The Triple Threat: Election Interference By China, Iran, and Russia Is Back

 On Friday, William Evanina, director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, told us what most of us already knew. Evanina detailed threats from Russia, China, and Iran, to interfere with the upcoming presidential elections. Interestingly, the intelligence assessment is that the cyber aggressors are taking different sides.

In a written statement, Evanina said, “Foreign states will continue to use covert and overt influence measures in their attempts to sway U.S. voters’ preferences and perspectives, shift U.S. policies, increase discord in the United States, and undermine the American people’s confidence in our democratic process.”

He also warned, “They may also seek to compromise our election infrastructure for a range of possible purposes, such as interfering with the voting process, stealing sensitive data, or calling into question the validity of the election results.”

Interestingly, Evanina said that the intelligence community assessed that our adversaries have different goals and are targeting their efforts to help different candidates and for different purposes.

Most obviously, China seems to be trying to undermine President Trump’s re-election campaign. After years of trade wars, Evanina says that Beijing views Trump as “unpredictable.”

“China has been expanding its influence efforts ahead of November 2020 to shape the policy environment in the United States, pressure political figures it views as opposed to China’s interests, and deflect and counter criticism of China,” Evanina said in the statement.

So far, Chinese efforts concentrated on criticizing the Trump Administration on numerous fronts. These include Trump’s response to the pandemic, the closure of the Houston consulate, the TikTok ban, and China’s efforts to dominate the 5G market through Huawei. As I’ve pointed out for years, China does not have to outlast the US economy to win the trade war, they only have to outlast Donald Trump.

Russia is taking the opposite side. Evanina said, “Russia is using a range of measures to primarily denigrate former Vice President Biden and what it sees as an anti-Russia ‘establishment.’ This is consistent with Moscow’s public criticism of him when he was Vice President for his role in the Obama Administration’s policies on Ukraine and its support for the anti-Putin opposition inside Russia.”

 Evanina pointed to “pro-Russia Ukrainian parliamentarian Andriy Derkach” as a proxy in Russia’s efforts. Derkach “is spreading claims about corruption – including through publicizing leaked phone calls – to undermine former Vice President Biden’s candidacy and the Democratic Party,” per the intelligence assessment. Derkach was one of the local politicians who met with Rudy Giuliani during the president’s personal lawyer’s dirt-digging expeditions to Ukraine.

If Russia and China are each backing their favorite horse in the presidential race, Iran’s goal is primarily to sow chaos and undermine American institutions, but also to undermine President Trump, “driven by a perception that President Trump’s reelection would result in a continuation of U.S. pressure on Iran in an effort to foment regime change.” Iran’s activities are expected to include “spreading disinformation on social media and recirculating anti-U.S. content.”

Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded that one of these threats is not like the others, calling the Russian interference the most serious of the three.

“They’re not equivalent,” Pelosi told the Associated Press. “Russia is actively 24/7 interfering in our election. They did so in 2016, and they are doing so now.”

Pelosi’s statement has been supported by intelligence assessments for the past several years. Even Trump appointees such as Mike Pompeo and Nikki Haley have confirmed Russia’s interference in 2016, which Haley called an act of “warfare.” A major theme of the Mueller report was detailing Russia’s actions and Robert Mueller used his live testimony to warn against Russian meddling in the 2020 elections.

Many Republicans will call Pelosi hypocritical for focusing on the Russian threat, but many in the GOP have spent the past four years downplaying concerns about Russia’s role in 2016. Many of those same Republicans will now be up in arms over Chinese and Iranian activities.

The truth is that all Americans should be upset about any foreign attempts to tip the scales on our elections. Regardless of whether foreign powers support your candidate or his opponent, nations who are our adversaries have no business influencing American voters or, worse, trying to manipulate vote totals by hacking databases and voting machines. Undermining the integrity of elections is undermining the foundation of our government.

Unfortunately, both sides are predictably playing politics with the issue. Democrats in the House, considering themselves the victims, have passed several bills aimed at curbing election interference over the past few years. Republicans, perhaps sensitive that admitting the problem would further undermine Donald Trump’s credibility, have killed most of them. As recently as June, Senate Republicans quietly removed a requirement that campaigns report attempts by foreign governments to interfere in US elections from the National Defense Authorization Act.

The integrity of elections is a cornerstone of our republic and a national security priority. Defending the electoral process against foreign adversaries should not be a partisan issue and it should not matter which candidate is assumed to benefit.

As Robert Mueller warned in his testimony to Congress more than a year ago, “Over the course of my career, I have seen a number of challenges to our democracy. The Russian government’s effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious.”

