: STAN HONDA/AFP/Getty Images
• Director James Comey testifies to Congress in September 2016 that he hadn’t decided to recommend against prosecuting Mrs. Clinton until after the FBI had interviewed her—but it later emerges he’d started drafting his statement clearing her weeks earlier. 
• An FBI agent and FBI lawyer— Peter Strzok and Lisa Page —have an affair that opens them up to blackmail and poses a clear conflict of interest in working together. Even so, they fail to recuse themselves from the Mueller investigation.
• This same FBI duo exchange messages that later get Mr. Strzok dumped from Mr. Mueller’s team, here talking about an FBI “insurance policy” against Mr. Trump’s winning the election, there talking about how to keep hidden from colleagues what looks like a leak to the press. 
• The FBI secures a FISA warrant to spy on a member of Mr. Trump’s campaign, which some news reports say relied in part on a dossier that was financed as opposition research for the Clinton campaign and which Mr. Comey himself described as “salacious and unverified.” 
“I can’t tell you how foreign all this is to my experience,” Mr. Kallstrom says. “The FISA courts rely on the honesty and credibility of the investigators who sign those affidavits.” 
The problem started, he suggests, when Mr. Comey allowed then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch to ensure the FBI investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s emails would go nowhere. He rattles off a list of irregularities disturbing to any investigator: the reluctance to go to a grand jury for subpoenas, the immunity deals granted Clinton associates, the farce of an FBI interview with Mrs. Clinton that had a dozen people in the room, including Cheryl Mills, who was permitted to attend as counsel when she was a potential co-conspirator, etc. 
While the Justice Department, not the FBI, makes these decisions, Mr. Kallstrom says Mr. Comey did have an option: “That was the moment he should have held a press conference, to announce his resignation—and then explain to the American people why he would not stay and preside over a sham investigation.”
Mr. Kallstrom is not much more enthused about the new director, Christopher Wray. During his own recent testimony before Congress, Mr. Wray stonewalled—and suggested ridiculously that he couldn’t let Congress see classified material. “They act,” Mr. Kallstrom says, “like they work for someone from outer space rather than the president of the United States.”
Later Mr. Wray attempted an end run around the subpoena from House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes for key documents and committee access to FBI officials. Fortunately Speaker Paul Ryan backed Mr. Nunes (and the House’s ability to exercise its oversight responsibilities), informing Mr. Wray that if he didn’t produce the documents and witnesses, he faced a contempt vote.
Which leaves America still in the dark about the two fundamental questions regarding the dossier at the heart of the Trump-Russia investigation: What—if anything—did the FBI verify from the Steele dossier, and did the bureau use any unverified material to get a warrant to spy on members of Mr. Trump’s campaign? 
For those who grew up in proud FBI families, including this columnist, the disclosures about these investigations are dispiriting. As Mr. Kallstrom notes, it’s bad enough for the American people if a politician is bending the law. It’s far worse if the two top institutions responsible for upholding the law—the FBI and Justice Department—are found to have compromised themselves. 
“The FBI gets its strength from the trust of the American people,” Mr. Kallstrom says. “When you lose that . . .”
Write to

Monday, January 15, 2018

The Syrian Stalemate
by Irina Tsukerman  [BESA Center Perspectives Papers]

The US is currently at a great disadvantage in Syria. The Trump White House, despite blaming its increasing irrelevancy in the region on the Obama administration’s inaction in pursuit of the nuclear deal with Iran, chose to box itself into a corner by disregarding sage advice that would have significantly shifted the calculus of power.

Rather than supporting the Kurds in Iraq and Syria — preventing Iran from building a land corridor connecting it to the Mediterranean, and thereby making it more difficult for Lebanon’s Hezbollah to smuggle weapons and people in and out — the Trump administration chose a strategy that empowered Tehran’s proxy, Baghdad; allowed Moscow to emerge as the great dealmaker; and served Turkey’s interests with respect to the Kurdish issue in Syria.

Without the land corridor, Iran would have been geographically poorly positioned to expand in the direction of Central Asia, or indeed anywhere else. Instead, it is now in the best possible position to do so. Furthermore, Bashar Assad has called US-backed groups traitors, and, echoing President Putin, asked American and Turkish troops to leave.

