What is Israel's Larger Plan for Hezbollah?

Israel continues to build a shield on their northern border facing Iran's proxy Hezbollah which has a large arsenal of rockets and missiles to attack Israeli civilians. What sword goes with that shield?

This is prudent but what is the larger plan?

Israel's military said it began construction of an underground defense system Sunday along its northern frontier with Lebanon to protect against cross-border tunnels.

The infrastructure project will identify underground acoustic and seismic activity indicating tunnel digging, accompanied other defensive measures, said Lt. Col. Jonathan Conricus, a military spokesman. ...

Conricus said the construction would all be on the Israeli side of the border and that United Nations peacekeepers along the frontier had been notified.

“What we are doing today is part of a larger plan,” he said.

The Israeli anti-tunnel defenses add to past tunnel destruction efforts and above-ground defenses:

The northern shield of walls and the anti-tunnel operation are now joined by personnel trained to hold the walls and stop the tunnels.

Is Israel building a passive wall or preparing to push their sword through the shield wall to gut their Hezbollah enemy before it can return from Syria and reset to face and fight the Israelis on better terms?

But I've long speculated that Israel will deal with the Hezbollah threat by mounting a multi-division, multi-month raid that pushes deep into Lebanon to uproot Hezbollah and really tear them a new one.

That's what my larger plan would be. Who knows if Israel thinks that the lesson of the 2006 war is that they have to improve their aerial attack capabilities.

An Old Debate Returns

We have another round of speculating about Israel's ability to strike Iran and knock out their nuclear program.

This article notes refueling issues, efforts to suppress air defenses, special forces, basing in Saudi Arabia, and even nukes.

I don't think it improves on my various speculation on options that I discussed in 2009 and then went over in 2012 and 2013. Israel can do the job, I thought--but not as well as America:

They can't do as good a job as we could, but this is a change from the assumption that Israel could not do the job. Whether Israel has increased their ability to do the job the way we would--by either focusing available resources on fewer critical targets or by expanding their capabilities--or by thinking outside the box with methods we wouldn't bother to use but which get the job done anyway, is the question. Or is it?

And this is separate from the question of whether even an effective strike that destroys every nuclear target in Iran would do the job. Iran knows there are red lines that will prompt Israel or America to strike. The Iranians might be smart enough to figure out how to cross the red line safely.

And this late year addition to the mix of options.

Although some options are clearly no longer on the table, like staging some forces out of Turkey.

But Israel also has a new option with the F-35, although it lacks the legs without aerial refueling or closer basing.

But it is interesting that the discussion is back in the open. That adds another variable for Iran to worry about.

I'd rather have a revolution in Iran that makes the issue of whether they have nukes as worrisome as France's possession of nuclear weapons.

Weekend Data Dump

A last hope before violent change in Algeria?

In the January 5th data dump I noted the colonies that China is establishing across Africa. Strategypage looks at them, too, noting they are different than the colonist-based efforts around their borders that for centuries have ethnically cleansed regions to make them Chinese and so part of the empire. But in Africa, the colonists do arrive, just later in the process. And African countries are worrying. As are other countries faced with the bribes and trade deals that lead to colonists who the motherland will of course "protect" if they get in trouble. Protection will require political control eventually.

Nice work if you can get it (tip to The Morning Briefing).

I rarely hear our special forces troops called "Green Berets" as they are referred to in this article. I thought the term went out of style after Vietnam. Am I wrong about that?

In last week's data dump I noted that but for major collusion, that the Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders might have taken control of the Democratic Party in 2016. Democrats are starting to worry that Sanders might pull that off this year. The same trends that promoted the outsider Trump to lead the Republican Party are pushing Sanders. The article notes that both Trump and Sanders got 44% of each party's votes. I mistakenly thought Sanders got more. But perhaps I was trying to factor in caucuses that don't measure votes. Or maybe I'm just mistaken. Can the Democratic Party establishment rig the process again? Or would it take someone as ruthless as a Clinton to orchestrate that kind of thumb on the scales? Bernie is ruthless enough to use the figurative gulags on his foes, but he's the insurgent and not the establishment. His ruthlessness in the face of being maneuvered out of the nomination again might stay the hands of the establishment out of fear Bernie's supporters will stay home in November in anger at his defeat. Or maybe the gray apparatchiki are fully ruthless enough. I don't know.

The head of Iran's Revolutionary Guards denied that reports of bulldozers at the Ukrainian airliner wreckage site means Iran is altering evidence, saying "We didn't move the wreckage of the aircraft, we didn't change the scene, we didn't move the air defence system, and we didn't (alter) the radar readings." Aren't those some oddly specific denials coming out of nowhere?

I suspect Sanders would lose the November election. But I resist the idea of wanting the most extreme candidate as an opponent because it polarizes the voters. I base that on the theory that one should want an opponent who isn't a disaster if they win. I'd rather have that situation than a high stakes polarizing candidate who you are more likely to defeat but who, if they win, is more likely to be highly objectionable. And yes, the contemptible Sanders would be a disaster. But polarizing politics is rewarded these days with our social media-driven pace of news cycles. We'll see how actual voters judge it this year, I guess.

I think Pelosi is about a drink away from going on about our precious bodily fluids. She has gone full Jack (D) Ripper.

This article notes that Turkey is building up its navy after decades of not investing much in it. This makes sense given that I've repeatedly noted that the end of the Cold War and the break up of the USSR dramatically changed Turkey's strategic environment. Turkey had been on the losing end of a number of wars with Russia when Russia had overland access to Turkish territory both west and east of the Black Sea. Russia is pushed back by NATO control in the west and independent former Soviet states in the east. So yeah, a navy is possible now and not a waste of resources better spent defending the land borders. And Turkey is out of the F-35 program, so that comment is confusing.

Is Iran's goal to defeat Trump in 2020? That's a November 2019 story oddly coming up. Which doesn't make it more or less true or false, of course. I'm just noting that fact. If that is Iran's goal, that would be highly inconvenient for the Democrats who have spend the last three years telling us that a foreign country's wishes in our domestic politics rule out Americans having the same preference.  We wouldn't want the Democrats colluding with the Iranians, would we?

Iraq's prime minister is quietly working to keep American troops in Iraq despite his public call to talk about the details of withdrawal. He knows Iraq needs to balance Iran's influence. I did say that Iraq is unlikely to choose poorly on this issue. At the most cynical level, corrupt Iraqi politicians know they get a better price when they play one outsider off against another to start a bidding war.

Yes, German-American tensions predate Trump and are in fact reflect much broader allied tensions over German anti-militarism that leads Germany to shirk its alliance defense duties. Honestly, maybe be should take Germany's word that it can't be trusted to have a military. But no, just blame the Bad Orange Man and ignore the reality that NATO needs Germany in order to defend Europe from Russian aggression.

Obama's appeasement of Iran was a bad idea.  Of course the question is whether Trump is really committed to containing--or even rolling back--the mullah regime.

Nancy Pelosi's war resolution is a non-binding joke and possibly counter-productive for preventing war with Iran. But even if we are to take it seriously as a statement of the need to get Congress and the people on board a war that American enters, it doesn't take into account the implicit expiration date on that support that Democrats (and sadly, some Republicans) provided for the Iraq War. It wasn't long before the Democrats were actively trying to lose that war.