“This deserves the attention of every American,” he added.  

Now, we have the Chinese and Iranians piling on as well. We should take the threats seriously.

Originally published on The Resurgent

The Difference Between Iran And North Korea

Call it “A Tale of Two Dictatorships.” There are two rogue nuclear states in the world (now that Saddam Hussein is gone) and the approach that President Trump (and past American presidents) differs starkly between the two. That difference was on display in recent weeks as the president attacked Iran, both literally and figuratively, while proposing new talks with North Korea.

Two weeks after a drone strike on Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani brought the two nations to the brink of war, Axios is reporting that President Trump has proposed new talks with North Korean dictator, Kim Jong Un. The story cites national security advisor Robert O'Brien, who is quoted as saying, “We've reached out to the North Koreans and let them know that we would like to continue the negotiations in Stockholm that were last undertaken in early October.”

President Trump has met with Kim twice at this point, first in June 2018 and again in June 2019. Despite assurances, North Korea has continued testing missiles. Talks broke down last October when North Korea issued a statement accusing the US of a “hostile policy towards the DPRK.”

Throughout the process, President Trump has maintained a friendly attitude towards Chairman Kim. The president covered for the diminutive dictator’s missile launches, denying that the test launches violated their agreement and showing “no interest” in North Korea’s missile program according to aides. The president even sent birthday greetings to Kim earlier this week.

Contrast President Trump’s behavior towards North Korea with his approach to Iran. After the Soleimani strike and Iran’s retaliatory missile attack, the president said in his address to the nation, “As long as I’m president of the United States, Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.”

While both Iran and North Korea are state sponsors of terrorism and international pariahs, the big difference between the two is that North Korea already has a nuclear weapon while Iran does not. Therefore, North Korea is feted while Iran is threatened.

This calculus was undoubtedly under consideration when Iran’s leaders announced the withdrawal from President Obama’s nuclear deal following Soleimani’s death. It is probably clear to Iran’s leaders that they would not be subject to drone strikes if they had their own nuclear weapon.

While Obama’s nuclear deal was a bad idea that, at best, delayed the Iranian nuclear program and always included the possibility of cheating, the IAEA said as recently as May 2019, almost a year after President Trump canceled the deal, that Iran was still in compliance with the terms of the deal. Afterward, Iran began taking progressive steps to breach the deal in hopes of convincing the US to return to the table. Now, Iran has totally canceled compliance which speeds up the timetable for a confrontation over the nuclear ambitions of the mullahs.

Questions in the aftermath of the Soleimani attack have also undercut President Trump’s credibility. The Trump Administration claimed that there was information that the Iranian general was plotting imminent attacks against what President Trump claimed were four US embassies.

Secretary of Defense Mark Esper threw the president under the bus yesterday, telling interviewers, “I didn’t see one with regard to four embassies.″

There are no easy answers to the problems of North Korea and Iran. President Trump’s charm offensive against Kim Jong Un seems to be stymied and the Soleimani attack makes quashing Iran’s nuclear efforts more difficult. Without the deal, there is less time to find a solution and the president’s propensity to bend the truth makes putting together a coalition more difficult.

In the end, neither North Korea nor Iran is ever going to voluntarily end their nuclear programs. They realize that nuclear deterrence may be the only thing that prevents a US-led “regime change” effort or more targeted drone strikes. The two countries will always be willing to talk but the talks will never lead anywhere.

North Korea’s nuclear genie is out of the bottle and won’t be going away short of a long, bloody war. Iran can be stopped but doing so may similarly lead to a prolonged conflict. The irony is that stopping either the North Korean or Iranian nuclear programs may spur other countries to decide that they too need a nuclear deterrent.

After the 1991 Gulf War, India’s chief of army staff said that a lesson of the conflict was “Don’t fight the Americans without nuclear weapons.” Iran and North Korea have both learned that lesson well.

Originally published on The Resurgent

House War Powers Resolution Gets Bipartisan Support

Seeking to head off an escalated confrontation between the United States and Iran, the House passed a resolution yesterday that would “terminate” hostilities between the two countries unless Congress declared war or force was needed to defend against an “imminent” attack against the US or its forces. The resolution may be largely moot now that the Trump Administration and the Iranians both seem to be standing down, but the resolution does raise interesting constitutional questions.