The Pentagon says that a US presence will remain in Syria indefinitely, but should Iran and Russia-backed Assad turn serious, US troops might find themselves having to fight enemies on several fronts. It is unclear why the US, which has essentially accepted the premises that ISIS is finished and other terrorist groups are either subdued or subordinate to state actors, chooses to remain in the area without a clear plan to remove Iranian proxies. Washington seems to have no action plan to deal with Iran, though it is certainly a threat.

Assad is a pawn of Iran and Russia. Tehran is looking to get rid of him; Moscow is amenable to his staying — at least for now. Assad is content with his remaining fiefdom so long as the various groups that have subdivided Syria pay their dues, recognize Syrian sovereignty, and don’t create additional problems.

Iran is getting exactly what it wanted: a land corridor to suit its expansionist plans, and a naval base that will give it access to strategic waterways. Once its navy becomes fully operational, it can then fight to deny access to everyone else. Resource-poor Syria was likely never the end unto itself for Tehran, but rather a means towards outward expansion.

The mullahs do not care how many countries are brought to ruin — so long as their path is smooth, and their access to the outside world is guaranteed. That Tehran does not have complete control over Syria at the moment is irrelevant. Its object is not to lord it over Sunni Arabs, Kurds and assorted others, but to assert Iranian hegemony and break through the sanctions and obstacles by finding new routes and creating new alliances.

Iran’s Iraqi militias are spoiling for a fight. They are a battle-hardened, increasingly serious force against largely untrained Gulf troops, who also lack proper intelligence training. Iran feels so much in control of the situation that it is looking to completely co-opt the KRG in exchange for peace.

Russia is unquestionably the biggest winner of all. It has established itself as a credible power broker; has outsmarted and manipulated both the Obama and the Trump administrations; and is building a naval base, despite Russia’s poor internal economy, sanctions, and increasing loss of legitimacy in the West. It has returned to its former sphere of influence and is setting the rules of the game.
Moscow is also is very good at taking advantage of strategic errors made by others. Ankara, for example, which managed to ruin its relations with Assad early on in the civil war, will now have a great deal of trouble imposing its will inside the country. Russia is successfully building a relationship with the Syrian Kurds and assuming a protectorate over them even as Turkey seeks to isolate the YPG and deny the Kurds legitimacy in their struggle for autonomy. Russia is succeeding at bringing the Kurds to the table in peace process negotiations, something Turkey sought to deny.

Inexplicably, despite supporting Turkey’s humiliation in Syria, Russia is also warming towards Ankara on other fronts — by providing oil from a formerly KRG-held pipeline, building a massive gas pipeline, selling Turkey S-400s, and coordinating on various security issues. Simultaneously, Russia is seen by Israel as the moderator of Iranian aggression — as the adult in the room who can diffuse growing tensions as Iranian proxies move ever closer to the Israeli border. Russia, acting from a position of strength, has refused to commit to such a position.
Turkey might appear to be down and out, but it has not given up its neo-Ottoman quest. President Erdoğan is channeling aggression against everyone’s favorite scapegoats, Israel and the US, in a valiant attempt to gain popularity on the street, even as he is losing battles against other emerging or aspiring hegemons. Indeed, his popularity inside Turkey remains high, and he is in no danger of losing his position.

Turkey, despite decades of secular law, has remained overall under Islamic influence, and it took only a few years of the openly Islamist leadership of the AKP, coupled with unabashedly nationalist populism, to bring a much more conservative culture to the fore. Erdoğan’s Islamism is hardly moderate. It is political and aggressive, and it sports a revolutionary brand.

As Morocco and Saudi Arabia battle with extremism, and seek to move away from the Islamist religious fervor of ISIS or the extreme orthodoxy of the religious clergy, Erdoğan’s Turkey is moving in the opposite direction. And despite international political defeats, the Turkish president is using the same populism that succeeded in Turkey to attract wide Sunni support on the Arab street all over the Middle East, while positioning himself as the new Sunni leader.

His primary tool is naked opportunism. He turns every history-focused Twitter battle with UAE leadership into a populist mantra for public consumption, and took advantage of the massive popular outrage over President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and intent to move the US embassy there. He likewise seeks to undermine Gulf leadership, particularly in Saudi Arabia, whose response to the Jerusalem issue has been muted if not disinterested.