Europe has a small but enthusiastic pro-jihad Moslems. For all that you may want to point to Christianity centuries ago for a willingness to kill and conquer for their  God, you must admit the problem today comes from Islam. The good news is that the terrorism statistics show that the impulse is far less deadly without a strong horse external jihadi group that inspires and trains the raw material of death in the West. The better news for America is that in contrast to Europe we do a pretty good job of assimilating Moslems.

If there is a rift between America and Europe over Iran, rather than wondering what America has done to create this rift, perhaps ask why Europeans are so eager to side with nuclear weapons-seeking Iran run by religious fanatics who hate women, gay people, and Jews with white hot murderous fury.

Much as Harvey Weinstein attempted to recover the good graces of liberals after the sexual abuse scandals popped up around him by pivoting to gun control, China has decided that gun control in America is something they should weigh in on. I guess rejection by Taiwanese voters, rejection by Hong Kong protesters, rejection by Tibetans, and rejection by Uighurs despite a massive system of concentration camps guarded job training centers, prompted an effort to persuade America's left that they're good guys. I'm sure it will work.

In the last data dump I mentioned potential gulag recruiting options for the left. I wasn't kidding.The left's shock troops are scummy, awful, dangerous people. Not that this taints liberals, of course--although I still disagree with them on policy.

The news that Iran fired two missiles at the Ukrainian airliner is not a damning detail. Firing a couple missiles with 90% probability of hitting gets you up to 99% chance of at least one hitting.

You can't get away with an old "problematic" Tweet, but authorities and the media looked away as this gang of child rapists ran wild. Shameful.

Unrest continues in Lebanon.

Burma simmers.

Yeah, Trump should make the two phone calls. 

Robotic Sherpas for the Army.

Yes, America wants to map the undersea sea bottom and sea characteristics to help our subs and to battle enemy subs more effectively. So, duh. And let me suggest a reason for the Adriatic. It would make a nice sea bastion defended at the southern end from anti-submarine assets to launch cruise missiles from our subs eastward. Which would put Battlestar Crimea in danger.

Will the end of the New START nuclear arms limitation agreement with Russia mean Russia can "break out" and add hundreds--of--perhaps a thousand--warheads to their arsenal?  I'm not sure how many of their existing warheads are effectively nothing more than radioactive chunks of concrete. How could Russia afford to add hundreds of working warheads? Mind you, my suspicions are just based on looking at the general state of Russia's military plus specific problems with their nuclear modernization efforts rather than anything specific I've read that questions the state of Russia's warhead health. As the author of that first link states, noting Russia's ability to cheat under the treaty, "Under New START, the only real limit is what the Russians can afford to do – essentially the same situation as no arms control." I agree.

Of course the Obamas got an Oscar nomination simply for being the Obamas.

Twitter is a small progressive bubble amplified to a wider audience by media reporters who are equally progressive. I know I've mentioned this.

Pelosi named the impeachment managers. If Schiff and Nadler are the public face of the House's impeachment case in the Senate trial--and who thinks their egos will let them play second fiddle?--this will not work out well for Democrats. Even their rabid resistance fans who've been told how strong the case is (for whatever changing charge was the bombshell of the moment) could be disgusted by the failure to achieve the long-held goal.

Luckily Iran was in no position to exploit that particular success in their missile barrage at our troops in Iraq. Exploiting fleeting successes is important. And denying an enemy's ability to exploit such things is important, too.

Moqtada al-Sadr called for protests against America's presence in Iraq. I've long said that Iraq would rue the day we let that three-time insurrectionist live.

Trudeau's logic is impeccable: it's safer to blame their ally America than it is to anger a bunch of murderous fanatical loons who will not take accurately being named at fault lightly. Don't catch Khameini's eye, Justin!

Heh.

Yes, Obama's record on piling on national debt is stunning and Trump isn't even close to that "achievement." But to be fair, Trump is only three years into his presidency. I'm not confident that after 8 that I'll be able to write that sentence. This is a great disappointment to me.

Yes, that's about it. I always figured the Iran nuclear deal was all about moving the date of Iran's first nuclear weapon beyond his term of office and past the statute of limitations on forfeiting Obama's Nobel Peace Prize for his "potential" on combating nuclear proliferation. Oh, and there is this information from that article that I never heard about: In January 2017 the Obama administration gave Iran 130 tons of Uranium. "Why did Obama give the regime enough uranium to make 10 nuclear bombs? To pressure the incoming Trump administration to stick with the nuclear deal." That is an outrage.The nuclear deal was one giant gift to Iran and was never intended to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. It was about preventing anyone from stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

West Virginia legislators introduced a resolution inviting Virginia counties upset by the blackface governor of that state to nullify the 2nd Amendment to join West Virginia. I hadn't thought of that when I suggested in this data dump that those counties might want to form South Virginia. I wonder what the process for doing that would look like?

Despite the Trump tax cuts, federal revenue has continued to rise. Don't blame lower federal taxes for our annual deficits and growing debt, blame both parties that spend like drunken sailors. And blame us for sending them back to Congress year after year, of course. I say stop trying to reform Washington, D.C. when the only solution is to reduce the scope of powers in WDC so more of those spending decisions take place at the state and local level. That will also help on the campaign finance issue by making it less vital to spend what it takes to control WDC. Trying to turn off the money spigot when the stakes are so high doesn't work and just makes people without lawyers criminals because the little people are the only ones unable to figure out loop holes to keep the spigot open.

Turkey says it has begun sending troops to Libya. They already had support personnel there. So what does this mean? More trainers and support people or actual combat troops? I'd be shocked if it's the latter, but who knows what Sultan Erdogan wants as he makes his move. Once the Soviet threat of invading Turkey from the east and west plus from the Black Sea evaporated in 1991, Turkey has had room to revive quasi-imperial ambitions.

Democrats will decide that it is absolutely a good thing that foreign governments hate the same American leader as they do. In 3, 2, 1, go. And not long after that it will be seen as a duty to collude with that foreign government against that American leader. Tip to Instapundit.

This is good news. I mean, nobody wants people to break our laws to come into America ahead of people lawfully standing in line to immigrate to America. And nobody wants our border police to have to overcrowd our detention facilities to hold illegal border crossers until they can be processed under our laws enacted by Congress. Right? Tip to Instapundit.

Arab Middle East Spring 2.0? I did not lose hope when the first Arab Spring fizzled, believing it was significant for the simple fact that protesters wanted a democratic alternative to autocrats or Islamists as their rulers. That alone is significant. This current one may be more narrow--agitating against Iranian Shia domination. But who knows what seeds it might plant if it succeeds?

It's been a month since the House quickly passed impeachment articles against the president, saying the nation is at risk and no delays are acceptable. The House finally sent the articles to the Senate. Perhaps Pelosi didn't want to ruin the holiday season for people. Which apparently means that people really aren't worried about the Trumptatorship that the Resistance sees so clearly. I really seems like they're on crazy pills.

Lovely little continent ya got there. It would be a shame if something happened to it. The mullahs must be so confused. Normally bribery is all that is needed. For Europeans, imagine what the Iranian threats would look like if the mullahs had nuclear missiles?

The Army is denying that it has no role in Asia, countering the Navy drive for more funding at the Army's expense. No doubt sea control is crucial out there. But as I wrote in Military Review, without the Army's core competency included in our plans in the Asia-Pacific region, we can't have a full military posture to deter or defeat enemies.

The Pentagon is setting up a team to look at defeating drones. I think that the battle for the "brown skies" above our forward combat units requires air defense drones, which I advocated in this Army magazine article.