The Constitution specifically grants Congress the ability to declare war but makes the president the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Many, such as Rep. Justin Amash, read these passages of the Constitution to understand that the president cannot commit troops offensively without congressional authorization. The problem is that the Constitution does not say this explicitly.

https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/1213141194307461122?s=20

A second problem is that presidents have been sending troops on offensive missions without congressional authorization for about as long the United States has been a country. Max Boot has fallen out of favor with Republicans since he became a “Never Trumper” but his excellent book, “The Savage Wars of Peace,” is the definitive history of America’s undeclared wars. One of the earliest examples is Thomas Jefferson’s war against the Barbary pirates all the way back in 1801.

Today, the water is further muddied by the 1973 War Powers Resolution. Passed in the closing days of the Vietnam War, the WPR, which became law over President Nixon’s veto, requires that the president “consult” with Congress before deploying US forces into combat “in every possible instance.” In any case, the president must report such deployments to the Speaker of the House and the president pro tempore of the Senate within 48 hours. The report must include the circumstances, the constitutional and legislative authority which led to the deployment, and the estimated scope and duration of the employment. The WPR also places a limit of 60 days on the use of military forces without a declaration of war or a congressional authorization.

This does not constitute a blank check for short-term military action, however. The WPR stipulates that, in the absence of a declaration of war or statutory authorization, the president only has the authority to commit troops if there is “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

Presidents of both parties have often considered the WPR to be an unconstitutional limitation of their constitutional authority but no court has ever ruled on the issue. Presidents have largely abided by the law’s requirements for consultation and notification with a few notable exceptions. President Clinton exceeded the 60-day limit with his 1999 bombing campaign in Kosovo but ultimately received a congressional authorization. In 2011, President Obama never received authorization for his bombing campaign in Libya but claimed that his actions were legal because US involvement had been decreased to a supporting role under NATO’s leadership.

In the case of the War on Terror, the situation gets muddier still. Congress did not declare war on either Afghanistan or Iraq but did pass authorizations to use military force (AUMFs) in both cases. While people who claimed that the wars were illegal because Congress did not declare war are wrong, the matter is complicated by the fact that current interventions are still being carried out on the basis of these nearly-20-year-old authorizations with no expiration date.

There is debate among conservatives as to whether this is kosher. Rep. Amash says “no,” particularly when it comes to new hostilities in Iran.

https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/1213141191845388288?s=20

https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/1215019603979624448?s=20

On the other hand, David French argues that the 2002 AUMF covered the initial attack against Soleimani since it took place in Iraq where US troops were operating under congressional authorization. What's more, Soleimani was a combatant who was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of US troopers. However, retaliating in Iran would require new congressional authorization in French’s view.

https://twitter.com/DavidAFrench/status/1212946812547588097?s=20

That authorization to use force against Iran, as well as the loophole for short deployments, is what House Democrats want to deny President Trump. The new resolution, which will go to the Senate where it will die a slow and painful death, is even more restrictive than the 1973 WPR. The bill, which runs just longer than four pages, expressly prohibits the president from striking Iran without permission from Congress unless it is to “defend against an imminent armed attack.”

Even though the resolution will not become law, it does have bipartisan support. Three House Republicans, Matt Gaetz (Fla.), Thomas Massie (Ky.), and Francis Rooney (Fla.), voted in favor of passage, as did former Republican Justin Amash. In the Senate, Republicans Mike Lee (Utah) and Rand Paul (Ky.) have expressed support for the measure.

Even though the resolution will ultimately fail, President Trump should not take that as a green light to strike Iran. First, the president’s January 5 tweet, which he claims serves as notice to Congress, does not meet the requirements of the WPR. Second, after almost two decades of fighting in the Middle East, voters oppose a new conflict with Iran by large margins. There is very little public support for escalation so an AUMF against Iran would be difficult to pass.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1213919480574812160?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

The bottom line here is that the Democrat resolution won’t pass, but President Trump doesn’t really have the authority or public support to launch a pre-emptive war against Iran anyway. With both sides de-escalating, the crisis appears to have passed, at least for the moment.

Rather than wasting time on restating the president’s authority with respect to Iran, Congress might be more productive revisiting the old AUMFs that have been on the books for almost two decades. These open-ended resolutions defer too much congressional authority to the executive branch and ought to be updated to address current threats. Congress should also add an expiration date.

Originally published on The Resurgent

The Iranian Shootdown And Man-Caused Air Disasters

The apparent shootdown of Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 in Iran earlier this week made me think about previous shootdowns of civilian airliners. I could remember offhand three additional shootdowns, one of which occurred only about five years ago. That made me speculate that guided missiles may have been one of the largest causes of air disasters in recent history.