It is in the areas of emotion, anger and smear campaigning that Erdoğan has wide popular appeal. If Muhammad bin Salman and President Trump are not careful, they may come out the losers. Ankara is growing closer to Tehran and Qatar, both of which are staunch opponents of the Gulf alliance (Iran is openly adversarial). Like Tehran, which uses cheap populism and the Palestinian issue to appeal to the masses and distract them from the regime’s own crimes against Iran’s minorities, Ankara somehow manages to portray itself as a defender of the Palestinians while simultaneously vilifying Turkey’s Kurds, Armenians and other ethnic and religious minorities.

Sooner or later, these contrasting dynamics between the Arab states and the non-Arab aspiring hegemons will clash — not only in proxy states and through political stand-offs, but quite possibly in the streets. Whether that’s something Saudi Arabia is willing to risk or can afford in the long term remains to be seen.

Israel is better positioned than it has ever been. Its growing alliance with the Gulf States is the world’s worst-kept secret. It still maintains diplomatic relations with Turkey (which, admittedly, is a fairly negligible bulwark against future aggression). Likewise, the relationship with the US is in a very good place, and the relationship with Russia is tense but stable.

Still, Erdoğan’s increasingly heated rhetoric is a problem. Turkey’s army is quite strong and is no longer run by secularists. Iranians and their militias are close to the Israel-Syria border. While Tehran might not wish for an immediate confrontation, more border incursions are not out of the question if Iran grows sufficiently strong and well-armed and if its regional alliances and colonization pan out as planned. And should Hezbollah prosper as a result of the land corridor, they may eventually be better positioned to launch another war.

Enter China. Chinese Uyghurs, a Muslim Turkic minority of approximately 100 million people, have been widely dissatisfied with the Chinese crackdown on Islam and other freedoms. Internal terrorist attacks have not sufficed; Uyghurs have moved on to Syria to join ISIS and other terrorist groups in a show of opposition. For the first time, Beijing recently sent its own troops to Syria to deal with this problem, a significant development that has been largely overlooked.

China is not without its own ambitions in the Middle East. After completing its first base in Djibouti — with an eye towards partaking in counterterrorism operations as much as safeguarding its own interests — Beijing may very well be looking towards building its own naval base in Syria.

Syria has already asked China, rather than the US, to assist with postwar reconstruction — a questionable request given Beijing’s proclivity towards leaving massive infrastructure undertakings incomplete, but one that will establish China as a serious player in the Middle East. Beijing is leaning, however, towards supporting Russia despite significant economic interests on other fronts. Will China prove to be the wild card that disrupts Turkey’s plans, and takes it out of the equation?

Uyghurs may end up playing the role that Turkmen played earlier in the Civil War. Ankara may try to coopt them on the basis of common Turkic and Muslim identity. If Turkey ends up supporting Uyghur rebellion inside China, there is trouble in the air for both countries. If there is one thing that Turkey cannot take on right now, it’s a stand-off with China.

While the direction in which these events will unfold remains unclear, it is evident that Turkey is the weakest link in the Syrian mess — yet one with sky-high ambitions and a powerful populist vote that can undermine well-meaning efforts at moderation. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States are militarily unprepared to take on Iran at the moment, and they have no plan for dealing with Iran should the dissatisfied minorities within its borders succeed at bringing down the corrupt leadership. It would be ill-advised to try to confront Iran directly right now. Rather, weakening its alliances and disrupting its proxies are the best way to go.

The US should work actively with friendly Gulf states to turn their forces into fully functional armies that are strong enough to be at least somewhat self-sufficient, and to be of significant help in pushing back against Iranian proxy expansionism. While this is a belated and long-term undertaking, it will put the US in a much better position to take decisive and necessary action in Syria and Iraq.

It is also time to start discussing options for Iran beyond the Islamic Republic. This will not be an easy discussion, but it is necessary. The regime is stronger than it has ever been, and it has gone too far to slink back to its shadowy, pre-nuclear deal ignominy.