I just don't find it a problem that Trump may have violated the law on sending appropriated aid to Ukraine. We sent it within the fiscal year it was appropriated. And we did have concerns over the new president there. So holding it up to check him out made sense. It's simply not an impeachable offense. I never thought this--as egregious as it was--justified Obama's impeachment. The other violation noted was serious and called for a response, but still, I never thought that impeachment was the proper response. And there were others, too. Is this the standard now? Draconian punishments for anything no matter how small? Pass a web of technical violations and wait for your target to get stuck? I know, I know. It's different now because ... shut up. When I worked for the legislature, I remember calling up a department to get the latest copy of a report that they were supposed to submit on a regular basis. Some legislator had noticed that requirement and wanted to see it. The requirement was in a statute. The man I spoke with basically said, "Oops, we'd better get on that." At no point did I think, "Gotcha! Jail time for you, scofflaw!" That episode led me to compile a booklet about reports required in statute. Let me tell you, that was boring to research, with some reporting party references many executive reorganizations behind in terminology. So Lord knows who was responsible for the report. I have no idea how many of those reports were written on time--or at all. I thought it would make a good companion piece to another legislative entity's reports required in appropriations boiler plate report. And thank God I retired before I had to update it. The database I used to compile it was retired. It was ancient but it was really good if you knew how to use it.

Europe demonizes fossil fuels and then buys the required fossil fuels from demonic suppliers. It makes an odd sort of sense, you must admit.

Owning the night.

The Army plan to replace the Bradley Fighting Vehicle hit (another) speed bump. Sigh.

Iran isn't as far away as we think. As we think about Iran's options to escalate their war against us, don't forget the strange relationship between Venezuela and Iran.

The Army is working to extend the range of its artillery, and if really long range weapons are eventually fielded giving divisions and corps that capability the Army won't even need to spend so much effort trying to get the Air Force to provide close air support.

I assume we don't release footage of UFO encounters because they are either American experimental craft or we want our foes to believe they are our experimental craft.

Interesting. What is the nature of the exercise?

I'm well past the point that I ignore the latest media "bombshell" about Trump. Based on the track record, in a week not even Democrats will bring it up.

Regardless of whether they are right or wrong in their objectives, NGOs have gone from rescuers to political actors in many problem-plagued areas.

A big ISIL leader was captured in Iraq. The good news is that Iraqi forces continue to battle jihadis (which is a good thing to remember because Iraq under Saddam supported jihadis). The bad news is how long was that man on the "run" and why did it take elite SWAT forces to nab him? Good luck hanging him, as one guy noted. Execution might be quicker if the Iraqis just fed him some more chicken wings.

Perspective. But by all means, panic if that helps you sleep at night.

So the left hates the Electoral College system because it isn't purely weighted by population. Never mind there are good reasons to retain it. And that's apart from the basic fact that this system was negotiated to get the smaller states to agree to the Constitution. But THIS abomination is just fine? And contrary to the anonymous power grabbers' justification, we do have a system in place to amend the Constitution. If carried out--and I have doubts it could be done--we'd see people on both sides rushing to the new "states" to establish residence before they can vote and eventually it would be "Bleeding Kansas" all over again. But hey, I guess they have to destroy the village to save it. They don't want fairness. They want power.

The silencing mob, it is sad to say, is nothing new. Right now we comfort ourselves that this really isn't a First Amendment issue because government isn't silencing people. And that is what the First Amendment addresses. This is true. But if that view of how to silence people persists, eventually those people will staff our government and courts. And then the mob will have the power of the state behind it. Have a super sparkly day.

North Korea is rapidly building missiles. I've been skeptical of Trump's approach to dealing with North Korea's nuclear threat. I just don't know if we've passed the point of no return when it is too dangerous to try to destroy North Korea's nuclear infrastructure and weapons capabilities. If we are not there yet, Trump's approach may be the only way to halt North Korea unless we count on regime or state collapse. But who knows how long North Korea could teeter along as the Sick Man of Northeast Asia.

For God's sake, just don't give the security forces red shirts in their Space Force uniform.

Between a ROC and a hard place.

North Macedonia's membership is not getting much public discussion. I've certainly mentioned the issue over the years. To be fair to the Greeks, renewed fear of Turkey under Sultan Erdogan is making them a better ally. NATO is worth keeping. And expanding to prevent Russia from exploiting gaps in the frontier (see Georgia and Ukraine). My hope is that Trump's sometimes harsh words are all about leveraging more European defense efforts and that his actions to reinforce and expand NATO are the real indications of his support for NATO.

Hiftar has cut off oil exports, which is an effective response to Turkey's intervention on the side of the Tripoli-based faction. Will Turkey pay the increased costs to back their side and deploy the troops to control the oil export infrastructure?

As it turns out, American troops suffered concussion injuries from Iran's ballistic missile strike. Was it "luck" that nobody was killed prompting an American retaliation that might have led to war? Well, we'd have won that war and it wouldn't have been either nuclear or an invasion. So the idea that the hypothetical war could have been "bloody" and "disastrous" is sheer speculation with little to back it. But while Iran was trying to kill Americans, the missiles were too inaccurate to have confidence in hitting a target and too few to make up for that inaccuracy with volume. The odds were probably with us despite the intent of the mullahs to kill. Is that "luck?"

The U.S. is trying to mediate the dispute over Ethiopia's new Nile dam that Egypt and Sudan have a high interest in regulating in a manner that doesn't hurt them. I mentioned this back in November.

Hahahaha!


I finally had to retire my printer. You may recall my life-extending surgery three years ago. No amount of printer head cleaning or a new cartridge could get it printing again this week. I got a good deal on a new one and I must say I am impressed with what I can do with it. Ink isn't any cheaper, naturally.

Iran's Houthi allies killed more than 100 in a missile attack on a mosque at a military base in Yemen. In that war, activists only get charge war crimes or raise the "proportionality" BS when the Saudis wage war.

Iran changed their mind about sending to Ukraine the flight recorders of the Ukrainian airliner they accidentally shot down.

This is a proxy for demonstrating Iranian ICBM capabilities.

The Hong Kong protests against Chinese tyranny continue to edge toward street battles.

Iraqi protests rebuild in intensity, in a protest against government corruption. It has an anti-Iran tinge to it given Iran's exploitation of the corruption to build influence inside Iraq.

Violent protests against government corruption and failures continue in Lebanon. There is a tinge of anti-Iran sentiment given the role of Iran's proxy Hezbollah in keeping Lebanon fractured and unable to act without Iran's approval.

This, my friends, is brave Resistance to tyranny.

A Fascinating Test of the UN Charter?

The Western European "signatories" to the Iran nuclear deal are starting the dispute resolution mechanism of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. They say it is to save the deal rather than trigger so-called "snap-back" UN sanctions. I don't think snap-back provisions are legal and I don't think Russia and China would have agreed to the deal if they thought those provisions could be enforced.

They have to destroy the deal in order to save it:

Triggering the mechanism is regarded in European capitals as a means to preserve the JCPOA, and not the start of a process leading to an imminent reference to the UN Security Council and a “snap-back” to pre-2015 sanctions.

I don't think there is any chance in the world that UN sanctions can snap back under any circumstances:

And let me add a question I've asked before. Can the United Nations charter be amended by this deal to carve out an exception to the veto power of the 5 permanent members of the Security Council?

Here's what the Chapter V, Article 27 of the UN charter says about the veto:

1. Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.
2. Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.
3. Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.