I was curious enough that I looked up a list of air crashes by year and tallied up the total number of passenger airline fatalities around the world for the past six years. The numbers that I came up with were:

2014 – 920

2015 – 525

2016 – 302

2017- 68 (including 35 on the ground)

2018 – 520

2019 – 324 (including 10 on the ground)

2020 to date – 176

My first reaction was that the average death toll of 473 people (including the victims of the Ukrainian crash in Iran) is far higher than I would have thought. The good news is that very few of those fatalities were in the United States. Many were in third-world countries and quite a few were in Russia. Relatively few were on major airlines as well. Turboprops and regional jet airliners made up a significant portion of the total. Older aircraft were also well-represented in the list of fatal crashes.

In addition to the 176 people killed in the Iranian shootdown, I also remembered that a Malaysian Airlines 777 was shot down by a surface-to-air missile fired by Russian-backed separatists in July 2014. All of the 283 passengers and 15 crew were killed.

Admittedly, the time span that I examined was somewhat arbitrary, but the 474 fatalities from the two shootdowns represent more than 16 percent of the total. To borrow an Obama-era phrase, these “man-caused disasters” represent a significant share of airline deaths over the past half-decade.

Shootdowns are not the only man-caused air disasters, however. An ISIS suicide bomber brought down a Russian airliner over Egypt in October 2015 killing 224. A Germanwings pilot committed suicide with his airplane in March 2015, killing 150. An employee of US regional airline Horizon stole a turboprop airliner and killed himself in 2018. Pilot suicide is also suspected in the disappearance of another Malaysian airliner in March 2014 with 239 passengers and crew. If we add these deaths, the share of airline fatalities since 2014 that was the result of foul play climbs to 38 percent.

While the number of foul play crashes was comparatively small, they typically occurred high-capacity airplanes with no survivors. So while there were more accidents involving small airplanes, these resulted in comparatively smaller losses of life. This is due both to the smaller capacity of these aircraft and the fact that many of the small-aircraft accidents were more survivable.

By way of comparison, the much-maligned Boeing 737 Max 8 was involved in two crashes that killed 189 and 157 people respectively. This translates into about 12 percent of the total.

Technology is making airliners much safer, the Max 8 notwithstanding. Air crashes that are the result of mechanical failures or maintenance problems are becoming increasingly rare.

As the machines become more reliable, human factors make up a larger share of air disasters. Some of those crashes are attributable to pilot error but, in our modern world, murder, suicide, and accidental shootdowns represent significant threats to airline safety.

Shootdowns are not only a third-world problem. A US Navy ship accidentally shot down an Iranian airliner back in 1988 killing 290. Five years earlier, a Russian MiG fighter shot down Korean Air Lines Flight 007 killing 269 including a US congressman.

The core problem is technology that allows missiles to engage targets beyond visual range as well as human beings that can be careless, make wrong assumptions, or simply want to kill.

Technology and training can be improved. We can build airplanes and engines that are so reliable that failures are statistically insignificant. An old pilot joke is that new airplanes will carry a crew of one human pilot and a dog. The dog is there to bite the pilot if he touches anything. We probably aren’t that far from that joke becoming reality.

We can also improve training to help eliminate pilot error. Simulators teach pilots to handle the rare emergencies much better than training flights in airplanes can. Beyond teaching basic flying skills, standard operating procedures and line-oriented training attempt to instill good judgment into pilots so that they stay out of trouble in the first place.

These safety enhancements work pretty well, particularly with first-world airlines. Our Achilles heel is people: People who want to kill themselves and others and people who are at the controls of weapons systems who make bad decisions. As long as people are involved, there will be air disasters. The most we can hope to do is minimize them.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Fallout From Soleimani Killing Begins

Diplomatic fallout from the targeted killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani last Friday began in earnest today as both Iran and Iraq took steps to retaliate against the United States.

This morning, the Iraqi parliament voted to ask the Iraqi government to remove foreign troops from the country and cancel its request for international assistance against ISIS. The resolution was backed by Iraq’s prime minister, Abdul Mahdi.

“The government commits to revoke its request for assistance from the international coalition fighting Islamic State due to the end of military operations in Iraq and the achievement of victory,” the resolution said in part. “The Iraqi government must work to end the presence of any foreign troops on Iraqi soil and prohibit them from using its land, airspace or water for any reason.”

Shortly after, the news broke that Iran was canceling its compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal negotiated by Barack Obama. The Associated Press reported that Iran had taken several measured steps away from the deal since President Trump withdrew the US in May 2018, but Iranian state television now says, “The Islamic Republic of Iran no longer faces any limitations in operations.” As recently as August 2019, the IAEA reported that Iran was still in compliance with the main restrictions of the deal.