And as for Russia? Very little can be done about it at the moment. For the time being, it should continue to be regarded exactly as it has been until now: as an aggressive, self-interested, adversarial state that is openly aligned with the enemies of the West, and that seeks the worst for the Middle East.

The mess on the ground in Syria is not simply a tangled web of unfathomable relationships. It contains a clear number of state and non-state actors, each with its own interests and plans of action. If the US is to emerge safely from this minefield, it will need to summon both prescience and the willingness to take the time to understand who is an enemy and who an ally.

Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security attorney based in New York. She has written extensively on geopolitics and US foreign policy for a variety of American, Israeli, and other international publications.

BESA Center Perspectives Papers

Saturday, January 13, 2018

President Trump single-handedly has successfully completed the greatest human intelligence coup in the history of intelligence spy-craft. And all on Twitter.
Mark Langfan, 1-12-18

While the empty echo-chamber of Washington DC rattles and prattles on about President Trump’s “fitness” to be President of the United States, President Trump single-handedly successfully completed the greatest human intelligence coup in the history of intelligence spy-craft.  Without a budget, without sleeper spies, without secret drops, and using only his thumbs, President Trump unmasked the true state of North Korea’s nuclear and missile technology. 

Normally, spy-masters have to use a “honey-trap” to ensnare an intelligence asset in order to blackmail him into giving up his government’s secrets.  Another spy-craft called the “money-trap” uses money to entice the asset only to blackmail him once he’s taken the money.  Uniquely, President Trump successfully executed the first “tweet-trap” in the history of intelligence. 

...if the US Intel community was 100% wrong on North Korea, then the same intel community was 10000% wrong on the state of Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities

By merely tweeting, President Trump smoked out the North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un and psychologically forced him to expose the true state of North Korea’s nuclear and missile technology.  In essence, while the deep state chattered, President Trump’s PsyOp single-handedly exposed North Korea’s deepest military secrets, so the United States now knows and can take action against the true state of North Korea’s (and hence even Iran’s) nuclear capabilities.

The New York Times on Sunday January 7, 2018, gave us a “snap-shot” of the state of the Unites States’ “Intelligence Community’s” intelligence assessment of North Korea’s nuclear and missile capabilities as of January 2017.  This is what the New York Times stated, “At the start of Donald Trump’s presidency, American intelligence agencies told the new administration that while North Korea had built the bomb, there was still ample time — upward of four years — to slow or stop its development of a missile capable of hitting an American city with a nuclear warhead."

The North’s young leader, Kim Jong-un, faced a range of troubles, they assured the new administration, giving Mr. Trump time to explore negotiations or pursue countermeasures. One official who participated in the early policy reviews said estimates suggested Mr. Kim would be unable to strike the continental United States until 2020, perhaps even 2022.
Mr. Kim tested eight intermediate-range missiles in 2016, but seven blew up on the pad or shattered in flight — which some officials attributed partly to an American sabotage program accelerated by President Barack Obama. And while the North had carried out five underground atomic tests, the intelligence community estimated that it remained years away from developing a more powerful type of weapon known as a hydrogen bomb.”

There you have it.  At the start of President Trump presidency in January 2017, and after 8 years of then-President Obama, the vaunted US intelligence assessment was 100% wrong on perhaps the most urgent military/national security issue ever facing the United States. This US intel assessment was even more catastrophically wrong because if the US Intel community was 100% wrong on North Korea, then the same intel community was 10000% wrong on the state of Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities (excuse the hyperbole). 

Everyone knows that Iran financed North Korea’s nuclear and missile program with part of the $150 Billion dollars Obama gave to Iran.  So, not only did Obama’s intelligence corps spectacularly fail on its assessment, Obama gave Iran and North Korea the funds to finance the final push to their nuke and missile arsenals.
Which brings us to the post-January 2017 President Trump Tweet-trap intelligence operation.  President Trump, like any spy-master, looks for his asset’s greatest weakness.  In this case, President Trump concluded Kim Jong-Un’s greatest weakness was his personal vanity.  Once President Trump saw Kim’s “vanity-weakness,” he exploited it by tweeting personally nasty comments against the North Korean lunatic.  This predictably caused the North Korean leader to have to “prove” how strong and manly he really was. 