Because I can see the Russians or Chinese objecting to the whole notion that UNSC resolutions can be reimposed after 30 days of inaction by the Security Council. What do we do when the Russians and Chinese (probably correctly, but it has been a long time since I had an international law class) argue that this deal provision is invalid and that no sanctions resolutions can go into effect without 9 votes, including the concurrence of the five permanent members, and they will not go along with it?

Russia and China would never weaken their UN Security Council veto power. Certainly Obama would never even think about triggering that provision, nor would Clinton had she won. So Russia and China probably thought there was no harm in agreeing. And then the deal would have expired and Iran would be off to the nuclear races.

But here we are. And Europeans are starting a process that could kill the deal in the hopes of saving it.

It would be fascinating to see the dispute process get to the point of those snap-back provisions coming up. There is no way Russia or China will allow those to go through, given the shaky legality of the deal.

Mullahcracy Today, Mullahcracy Tomorrow, Mullahcracy Forever

What a condescending twit. I don't know if the Iranians can gain freedom from their mullah tyrant class any time soon. But I understand Iran enough to know the mullah regime is our enemy and we should want its demise.

And I know that a lot of Iranians are unhappy with the mullah regime and periodically endure being shot, beaten, and arrested to display their anger. The Iranians deserve our help (and amazingly our government is giving them help--and of course House Democrats did this instead).

Further, I know that the forms of democracy are maintained in Iran even though it is not a democracy. If democracy is not wanted or seen as legitimizing a government, why would Iran's mullahs even bother with maintaining the forms that only fool gullible or colluding Westerners?

Iran is in trouble economically because we have not just assumed that mullah rule will never end (or, horrifyingly, that it is a good thing):

The economic sanctions and successful efforts to block Iranian oil smuggling continue to cripple the economy. GDP shrank about 4.2 percent in the last year and is expected to shrink 7.2 percent in the coming year. Reserves of foreign currency, needed to pay for imports, are down to $73 billion, a third less than two years ago. The unem0loyment rate is headed for 20 percent and more Iranians are finding themselves with a lower standard of living. Meanwhile more videos appear showing the families of the ruling clerics and senior IRGC officers enjoying affluent lifestyles, often while vacationing outside Iran. Because of the recent Iranian missile attacks on American bases in Iraq the U.S. has imposed more economic sanctions, further reducing economic activity in Iran.

The government is caught between foreign pressure to halt the use of terrorism inside and outside the country and internal protests against government mismanagement and brutality inside Iran. Being forced to admit that Iranian forces shot down a Ukrainian airliner on the 8th was a major embarrassment and triggered more anti-government protests.

Our pressure is forcing the problems of Iran's governance based on fear and death out into the open. Do read it all.

And remember, Iran has vulnerabilities because it is really a rump empire, as I recently noted in a data dump:

A reminder that Iran is an empire. Yeah, I've been saying that. But the Western Left only gets worked up by former Western overseas empires and not existing land empires like Iran, China, or Russia (with the EU aiming for that status).

I'm hoping this guy is right, without knowing whether he is right or whether if true it will matter in the face of more shootings, beatings, and arrests.

Siding with the tyrant just because you think you "understand" they are too powerful to dislodge is revolting.

Even if the mullah regime is too strong to dislodge now, America should not be shy about letting the world know how awful Iran's rulers are and that the people of Iran are justly seeking to change it--one way or another. Whether now or in the future.

And America shouldn't be shy about pointing out that Iran is fully on board fighting its enemies to the last dead Arab.

Thanks Comrade Obvious

Russia says that our Pacific policy is about containing China. Duh. And if Russia wasn't so weak they'd publicly be happy with and cooperate with that policy.

Thanks for the information:

Russia on Wednesday criticized the United States for introducing a new Indo-Pacific concept it said was aimed at containing China. ...

The Indo-Pacific concept being pushed by the United States, Japan and others was to reconfigure the existing structure, he said.

“Why do you need to call Asia-Pacific as Indo-Pacific? The answer is evident — to exclude China. Terminology should be unifying, not divisive,” Lavrov said.

Russia knows that China needs to be contained. Russia more than America given that Russia owns a lot of former Chinese territory in the Far East.

But Russia is essentially appeasing a far stronger China while loudly blustering at the non-threat of NATO to conceal Russia's weakness with a veneer of scariness.

Although I'm all on board Russia's complaint about the name of our regional command INDOPACOM.

It should be PAINCOM.

Shuffling the Deck Chairs on the Titanicsky

Putin told his entire cabinet to resign. Here we go!

Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed constitutional changes on Wednesday that would give him scope to extend his grip on power after leaving the presidency, and picked a new prime minister after Dmitry Medvedev and his cabinet stepped down.

Most importantly, Putin suggested diminishing the powers of the presidency and beefing up those of the prime minister.

The dramatic moves were widely seen as preparing the ground for 2024, when Putin, now 67, is obliged to leave the presidency after occupying the Kremlin or the prime minister's job continuously since 1999.

The new prime minister is a gray man who Putin will control.

Well, the suspense of whether Putin would try to remain in power was killing me.

Putin has options from taking Belarus and becoming the ruler of the entity that would be formed from Russia and Belarus to simply transferring his powers to whatever office he happens to hold.

He could be the postmaster general of Russia--or Hell, rub his absolute power in and take that office in some tiny seaside resort--if he has the authority to run Russia moved there.

And as long as Putin has a personally loyal military force at his back, who's going to object?

Still, Putin counts on his people not noticing that he is effing up royally. If that happens, other people with power might challenge Putin.

#WhyRussiaCan'tHaveNiceThings

UPDATE: One day Russia will be free? Not as long as Putin has anything to say about that.

UPDATE: More.

UPDATE: Nobody expects the Putin constitutional revision.



UPDATE: Here we go:

Less than a week after announcing the reforms that unleashed a political storm in Russia, Putin submitted the package of constitutional amendments to lawmakers.

The bill proposes changes that transfer some powers from the president to parliament and the State Council.

But according to the amendments submitted to parliament, the president also receives additional powers.

The overhaul would also transform the State Council from an advisory body to an institution -- potentially headed by Putin -- that would shape domestic and foreign policy as well as social and economic development, according to the amendments.

It will be formed by the president.

Putin will save being Postmaster General for the next sweeping revisions.

You Can't Deter Enemies Who Don't Fear You

Killing enemies should be for the purpose of destroying them and not to send them signals. Unless the signal is that we'll keep killing them as long as they wage war on us.

Exactly:

In an episode of the hit series West Wing, the Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed a proportional response to an attack on U.S. personnel. The fictional president rejected this, stating that an enemy expects a response before they take action. They make a cost-benefit assessment and decide to proceed if they are willing to pay the anticipated price. The fictional president instead advises an unpredictable and disproportionate response to make the enemy think twice, fearing a high cost for aggression. This is what the U.S. did by killing Soleimani, and what Israel has largely avoided doing in Gaza. In essence, it is harder to completely deter an enemy if they accept the expected costs from specific types of aggression.

An enemy counts on our proportional response when it attacks us. They attack because they figure they can handle that kind of retaliation. You know my views on the proportionality nonsense.

Really, it is legal to crush enemies.

Which is why I've long suspected that if Israel has another conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon--which is making all the right noises without Iran's lips moving at all!--that Israel will go in hard with a multi-division ground raid all the way to Baalbek, Lebanon. I've thought that for close to a decade now, of course.

If America has rejected the popular but non-existent dogma of proportionality of means, which accepts pro-Iran militias rocketing our troops at a low but persistent rate, does that mean we are going to wage a campaign to sweep them up?