The new moves come after both Iran and the US issued threats against one another on Saturday. A Revolutionary Guards general, Gholamali Abuhamzeh, said in a Reuters report on Saturday, “The Strait of Hormuz is a vital point for the West and a large number of American destroyers and warships cross there … vital American targets in the region have been identified by Iran since a long time ago … some 35 U.S. targets in the region, as well as Tel Aviv, are within our reach.”

Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Iranian proxy group, Hezbollah, said in an AP report, “When American troops return in coffins, when they come vertically and return horizontally to the United States of America, then Trump and his administration will know that they lost the region and will lose the elections.”

President Trump responded with a broadside on Twitter in which he threatened to target 52 Iranian targets, including some cultural sites, for attack. The president also said that the US may respond to an Iranian attack in a “disproportionate” manner.

Donald J. Trump

✔@realDonaldTrump

 · Jan 4, 2020

Replying to @realDonaldTrump

....hundreds of Iranian protesters. He was already attacking our Embassy, and preparing for additional hits in other locations. Iran has been nothing but problems for many years. Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have.....

Donald J. Trump

✔@realDonaldTrump

....targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!

244K

5:52 PM - Jan 4, 2020

Twitter Ads info and privacy

115K people are talking about this

The Trump Administration appears undeterred by the new developments in the Middle East. On Fox News Sunday, Secretary of State Pompeo downplayed the significance of the Iraqi parliament vote, saying, “We are confident that the Iraqi people want the United States to continue to be there to fight the counterterror campaign, and we’ll continue to do all the things we need to do to keep America safe.”

Originally published on The Resurgent

Iran Threatens Retaliation, Here’s What Could Happen Next

Iran fired back with a salvo of words on Friday after a strike in Baghdad killed a top Iranian general. The US has now confirmed that Major-General Qasem Soleimani was killed by an American airstrike from a drone rather than by a Katyusha rocket attack as was initially reported.

After the killing on Friday, Iran vowed retaliation against the US. Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, said in a tweet that the “great nation of Iran will take revenge for this heinous crime.” Rouhani said that Iran would raise the flag of Soleimani against “terrorism and extremism in the region” as well as “US excesses.”

https://twitter.com/HassanRouhani/status/1213009152093696005?s=20

NBC News reported that the supreme leader of Iran, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that "harsh retaliation is waiting for the criminals whose filthy hands spilled his blood." Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif added that the attack was "an act of state terrorism and a violation of Iraq's sovereignty."

There are many possibilities for Iranian retaliation around the world. A State Department report from 2018 detailed how Iran supports terrorist groups around the world as well as presenting a threat to maritime commerce in their own backyard. In the past year, Iran has attacked ships in the Persian Gulf, shot down a US drone, and been linked to a drone and missile attack on Saudi oil facilities.

With theater-range ballistic missiles, Iran could launch attacks on neighboring countries a far away as Egypt, Israel, and Eastern Europe. Using terror cells and cyberattacks, they could strike almost anywhere in the world. Iran’s cyberwarfare capabilities have also been judged to be “ahead of most nations in strategy and organization” by the Center for Strategic and International Studies but are not as advanced as those of Russia and China.

Even worse is the possibility that Iran could strike the US at home. There have been numerous recent reports that Hezbollah, an Iranian proxy group, has terror cells within the United States. Among the reports are a Washington Institute report detailing the FBI capture of two Hezbollah operatives tasked with “carrying out pre-operational surveillance for potential Hezbollah attacks in the United States and Panama.”

The attack on Soleimani and his cohorts was a legitimate target of opportunity. The Iranian general headed a covert warfare branch of the Revolutionary Guards and was meeting with pro-Iranian militia and terrorist leaders in Baghdad in an obvious effort to undermine the US and the government of Iraq.  

The big question is what comes next. Even though justified, Soliemani’s death is an escalation that raises the possibility of a broader war with Iran. A conventional invasion and occupation of Iran would be much more difficult than the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran has a military comprised of nearly 1 million men per the Military Times and sophisticated anti-shipping missiles that could close off the Persian Gulf to the US Navy. Russia and China upgraded Iran’s air defense system over the past decade into a state-of-the-art integrated missile system that would be much more difficult to destroy than that of Iraq. Much of Iranian geography consists of mountainous terrain that would be amenable to a Taliban-style insurgency.

One of the most important considerations, however, is that the American public, after two decades of the War on Terror, is not in the mood to embark upon another long war. Neither is President Trump, who has been conducting on-again/off-again negotiations with the Taliban to allow the US cover to withdraw from Afghanistan. The Iranians know this and will undoubtedly be skeptical that President Trump has the stomach for a full-scale war.