US intelligence spent tens of billions of dollars and pays hundreds of “experts” to study North Korea’s nuclear and missile capability, and they got it catastrophically wrong.  Meanwhile, President Trump with nothing but his New York real estate smarts and his tweeter feed delivered the real intelligence of state of North Korea’s nuclear arsenal.

As an aside, what was President Trump supposed to tweet-back to Kim Jong-Un’s “nuclear button on the table” remark?  Anything President Trump tweeted would have been derided by the Trump-haters.  Trump is in a no-win hate-Trump-at-all-costs situation. Had he not tweeted back at all, the Left would have railed that President Trump was bested by his own tweeting game, and showed fatal weakness. 

What the mainstream lemmings didn’t understand was they were actively interfering with President Trump’s ongoing intelligence operation.  And  Kim Jong-un gave away all of his military secrets, while President Trump gave away nothing.  President Trump doesn’t even have a “nuclear-button” on his desk.

In conclusion, can anyone imagine a Hillary Clinton administration where the US intelligence community and the US Congress are allowed to blunder along for another 4 or 8 years under the totally false belief that North Korea is still 4 years away from a miniaturized hydrogen bomb? 
What horrifically wrong decisions would have been made believing that North Korea wasn’t really an immediate “clear and present danger”? 

What equally bad decisions would have been taken about Iran if the world still believed North Korea was 6 years away from a deliverable nuclear-tipped ICBM? 

The United States would have gotten hit with a surprise nuclear Pearl Harbor-type attack. Thanks to President Trump, now we know virtually exactly the true state of North Korea’s nuclear program.  President Trump should be lauded for his genius and his heroic intelligence coup that clearly exposed North Korea as an immediate and real nuclear-armed threat. 

We all need to pray for President Trump’s health and success for the New Year.  President Trump’s safety and success is the safety and success of every freedom-loving person on this planet.

Friday, January 12, 2018

An Arab view of exactly what is standing in the way of peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors… A pessimistic appraisal…Khaled Abu Toameh

 We at MIL-ED believe that it is crucial to understand exactly what is standing in the way of peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors.

Khaled Abu Toameh is a  journalist who has been  covering the Middle East for just about every major news organization for more than 35 years. 

 Toameh  is a Arab,  a  practicing Muslim, a resident of Jerusalem who frequently travels to Ramallah, the rest of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, etc .Tomameh  often lectures before Arab audiences and before  Israeli audiences [but  he claims that  he  only feels unsafe when he visits Berkeley, Irvine and several other American campuses where organized anti-Israel student activists thrive … who he claims are not "pro-Palestinian" but rather "radically anti-Israel".]

Tomameh is ls also an Israeli citizen.

This video is the clearest we have ever viewed regarding the Peace Process between the Israelis & Palestinians...and it is presented by an Arab. 

We urge you to view it, and pass it along.

Thursday, January 11, 2018

The Media Is Out To Beat The Republicans Again
Stan Katten    Jan 2018
Note that this article was submitted to honor the many contributions of Stan Katten to the dialogue concerning national defense. The views expressed are those of Mr. Katten and are worthy of respectful consideration.  MIL-ED takes no position for or against the views expressed in this article.

      Once again or still, the print, TV and radio media are getting full steam on to change control of the Congress from the Republicans to the liberal Democrats who follow Chuck Schumer (with his ever increasing idiotic vitriol), Nancy Pelosi (who increasingly sounds like she has lost it) avowed socialist, Bernie Sanders, and even former president Barack Obama who is repeatedly breaking the unwritten law that a former president does not publicly criticize his successor. .

With no regard for how unstable and foolish all this makes the (once) United States look in the view of the world community, the editors and liberal columnists and TV/radio commentators are intensifying their attacks on the president. Of the three leading anti-trump liberal newspapers, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, the latter even has the arrogance and hypocracy to print a headline that due to Trump antics, “US Losing Respect of the World”.

Nonetheless these hypocrites increase their horrific attacks on President Trump expected to be even worse than during 2017, when 91 percent of printed items about Trump were negative and the comments about his activities absolutely outrageous. The personal remarks and comments about President Trump, the first lady and other members of his family that have been increasing in frequency and intensity are not just distortions or  obfuscations, they are flat out lies.. Add to this outrageous behavior the steady supply of false news stories about the President and his administration and we have the total degradation of the once noble journalism profession that no longer reports the news, it creates it.