Let's hope so.

Moving the Tonnage to Fight and Win

Second Fleet in the Atlantic is again operational. It existed in the Cold War but was eventually disbanded in the post-Cold War world.

Second Fleet is intended to escort American troops and supplies across the Atlantic.

The Russian fleet that might threaten our line of supply is in a bit better shape today in terms of readiness (even as it shrinks in numbers and tonnage) than when it was a joke, but our ability to escort logistics vessels is kind of a joke now, too. So we are being totally sporting.

And our actual sealift is kind of--as in totally--shaky:

The U.S. military in September ordered the largest stress test of its wartime sealift fleet in the command’s history, with 33 out of 61 government-owned ships being activated simultaneously. The results were bad, according to a new report.

In an unclassified U.S. Transportation Command report posted to its website, the so-called turbo activation revealed that less than half of the sealift fleet would be fully prepared to get underway for a major sealift operation in a crisis.

In our post-Cold War operations we have been able to hire private ships for our logistics needs. But that relies on safety at sea because our opponents have lacked the ability to pose a serious threat to sea lines of communication.

That changes in an era of great power competition against great powers with the ability to contest for control of the seas or at least deny us free use of the seas. Private entities are less likely to risk their ships in such a dangerous environment.

And our approach to military operations relies on expending stuff rather than the lives of our troops. So we can't just dump them on a foreign shore with ammo and canned goods and tell them to charge the wire to win or die. We expend money rather than lives (and that approach reduces civilian deaths because of our precision firepower that costs money).

So yeah, we need to get on this sealift problem.

UPDATE: We're thinking about how to fix the problem, including this:

“We're looking at, maybe it makes more sense rather than invest all our money on the back end and trying to keep ships going and modifying them, … we [instead] partner with commercial operators to build new ships on the front end,” he said.

“We [could] make some investments in military utility on the front end, build that in in the beginning much like China is doing with their merchant marines, and those commercial operators operate those ships for 10, 15, 20 years — whatever is economically viable — and then they roll to us” when the commercial firms no longer want them, he explained.

Those up front investments would aid the commercial shipbuilding industry, he noted.

I've noted the Chinese effort.

Priorities

It is a sad spectacle that rather than trying to limit what Iran run by evil nutballs that employed an evil Soleimani who was good at killing and which seeks nuclear weapons can do to attack America, Congressional Democrats are spending more time trying to limit what Trump can do to resist Iran:

Given their druthers, politicians-as-usual choose appeasement every time. That’s how Iran, pre-Trump, paid a relatively minor price for its 40-year reign as the world’s largest state sponsor of terror.

Take House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who was still regretting Soleimani’s demise Tuesday evening while Iranian rockets were falling on two bases in Iraq that house American troops.

Saying she was “closely monitoring” the attacks, she tweeted that “We must ensure the safety of our service members, including ending needless provocations from the Administration and demanding that Iran cease its violence.”

So targeting Soleimani was a “needless provocation”? She’s so full of rage, she probably wants to make his death a third article of impeachment.

As the left in our country continues to offer sympathy to Iran for our killing of Iran's terrorist leader Soleimani while also stoking fear of World War III, let me again remind all of us that we should focus more on making our enemies have worries about what we will do to them:

Or any holiday, really. Or just days that end in "y."

When Allah Says You Should Rule, You Kill to Rule

Last week in the data dump I wondered about what is going on in Iran. Unrest has been a feature of the mullah regime, so I don't get my hopes up.

This article wonders how fragile Iran is these days. But this article notes that protests have been around for decades yet the regime crushes them and endures.

Sometimes things continue as is. Sometimes they change. I have no idea what is up in Iran.

I do know that protesters inspired by the admission that Iran shot down the Ukrainian airliner--small in number, admittedly--were out on Monday for a third day condemning the mullah rulers. Is that significant?

This article says that Iran accidentally shooting down the Ukrainian airliner with all aboard killed could have "deeper repercussions" inside Iran (via Instapundit), widening divisions in society.

I have little hopes that the upcoming parliamentary elections noted in that article could be significant. That would require that the pre-screened (by the mullahs) candidates side with the people upset with the regime and that the regime allows the (for the sake of argument) now-opposition legislators to do anything that shakes the status quo.

Unless the mullahs have lost their will to rule--and the recent large-scale shooting of protesters under cover of an Internet shutdown indicates otherwise--the mullahs and their fanatical supporters are unlikely to allow any of that.

Remember that the regime is backed by the Revolutionary Guards and their Basij paramilitary reserves, and so have substantial manpower and firepower to back them up. Would the police and regular armed forces stand up to that kind of raw power?

Of course, hope for that kind of resistance is one reason I say we should refrain from targeting regular Iranian military units unless intelligence shows the unit is led by a fanatical regime supporter. We don't want to reduce the ability of the Iranian military to resist the mullahs should that resistance take place.

UPDATE: Related discussion: "I heard [Soleimani’s statement] broadcast on my Los Angeles radio station only weeks ago, that he was ready to kill millions more of his own countrymen in order to protect the regime."

The Death of Citizenship and the Rise of an Empire

This trend to pre-citizenship in America is the foundation of the entire European Union imperial project, which Hanson brings up directly:

In Europe, the French Revolution and the non-democratic autocracies and state bureaucracies that followed it became more of a blueprint for the European Union than the U.S. Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence did.

Whether you are Polish, Belgian, Spanish, Flemish, Catalan, or migrant/refugee without citizenship, you will be a subject--not citizen--of the Brussels-based empire, with no more rights than anybody outside of the apparatchiki class that runs the whole EU show.

As I've mentioned, post-World War II Europe owes its culture of freedom to American influence that cut through the old European statist impulses on the continent:

It is easy to forget--and this was a useful reminder to me--that Europe with its autocracies and monarchies was not fully part of a free West (although obviously part of the Western tradition) until we rebuilt Western Europe in that template after World War II. And NATO expansion after defeating the Soviet Union was more explicit in demanding democracy and rule of law for new members.

We think Europe is free because that is how we've seen it in our lifetime. First expanding within Western Europe and then flowing into the former Warsaw Pact and into the former Soviet Union itself. But the Europe we see is the Europe we built after World War II during the Cold War. Western culture gave birth to political and personal freedom but is not synonymous with it. That's a British innovation given a huge boost by America. And without the big Soviet threat to get Europeans to accept our influence as the price of their defense, that American (and British) influence is waning.

The European Union is anti-democratic and anti-liberty, and so naturally tries to wreck NATO in order to push America and our influence out of Europe, to let them return to their autocratic roots.

For our own good we should defend and strengthen NATO. A Britain safely out of the EU where it won't be infected or overwhelmed by the continental statists but able to promote NATO as a force for freedom is a good thing.

And we should take care that change doesn't happen here, too.

When Will Iran Launch Their "Final" Offensive?

Over the last several months Iran has been coming out of the shadows to attack America and American allies around the Gulf region. So far Iran has failed to break the increasing financial "blockade" of American-imposed sanctions. If the sanctions continue to squeeze Iran, Iran will likely take a step for major escalation rather than concede defeat.

America screwed sanctions tighter in the aftermath of the Soleimani Crisis:

The United States piled new sanctions on Iran's already crippled economy Friday and defended the killing of a top Iranian leader, saying he had been planning an "imminent" attack on US embassies.

Iran's provocations of attacking American forces in Iraq didn't compel America to retreat. But we didn't use Iran's escalation as an excuse to hammer Iran militarily. We added weight to our main effort in the sanctions war.