Likewise, Iran knows that it cannot withstand the full force of the American military. They will avoid direct confrontation that could provoke the US into a regime-destroying war.

The conflict will most likely settle into a low-intensity battle of covert forces and one-off missile strikes by both sides. Terror attacks at home and cyberattacks on US companies and government agencies are a real threat in coming months as Iran must act to save face.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Al-Bagdadi’s Death Does Not Mean War Against ISIS Is Over

The US raid that killed Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi over the weekend was a victory in the War on Terror, but winning the battle should not be confused with winning the war. Both ISIS and al Qaeda are still active threats and the victory should not be taken as an opportunity to leave the Middle East on a high note.

One person who is concerned that the US will declare victory and leave in the aftermath of the raid is Iraqi President Barham Salih. Salih, a pro-American leader, spoke with Axios last week, six days prior to the al-Bagdadi raid, and was already sounding the alarm.

"The staying power of the United States is being questioned in a very, very serious way," Salih said. "And allies of the United States are worried about the dependability of the United States."

“I'm worried about ethnic cleansing,” President Salih, who is an Iraqi Kurd, said, “And this has been the history, tragic history of the Kurdish people and this [is] dangerous and tragic. The humanitarian cost is just awful.”

Although President Salih was not aware of al-Bagdadi’s impending departure from life, he was well aware of President Trump’s abandonment of the Kurds and equivocations on whether to keep American soldiers in Syria at all. The Iraqis must be quite plausibly wondering if the American commitment to their country will be discarded as quickly as our commitment to the Kurds.

They have good reason to wonder since America has already abandoned Iraq once. In 2011, the Obama Administration failed to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement to maintain a small security force there. Three years later, the US had to send troops back to help the Iraqis beat back ISIS. It’s entirely possible that President Trump may be about to make a similar mistake.

Several reports have indicated that the timing of the al-Bagdadi raid was influenced by President Trump’s decision to leave northern Syria. Rukmini Callimachi, a Middle East correspondent for the New York Times, reported that al-Bagdadi’s location was determined “back in the summer” but the raid was deemed too risky because it was in Syrian and Russian airspace. With the US pullout looming, commanders decided to rush the raid. Their gamble paid off.

https://twitter.com/rcallimachi/status/1188514608056811530?s=20

There is also the irony that the raid would not have been possible, or at least would have been much more difficult, if President Trump’s policies had been seen through to fruition. Axios also reported that the raid was based at least partially on intelligence received from Syrian Kurds and depended on having American forces in the region to carry out the attack. Jimmy Carter’s Desert One debacle from 1980 is an example of how long-range missions are far more complex and risky than raids that can be staged locally.

President Salih stressed that, despite the concerns of some Americans about “endless wars,” the US should not leave while ISIS and al-Qaeda are still threats, saying, “The military defeat of ISIS is an important victory, but not incomplete [sic] and precarious too as well. It can easily unravel. And this is what I'm worried about.”

“Five years of blood, treasure, effort — a lot of human misery went into defeating ISIS,” Salih added. “This victory was [not] easy, and for anyone to become complacent about it is terrible, reckless, dangerous, tragic.”

The Iraqi president also cautioned Americans about Iraq’s role in a possible war with Iran. “The United States is an important ally, partner. … We want this to continue and we definitely don't want our territory to be used,” he said. “We should try and stop it because Iraq cannot sustain it, cannot survive it.”

Salih’s misgivings about the US using bases in Iraq to attack Iran goes back to the question of whether America would stand by its ally. Iraq is undoubtedly concerned that the US would launch its limited number of airstrikes and then go home, leaving Iraq to deal with the fallout from Iran. Americans may not remember, but Salih definitely does, that Iran and Iraq fought a decade-long war in the 1980s. The Iraqi president does not want to repeat that experience.

President Trump’s decision to authorize the raid to kill al-Bagdadi was a good one and it led to a great triumph. The big question is what course Mr. Trump will take next. Will he follow President Obama’s example and bring the troops home prematurely or will he stick it out until they win?

Originally published on The Resurgent

Iran Just Knocked Out Half Of Saudi Arabia’s Oil Production

Drone attacks have temporarily destroyed half of Saudi Arabia’s oil capacity. Houthi rebels in Yemen have claimed responsibility for the two attacks which left Saudi oil facilities in flames and knocked out production of 5.7 million barrels of oil and natural gas per day. The loss of production is equivalent to five percent of the world’s oil capacity.