Uncooperatively and stupidly, four moderate Republican Senators (RINOs) played “my way or no way” games (normally called blackmail, not for money but for dropping or changing parts of acts they didn’t like or adding things they did) displaying divisions among the Republican Senators where the majority was only one or two. These few senators apparently fail to realize the immense harm such divisive behavior does by raising questions in the minds of the voters, especially the moderates and undecided, some of whom the Republicans need to retain control, as to the ability of the Republican party to govern effectively for the overall benefit of all the people. By blocking in committee or filibustering virtually every measure or resolution  Republicans attempt to pass, the Senate Democrats are trying to prove that conservatives can’t govern successfully..

There is nothing that will change the beliefs of the liberal Democrats who comprise about 20 percent of the voters, who buy into Senator Chuck Schumer’s utter nonsense that all conservatives are the enemies of the working people and favor the rich, and that corporations are evil that work only for the benefit of their multi-million dollar paid CEOs and their rich stock-holders. They believe everything Schumer, Pelosi and the media tell them no matter how extreme and ridiculous it may be and totally opposite to what they observe around them. So there is nothing to be gained spending time and money going after their votes. 

The moderate Democrats and independents must be reached repeatedly with text and data on President Trump’s highly successful year and goals for 2018, countering the liberal media’s suppression, distortions, obfuscations and fake news. The job increases, the unemployment decrease, the poverty and food stamp use decreases, the strong stock market, the 3+% growing economy, canceled excess regulations, recinded Obama’s illegal executive orders and  reduced taxes already attained, and programs to increase national security, defeat terrorism and revise immigration policy begun by the Trump administration must be communicated.. Failure to respond in force will invite Liberal reversal of all the good attained.

Although the Democrats claim the small business sector of the economy, that accounts for some 60 percent of the jobs, is more important than the  “hated evil corporations”, the facts are that corporations create most of the high paying jobs with retirement and heath care benefits. Also thousands of small businesses are franchisees of large corporations like MacDonalds, for example. The doubters should be reminded that it is the corporations that operate the Wal-Marts ,Sam’s Clubs, Costcos Targets and Safeways. They build the airplanes, ships, trains, trucks and automobiles,  consumer electronics, the MRI and X-ray machines. They construct and operate the communication systems and power generating plants and distribution networks. Along with small business, they are all part of the  private sector of the capitalist economy, all of which make modern life the easiest in the history of mankind? 

The Republicans need to prepare strong counter-arguments to the liberal’s complaints like, “ tax reductions will increase the debt” by pointing out that Democrats over eight years almost doubled debt from $11 to $19 trillion and that increased revenues from economic growth will  eradicate initially increased debt. This can be done by saturating the several social media sites, the e-mail circuits, the billboards and ordinary mail to convey the good news to the general population, Fox news and other outlets that strive to present both sides of the situations cover the information adequately and do not require special attention.

Wednesday, January 10, 2018

The U.S. Must Show Iranians That They Can’t Have It All
Evelyn Gordon Commentary Magazine Jan. 10, 2018

Not a hard choice.

The fact that Iran’s anti-regime protests appear to have died down is not a reason to relax the pressure on Tehran. On the contrary, it’s a reason to increase it through serious sanctions on Iran’s ballistic missile program as well as its support for terror and regional aggression. The protests will only become a truly mass movement if enough Iranians come to realize what the protesters already have: Contrary to the promise held out by the nuclear deal, Iran can’t have it all. Terror and military aggression are incompatible with a thriving economy.

To understand why more pressure is needed, it’s worth revisiting a New York Times article from November that has been widely but somewhat unfairly derided. In it, reporter Thomas Erdbrink wrote that “The two most popular stars in Iran today—a country with thriving film, theater, and music industries—are not actors or singers but two establishment figures: Gen. Qassim Suleimani, the leader of Iran’s regional military effort, which is widely seen as a smashing success; and the foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, the symbol of a reasonable and measured Iran.”