Let's look back to the First Gulf War between Iran and Iraq when denying Iran oil revenue:

More damaging to Iran's economy [than the Tanker War between Iran and Iraq] was the rapid decline of oil prices. While Iraq could borrow money to make up for lower oil prices, Iran relied on oil revenue for weapons and munitions. Iran's President Khamenei recognized this insurmountable fact of life stating "the price war is no less important to us than the military war." Indeed, in a July 1986 address to 8,000 Iranian commanders, Iran's rulers broke disturbing news that Iran's crumbling economy required a military victory by March 1987.

The Fao success [in 1986] may have reinvigorated Iranian morale but economic reality could be put off only so long. As Iran's war machine was starved of funds, Iran faced a daunting task of ending the war victoriously. Despite the Fao victory and the still potent ground force poised to strike Iraq again, time was running out for Iran.

With that financial defeat looming over them, Iran planned major offensive efforts to finally win their war against Iraq. The effort culminated in the major Karbala V offensive in 1987. It was big and bloody and took Iranian forces to the gates of Basra. But Iraq did not break:

On January 8, 1987, Karbala Five signaled its beginning when waves of Iranians rushed the Iraqi lines northwest of Khorramshahr. As Rafsanjani predicted, the Iraqis stood their ground and fought. Final victory was not, however, the result. In standing to fight, the Iraqis gunned down the Iranians who stubbornly attacked in the face of crippling losses as they slowly shoved the Iraqis back. By January 22, 1987, the Iranians had advanced to within ten kilometers of Basra, the objective on which Iran pinned her hopes of victory. By the fourth week of the offensive, Iran's attack force was spent and the Iranians dug in to hold their exposed positions at the outskirts of Basra. Iraq's counter-attack called upon all the available reserves and smashed the Iranians to end the offensive for good. Perhaps 20,000 Iranians died in the battle. Iraq's casualties were about half of Iran's. Iraq's performance is notable in that Iraq withstood and won the kind of brutal bloodletting that supposedly only Iran could endure. Observers at the time saw only that Iran had launched yet another in a seemingly endless series of big offensives. They speculated about how many more of these attacks Iraq could endure. Actually, Iran broke at Karbala Five. It would be many months before observers began to wonder what was wrong with Iran when no further attacks were begun, yet it was true that the "Islamic Revolution bled to death in Karbala V."

I fully expect Iran to launch a modern Karbala V-style offensive. I don't know what form it will take or where it might be. Although an attempted uprising by pro-Iran forces in Iraq (as happened in early 2004) seems the logical place to me while the Iranians still have proxies there (I hope we are trying to break them up).

Or the Iranian mullahs might turn to their old favorite to hate--the Jews--and order their Arab proxies in Hezbollah to open up a rocket barrage on Israel to fight and die for Iran.

Or maybe Iran will try to hit our Navy and bases in the Gulf region.

Or heck, maybe Iran when confronted with the choice of going big or going home decides to reject mullah-nutball rule from either major internal changes by the ruling class to save themselves--or a revolution. Who knows? Perhaps Iran's accidental shooting down of the Ukrainian airliner when Iran launched ballistic missiles at two bases in Iraq have constrained Iran's choices at least for a while.

Wherever Iran strikes if that is the choice they make, the key will be to hold the line and defeat them despite whatever initial losses the target endures. Iran broke after their big effort in 1987, even though it wasn't evident at the time.

Let's break the mullahs again if they go big.

Ballots Versus Bullets

The people of Taiwan rather decisively rejected China with their presidential vote. China will not be happy with that.

This is a win for freedom and democracy:

China was just dealt a significant blow in what one expert has described as potentially the year's most consequential presidential election.

Taiwan's President Tsai Ing-wen won a second term after a landslide electoral victory Saturday, despite efforts from China to sway the outcome. Tsai secured a record 8 million votes, which amounted to 57.3 percent of the electorate compared to just 38.5 percent from her opponent Han Kuo-yu, who conceded.

Tsai favors independence from China and has pointed to the anti-Beijing, pro-Democracy protests in Hong Kong as a warning for what could come in Taiwan if China doesn't take its foot off the gas in its attempts to reel the self-ruled island more tightly into its orbit. Han's party, meanwhile, is friendly with Beijing.

China's handling of Hong Kong protests may have sparked her rise from losing poll numbers a year ago.

And China's attempt to prop up Tsai's opponent and generally sow division within Taiwan society didn't work:

The Chinese government has undertaken a vast information influence campaign designed to support its favored candidates and sow distrust in Taiwan’s democracy.

China’s efforts go far beyond spreading disinformation and stale state propaganda. Beijing’s ambition is to shape the production, dissemination, and consumption of information in Taiwan.

Well, the former didn't work, at least. But I've mentioned China's deep ambitions to control information.

The election result is good. As is the very practice of free elections under rule of law. But Taiwan and America's INDOPACOM should be on alert. China has long said that one trigger for invading Taiwan is failure to maintain sufficient progress toward unification. China did not like Tsai or her party winning. And they will like her winning reelection even less. Her victory cannot in any way be considered maintaining sufficient progress toward surrendering to Peking.

Indeed, Taiwan's very existence as a free democracy is a threat to China's communist rulers because it shows that democracy and rule of law are totally consistent with the "Asian values" that the CCP claims make democracy an alien institution.

While voting is a proper show of defiance to China's autocrats and thugs, Taiwan needs to be able to defend their ballots with bullets. China's attack options are greater than you think and they have long been able to invade--assuming China is willing to endure the casualties--and China's ability gets better every year.

But I don't know what the casualty threshold is these days. More years of few children may make the price they are willing to pay lower. But the rise of democratic tendencies in Hong Kong and Taiwan may be such a threat to CCP rule on the mainland that no amount of troop losses are too much as a matter of survival.

Despite the immense advantage of the Taiwan Strait as a giant anti-tank ditch between Taiwan and China, China is very large and Taiwan is very small. And China makes no secret that it will control Taiwan one way or another. China will exploit the divisions within Taiwan that China is trying to widen with their influence operations.

At some point if Taiwan can't match Chinese military capabilities with a hope of success (even if it is just success in deterring an invasion) Taiwan must consider going on offense to defeat the Chinese Communist Party.

Maybe one way would be to team up with Hong Kong protesters to start a League of Liberty on Taiwan that promotes democracy at national, state and provincial, and city levels. It could draw in people from around the world to discuss democracy promotion and best practices. Who knows what seeds that might plant on the mainland?

If China will escalate to bullets to defeat ballots, Taiwan needs to make the ballots more powerful and a threat to China on the mainland, too.

UPDATE: Constant alertness on the front line with China:

An alarm sounds and the pilots rush to their jets, sitting at the ready under a hardened shelter in the warm winter sun of southern Taiwan.

Their scramble into the air was only a drill before an audience of journalists. But for Taiwan's Air Force and its most advanced fighters, the newly upgraded F-16V, the threat from China across the narrow Taiwan Strait is very real.

I hope this alertness is broad and not just a pageant for journalists.

Weekend Data Dump

Qatar is a problem child for America. A frenemy in many ways. This propaganda is bad but is it really effective? I mean, the numbers are big but perhaps in context they really aren't that big. And it may not persuade anybody as much as reinforcing those who already think that way. Tip to Instapundit.