Per CNN, Houthis said that they attacked two facilities of Aramco, the Saudi state-owned oil company, at  Abqaiq and Khurais. The attacks reportedly involved 10 drones and left the oil facilities in flames. The Saudis said that the fires were under control. It is not known how long oil production will be affected by the attacks.

Oil prices will probably rise when markets open next week. "Abqaiq is perhaps the most critical facility in the world for oil supply. Oil prices will jump on this attack," Jason Bordoff, founding director of the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, said in a statement.

"Sanctioned Iran supplies are another source of potential additional oil," Bordoff said. "But [US President Donald] Trump has already shown he is willing to pursue a maximum pressure campaign even when oil prices spike. If anything, the risk of tit-for-tat regional escalation that pushes oil prices even higher has gone up significantly."

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo blamed the attacks on Iran in a tweet, saying, “Amid all the calls for de-escalation, Iran has now launched an unprecedented attack on the world’s energy supply.  There is no evidence the attacks came from Yemen.”

https://twitter.com/SecPompeo/status/1172963090746548225?s=20

While Pompeo did not cite evidence that Iran was behind the attacks, Iran has long used the Houthis as a proxy in their cold war with the Saudis. The cold war turned hot in 2015 when Saudi Arabia intervened on behalf of the government in the Yemeni civil war. The Houthi rebels, who are predominantly Shia Muslims, are backed by Iran and were in danger of taking over the country which borders Saudi Arabia at the southern tip of the Arabian Peninsula. The Saudis, who are Sunni Muslims, led a multinational coalition to aid the Yemeni government. At the time, the Saudis predicted that the fighting would only last a few months, but the war is still ongoing four years later.

The new unrest in the Middle East could affect the US in a couple of ways. First, the blow to global oil supplies is likely to drive up oil prices. Uncertainty about the future of Middle East oil production could also cause prices to go higher. With signs that the US and global economies are already slowing, higher energy costs could further slow growth.

If the attacks can be firmly linked to Iran, Saudi Arabia and the US may reciprocate with reprisals. In June, President Trump approved and then canceled an attack on Iran after the Iranians attacked several ships in the Persian Gulf.

There seem to be few options for a response to the attack. Iran seems determined to cause a confrontation. Their past behavior indicates that if the Saudis and the US do not take action then the Iranians will ratchet up their aggressive behavior.

After President Trump’s abortive attack and recent revelations that he may be considering extending a $15 billion credit line to Iran if the nation comes back into compliance with President Obama’s nuclear deal, which President Trump canceled in 2018, the Iranians almost certainly view Trump as a weak and indecisive leader and are seeking to find out how far they can push him. Since the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979, Iran has had little love for Americans and Trump’s rejection of the nuclear deal was like a slap in the face.

The attack on Saudi oil production is one of those stories that is easy to overlook amid concerns about whether Beto O’Rourke’s threat to confiscate AR-15s and the culture wars about gender and abortion, but it may ultimately be of much greater importance than most topics being discussed. The event could impact the US and the world in much the same way as Saddam Hussein’s 1990 invasion of a small Middle Eastern country that most Americans had never heard of.

President Trump does not want war with Iran. The president is essentially an isolationist who wants to bring American soldiers home rather than dispatching them to a new front. War with Iran, if it did not reach a rapid and successful conclusion, would also complicate President Trump’s reelection campaign. The problem for Trump is that the Iranians sense that he does not want war and realize that this gives them an opportunity to run amok.

Taking military action against Iran runs the risk of igniting the Middle East in a regional war that could end up as another Iraq or Afghanistan. Not taking action is also risky, however. If Iran is allowed to act with impunity, the rogue nation will only be encouraged to continue its aggression.

Originally published on The Resurgent

SOTU: How Trump's Foreign Policy Is Obama-esque

President Trump’s State of the Union message last night certainly had its moments. There were the obligatory calls for unity, horn tooting about the strong economy, recognition of outstanding Americans, and even a few chants of “USA! USA!” Amid the boilerplate, however, the most disturbing aspect of the State of the Union was a return to Donald Trump’s isolationist tendencies and advocacy of a foreign policy that would not seem out of place in the Obama Administration.

In a speech that led off by saying, “Victory is winning for our country,” the president quickly turned to his plans to extricate the United States from Syria and Afghanistan without ensuring victory.  

“When I took office, ISIS controlled more than 20,000 square miles in Iraq and Syria, just two years ago,” Trump said. “Today, we have liberated virtually all of that territory from the grip of these bloodthirsty monsters. Now, as we work with our allies to destroy the remnants of ISIS, it is time to give our brave warriors in Syria a warm welcome home.”