The derision stems from the fact that the protesters assailed both Suleimani’s military adventurism and the government of which Zarif is a pillar, proving that neither is quite as popular as Erdbrink thought. Like many Westerners reporting from abroad, he committed the cardinal error of thinking that the fairly narrow circles he frequents represent the country as a whole. Yet within those circles, his analysis of the status of these two men appears to be accurate. That was made clear by the fact that Tehran’s educated middle classes, who formed the core of Iran’s 2009 protests, largely sat this round out.

And in truth, Suleimani and Zarif deserved star status. Together, they seemed to have severed the inverse relationship between military adventurism and economic wellbeing. Thanks to the nuclear deal Barack Obama signed with Iran in 2015, it seemed as if Iran really could have it all. It could maintain an active nuclear program (enriching uranium, conducting research and development, and replacing old, slow centrifuges with new ones that will make the enrichment process 20 times faster); expand its ballistic missile program; become a regional superpower with control, or at least major influence, over four nearby countries (Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen); and still receive sanctions relief worth billions of dollars and have European companies lining up to do business with it, resulting in booming 12 percent growth and plummeting inflation.

That’s precisely why this status was accorded equally to both the “moderate” Zarif and the “hardline” Suleimani, defying the “moderates versus hardliners” prism through which many Westerners misread Iran. Iranians understand quite well that “moderates” and “hardliners” are both part of the ayatollahs’ regime and, in this case, they worked together seamlessly to produce the best of all possible worlds.

Zarif negotiated the nuclear deal, which provided the sanctions relief and the European business interest while Suleimani parlayed it into regional dominance–not merely by orchestrating Iran’s successful military interventions in other countries, but above all by understanding that the nuclear deal enabled Iran to conduct such interventions with impunity. As noted by commentators across the political spectrum–from Samuel Tadros of the conservative Hoover Institute to left-wing Haaretz analyst Zvi Bar’el–both the Obama Administration and the European Union were afraid to penalize Iran’s military adventurism lest Tehran use this as a pretext to quit the nuclear deal.

Iran’s decision to spend most of its sanctions relief on guns rather than butter meant ordinary Iranians saw little improvement in their own situation. Until recently, however, the regime could mollify public anxieties by stalling for time. The money is going to keep pouring in, they’d note, and soon there will be enough for everyone.

But President Trump’s decertification of the nuclear deal in October upended this calculus. European companies became more reluctant to do business with Iran, fearing loss of access to the much more important American market. And new American sanctions on Iran became a real possibility.

Consequently, the continued influx of money was no longer guaranteed. The billions Suleimani spent on his military adventures weren’t necessarily going to be replaced by a flood of European investment, and surging economic growth might once again be crimped by new sanctions. Ordinary Iranians were suddenly back in the pre-nuclear deal world, where the regime’s bad behavior had real economic costs.

In this sense, the media debate over whether the protests were “economic” or “political” was ludicrous. They were both because the protesters understood that their economic woes stemmed from their government’s political choices. That’s why they chanted slogans like “Forget about Palestine, forget about Gaza, think about us” and “Leave Syria alone, think about us instead.”

They also understood that those political choices were a product of the regime’s very nature, which is why they chanted slogans like “Death to the Dictator” and “Death to the Islamic Republic.” The nuclear deal was the Islamic Republic’s best shot at reconciling its desire to export Shi’ite revolution with its need to satisfy its people’s desire for a decent quality of life. If that doesn’t work, the regime clearly doesn’t have any solution to this dilemma and never will.

But if protests are ever to grow to the point that they actually threaten the regime, many more Iranians–especially the middle-class Tehranis who sat this round out–must come to understand this. And easing economic pressure on Iran would send the exact opposite message: that the world actually will let the Islamic Republic have its cake and eat it, too.

Thus to drive home the message that the ayatollahs’ regime is incompatible with economic wellbeing, America must counteract the effect of the nuclear deal by imposing stiff new sanctions on Iran’s ballistic missiles, support for terror and military aggression – together with Europe if possible, but alone if necessary. Additionally, assuming Trump signs the nuclear sanctions waiver on January 15, he should make clear that he is doing so only to give Congress, which has been too busy with tax reform to do much else recently, time to pass serious legislation to fix the nuclear deal’s flaws.

The nuclear deal told Iranians they really could have it all. Trump’s job now is to prove that was a delusion.