It is hard to argue against the claim that Trump Derangement Syndrome is a weapon that Iran can use against us. It is true for any enemy. But what I find really interesting is that whenever we hit an enemy the left says it will only unify the enemy and push dissidents to rally around their thug leader. But when an enemy attacks America, TDS-afflicted Americans display approximately zero "rally around the flag" effect. Indeed, after the clashes with Iran inside Iraq the left seems to rally around the enemy flag with their public apologies to Iran and hopes expressed that Trump would experience his own Benghazi in Baghdad--that is, they hope jihadis will kill Americans on Trump's watch. Although I must say that I am disappointed that my preferred Trump Hysteria Condition (THC) term never caught on.

I know the Resistance likes to say that Trump is a lawless president, but he actually does obey the law--including the War Powers Act. So he notified Congress about the Soleimani strike consistent with the provisions of the War Powers Act. Let's take a walk down memory lane and recall that Obama said our months-long participation in the 2011 Libya War did not qualify as a war under the War Powers Act. Sure, he notified Congress at first under the provisions of the act, but when the fight dragged on he changed his mind about the applicability of the act. Although I was wrong to say that Obama killed the act. Silly me, I forgot that the rules are reset when a Republican is in the White House.

"Like inviting a pin to a balloon party." I'm truly sorry I missed the Golden Globes.

I suspect we'll be calling it "Four Eyes" soon.

America and India strengthened defense industry ties. 

Last week I noted that al Shabab attacked a Kenyan airfield that American and Kenyan forces use. Strategpage reports that 3 Americans were killed in the attack (one military and two contractors). We subsequently reinforced the airfield with a regional reserve. I read elsewhere that the base was "overrun." Mind you, this is just an austere airfield and not a major facility.

China recruits even their tourists to conduct espionage in America. With enough grains of sand China knows it can build a beach.

This author says that our killing of Soleimani could convince Iraq to join us in defeating Iranian influence inside Iraq. Well, duh. That's the big question, isn't it? Will Iraq stop letting Iran use Iraqi territory and people as part of Iran's war effort? Or will Iraq side with Iran against us? Or continue to straddle the line. Iraq may complain that we violated Iraqi sovereignty by killing Soleimani. But Iran violates Iraqi sovereignty by orders of magnitude more than we did. And we certainly were justified in our action by Iraq's failure to control Iran's proxies in Iraq who were attacking us. I've long wanted a campaign to disband, disarm, or de-Iran the Iranian-controlled Iraqi militias as part of Iraq War 3.0.

Don't laugh at them. They would be horrible revolutionaries fighting in the streets. But they'd make perfectly adequate gulag guards. Although there is competition for those jobs.

Again, stop wringing your hands over Iran's decision to walk away from the Iran nuclear deal. The deal was worse than worthless if your goal is to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. As I long argued, the outline of the deal we ended up "signing" with Iran was always clear, "The Iranians will pretend not to have a nuclear weapons program; and we will pretend to believe them." Trump decided to stop believing them, and now Iran has stopped pretending they aren't seeking nuclear weapons. Which had to be a tough decision for the mullahs given that the deal was a money spigot and shield for Iran's nefarious activities and imperial ambitions. I say better to have this in the open rather than fool ourselves that the deal would produce a successful regional (non-nutball) Iranian power.

So there's that take: "The #GoldenGlobes mood was already sober thanks to an impeachment, threat of war with Iran and Australian bush fires. The last thing anyone needed was Ricky Gervais there, telling them they sucked." You know what is really funny about Lorraine Ali's complaint about Gervais? That the buzz kill in the room was so LA-centric. In past years when people were being slaughtered in Darfur or Congo or simply being imprisoned in China or Iran, the Hollywood attendees had no problem partying it up without a sober moment in sight. But that's because they suck.

I have followed the Iran situation for a long time. I didn't pretend to know what Iran would or will do. As a rule they are cautious. I call them nutballs but that doesn't mean they aren't rational on their terms. Surely we seem irrational to them. But their rationality can break. During the Iran-Iraq War, Iran was pretty cautious in the Gulf and refrained from lashing out at neutrals despite slowly losing the Tanker War against Iraq. Until the Iranians got in real financial trouble. Then the Iranians lashed out and America exchanged blows with Iran to keep the oil shipping lanes open. Rationality would have told them not to expand the war and simply figure out how to cope better. So when I read or heard analysts predicting what Iran will do after we killed their Quds leader Soleimani I assumed they were simply projecting, guessing, or pretending to know what Iran would do. Iran probably doesn't know what their path is.

Action by Congressional Democrats to prevent a war without Congressional approval is pretty funny when you consider Bush 43 got the debates and votes for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--which didn't stop Democrats from turning against both wars; while Obama never bothered with that when he went to war with Libya. The issue is actually complicated.

Sure, the Chinese Communist Party is evil enough to order mass killings to harvest organs for transplant, but I'd like a better source. Widespread blood tests of Uighurs may be consistent with tissue matching, but it is also consistent with setting up a DNA database to help control their Moslem population. Here's what the FBI does with a law enforcement objective. Still, if friggin' Canada is using body parts of people they kill assist in committing suicide, would China really reject this idea?

Yeah, Obama's single-minded obsession with a nuclear deal with Iran led Obama to let Iran get away with literal, figurative, and attempted murder. Reversing 8 years of such expectations for America's behavior is hard.

I admit that I was initially suspicious when I heard Hong Kong activists are getting sick with a mystery illness. But apparently it is hitting the mainland, too. Densely packed populations can experience this. So I sincerely doubt this is a Chinese plot. Still, China could use the response to the illness to clamp down on protests, I'm sure. Tip to Instapundit.

Yemen's Shia Houthi rebels are shaky and the Iranians have urged them to beat their chests and fling poo to look scarier than they are. The Houthi mourn the loss of their patron Soleimani. How will that loss affect Iranian financial support?

Hunter Biden must be jealous that his dad isn't that influential. If we're talking privilege, she would be one of the first up against the wall when Bernie takes over. I swear, whenever I have heard Chelsea Clinton speak she seems like a dullard. I'm sure she's a wonderful mother and all that, but seriously. Tip to Instapundit.

Related: Finding Baghdadi.

It will be interesting to find out if those Australians deliberately started wild fires for profit or were climate activists trying to make things worse for the cause.'' And if those arsonists are global warmers, someone should explain that our media will do their work for them to make what is really bad seem far worse than it is. "Twice" the size of Maryland just doesn't get the panic juices going, I guess.

Yeah, Bernie is kookoo for Cocoa Puffs. If he wins this November I'm just glad Democrats put the 25th Amendment on the table.

Democrats and the media panicked that a nuclear war was coming after we rightfully killed that breathing piece of human garbage Soleimani and when the crisis with Iran ended in our favor the Democrats and the media said that they were right all along because it could have been bad. How nuclear war could result when the Iran nuclear deal "solved" Iran's nuclear ambitions is beyond me. I guess the Democrats and media don't really believe Iran has no nuclear weapons program as the Iranians claim.

It is interesting that Taiwan's KMT party started as the losing side in the Chinese civil war. They fled to Taiwan and basically took control of the local people. For a long time they wanted to restart the civil war and regain control of the mainland. They've evolved into a more pro-China party putting Chinese control of Taiwan over KMT control of China. A fascinating change.

You know, it depresses me that while scrolling through the Yahoo! news page that the stories about Trump's statement that Iranian cultural sites would be on our target list far exceeded the number of stories on Soleimani's terrorism. We won't hit those sites and Iran will continue to support terrorism. Yet a lot of people are way more upset about the former. Perspective, people. Try it.