“In Afghanistan, my Administration is holding constructive talks with a number of Afghan groups, including the Taliban,” Trump added. “As we make progress in these negotiations, we will be able to reduce our troop presence and focus on counter-terrorism.”

While he referenced victory over ISIS in Syria, there seems to be no question that there will be no victory in Afghanistan under President Trump. Even in Syria, the prospect of bringing troops home goes against the advice of President Trump’s military leaders and national security advisors.

In fact, the reason that the United State is in Syria in the first place is because President Obama ignored similar strategic advice and ordered a precipitous and unilateral withdrawal from Iraq. As American soldiers left, Iranian militias and ISIS guerillas filled the void. In a matter of years, ISIS had gained control of a large chunk of Iraq and Syria and the US was forced to redeploy troops to slow the refugee crisis as well as prevent the terrorist group from having both a sanctuary and a source of income from captured oil wells.

In Afghanistan, the proposed surrender is even more blatant. Five years ago, Republicans blasted Obama for negotiating with the Taliban, the very organization that had given Osama bin Laden protection after the September 11 attacks. Obama’s talk of withdrawal dates was said to encourage the enemy to bide his time and wait until America’s abandonment of its allies in the Afghan government was complete. Last night, President Trump proposed exactly the same policy that Republicans criticized Obama for advocating.

The main argument against keeping troops in Afghanistan and Syria is that the War On Terror has gone on for a long time and people are tired of it. Those points are true, but it is also true that America has fought a number of other long wars, most of them forgotten. America was in Vietnam for 20 years, the Philippine insurrection following the Spanish-American War lasted 14 years, and there were numerous actions in Central America and the Caribbean that required US troops to be deployed for decades. Insurgencies can be defeated, but doing so takes a long time.

Critics also point to the cost of the wars, but spending in Afghanistan and Syria pales in comparison to entitlement spending and military spending seems to be money well spent. There has not been a significant terror attack in the US since 9/11/2001 even though Europe has suffered a number of serious attacks in that time. The cost of occupation, in terms of both blood and treasure, is almost certainly less than the cost of giving Osama bin Laden’s proteges room to plot against America.

In one of the most ironic moments of the speech, shortly after calling for withdrawal from the Middle East, President Trump recognized several American WWII veterans who had liberated Jewish prisoners of the Nazis. This recognition that America military might is a force for good in the world that prevents far more innocent deaths than it causes contrasted sharply with the defeatist strategy that could once again unleash genocidal killing and spark another refugee crisis in the Middle East. Incidentally, the US still has soldiers in Germany 74 years after the end of WWII.

As with Obama’s precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, there are other countries who are willing to fill the vacuum that would be left by Trump’s withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran borders Afghanistan and has client groups in Iraq and Syria. The removal of US influence in Iraq and Syria would leave Iran with unimpeded lines of supply and communication all the way to the Israeli border. This is a disturbing possibility given Iran’s stated goal of destroying the Jewish state.

Russia has also expanded its role in Syria and the Middle East. Beginning with forces to help stabilize the Assad regime in Syria, Vladimir Putin is regaining the Soviet Union’s old footholds in the Arab countries of the Middle East, positioning himself as a more dependable partner than the United States.

China is also seeking a broader role in the Middle East as American influence there wanes. Although China doesn’t have a military role in the region so far, they are interested in the area for its resources and as a market for their products.

Along similar lines, President Trump’s withdrawal from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty is another retreat from American world leadership that plays into Vladimir Putin’s hands. The 1986 treaty negotiated by President Reagan eliminated medium-range nuclear missiles. The Trump Administration complains that Russia has violated the treaty, but junking the agreement entirely means that Russia is not constrained at all in developing new medium-range weapons. The United States will be forced to develop its own weapons as a result and a new arms race will ensue.  

The worst part about President Trump’s isolationist turn is that foreign policy is the area where Congress has the least oversight of the president. If the president advocates bad domestic legislation, it is a simple matter for Congress to block it or amend it to make it better. However, there is little that Congress can do stop the commander-in-chief from ignoring his generals and ordering the troops home. The president can also easily end many treaties and there is very little that Congress can do to repair the damage. Congress’ only real tool to rein in the president is impeachment.

George Orwell famously said, “The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it.” President Trump seems to be taking a page from President Obama’s strategy in deciding that it is better to lose in Afghanistan and Syria than spend time on ensuring a lasting victory. Overall, President Trump, like President Obama, seems to think that the world is a better place if America stays home. I’m not sure how that makes either America or the rest of the world great again.

Originally published on The Resurgent