Honestly, Gervais should be grateful he wasn't compared to Hitler.

Indonesia deploys fighter planes and fishing boats to resist Chinese claims on the South China Sea.

I'm tired on people saying the Iran nuclear deal was "working." On the deal, note that I predicted the problem (with my commentary about provisions starting on page 42 of the deal) with the inspection process that supposedly had a 24-day deadline on getting access to Iranian suspected nuclear sites. Later the Iranians verified my analysis. And that's just one problem.

It sounds like about 10,000 American ground troops were sent to or near the Middle East--on top of what is there--in case of further Iranian military or terrorist actions. I assume the Ranger deployment is a company element going with special forces for potential rescues (Rangers would establish the perimeter around a target within which the special forces would operate) and that the "task force" reference is used as a general term and not specifically a battalion-sized unit.

Good grief, people. It isn't literally true that Iran paid for the missiles they fired at our bases in Iraq with money Obama gave them. But Obama did give the mullahs a lot of money and so figuratively it is close enough to accurate. Just stop. You are beclowning yourselves to pick that nit with Trump.

Sure, fourth place isn't that good for a "late" entry in the race. But he's a shoo-in as the vice presidential pick for the winner. Tip to Instapundit. That was clever.

Once again, the 2015 nuclear deal was not stopping Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons. Claims that the IAEA confirms Iran is abiding by the deal ignores that the deal does not allow the IAEA to confirm that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons. The deal only allows the IAEA to confirm if Iran is obeying the very weak terms of the deal. Given that so much of Iran is out of bounds for inspections, the deal cannot determine what Iran is doing. Nor does the deal have the ability to see what Iran is doing in other countries--like in Syria or North Korea. So stop the ridiculous claims that the deal was preventing Iran from going nuclear. All it did was shield Iran from American military might while Iran pursued nuclear weapons.

To be fair, Andrea Mitchell is a partisan moron. The moment I trust her judgment is the day I return the calls that warn me that my Windows operating system is about to expire.

Next step: installing feed troughs in the cafeterias. I swear to God I'd have mocked that regardless of the university.

Why our media isn't considered  under our laws a giant campaign contribution to the Democrats is beyond me.

Why do they hate us? Seriously. Why?

I recently mentioned that Iran had built and attacked (while filming it) a mock-up of a Nimitz-class carrier. I guess the Iranians are hauling it out again to beat it with sticks. Or something. Perhaps the Iranians decided that if they are going to lie again about inflicting damage on the American military they want some plausible footage. But as I warned in that post, putting our carriers in the Persian Gulf is insane. On the bright side, perhaps hauling out that replica means the Iranians don't think we will be cooperative enough to provide a real target conveniently close by.

It is not crazy for Trump to suggest America and Iran can be partners in fighting jihadis. After we defeated Saddam and realigned Iraq, Iraq--as difficult as that relationship is because of Iranian intrigue--has joined us in killing jihadis. But since that victory is so easily overlooked, people can't imagine what Iran might look like after we defeat the mullahs. Of course, until Iran's mullahs are defeated, Trump's hope for an Iranian partner is as far-fetched as Obama's was.

By the very terms of the struggle, carnivores are defeating the vegans. Have carnivores ever touted a beef-based broccoli substitute?

Again, as Democrats accuse Trump of a "hasty" decision to take a shot at the al Quds leader Soleimani without any planning, we actually set a red line for that notorious terrorist--and notified him--over two years before we nailed the SOB.

The Resistance put a lot into how Trump supposedly dog whistles support from racists. Why do they support him if he isn't a racist, they asked. I say you can't help who supports you and people support you for a variety of reasons. But on the terms of the issue established by the left, I guess one prominent racist isn't getting what he thought he'd get. So take that racists and Resistance.

People keep talking about how the outsider Trump took over the Republican party. In the last election campaign I noted that Bernie Sanders--clearly an outsider as a Democratic Socialist rather than an actual Democrat--came close to doing that in 2016. Without media-Democratic Party collusion with the Hillary Clinton campaign, he might have succeeded. And in this election Sanders could yet take over the Democratic Party with only the joke of a candidate Biden standing in his way.

Well, I'll vote for him (again) and I wish him luck. It will be an uphill battle.

Even Senate Democrats are starting to get upset with Speaker Pelosi for not sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Remember, Pelosi rushed the process because of the urgency of stopping Trump from destroying our republic. Then sat on them. And even as Democrats warned Trump would start a world (!) war with Iran to distract from impeachment, Pelosi still sat on the articles. Some urgency.

I noted that the pro-Iran (or those intimidated by Iran) Shias in Iraq's parliament passed a non-binding resolution to eject America from Iraq. It has no legal effect and so is meaningless. So Speaker Pelosi followed the example with a non-binding resolution that opposes Trump going to war with Iran (as if Trump wants a war with Iran). Politico attempted some major mental gymnastics on the resolution, calling it "a powerful rebuke of President Donald Trump’s war-making powers amid the ongoing crisis with Iran, ... [which] limits Trump’s ability to go to war with Iran without congressional approval." Yet in the next paragraph admitting "it's a non-binding measure[.]" Are you effing kidding me? No legal effect yet somehow it reins in Trump and is a "powerful" rebuke? These reporters are inept or partisan hacks. Aren't they embarrassed at their "reporting?" Of course, there is the healing power of "and" that I should consider.

I think this post has held up well.

As long as the people of California pay the bill, I guess I don't care what they do. As long as they don't ask for help from the rest of the country. It is a wealthy state and if they value this they can pay for it. And who knows? Maybe it will work out just swell and be a lesson for the country. But I'm relieved they are the test site and not my state. Tip to Instapundit.

I don't rule out that the EU or the EU lackeys in Britain will engineer a last-minute reversal, but Brexit does seem like it will proceed after this Parliament vote. Fingers crossed for rule of law and Britain as a successful ally rather than a province of a hostile European imperial state.

The Democratic presidential candidates act like Twitter represents the country and wage their primary season battles to get its approval. This will be an interesting presidential election to see if it is as much of a mistake as it seems to me to look for votes where the light is best and not where the votes are.

At first it seemed plausible that Iran was trying not to kill American troops with their missile barrage into Iraq. The small number used certainly suggests a symbolic retaliation. Sure, they claimed to have slaughtered Americans in their merciless strike, but that might have been for the true believers in the Basij and MSNBC to lap up. But then I heard that Iran used older missiles that really aren't able to be "aimed" at things smaller than cities. So aiming them at or away from a target is a crap shoot. And now Iran says they deliberately didn't try to kill Americans. So my conclusion is that the Iranians absolutely tried to kill Americans. Their claim is a face-saving measure after decades of wonder weapon announcements that always turn out to be Potemkin weapons. And consider that Iran actually did kill a plane load of people when they presumably weren't intending to kill them and you have a picture of an Iran that isn't as good with high tech as they are with roadside bombs and terrorism in general. Seriously, Iran killed one American and as of right now we killed about 30 of their men and leaders in Iraq while without any American military action directed at Iran itself, Iran got about 50 in their funeral for Soleimani and about 175 in a Ukrainian plane killed as collateral damage. We may be pretending to believe them just so we can collect our winnings and leave the table.

So Meghan and Harry think they can quit the job of being members of the royal family yet still collect the paychecks? Prince Charles is a buffoon, but he is right to say the two should be cut off financially if they run off to play Woke Prince and Princess games. Do they not understand that when the lefties take over, people like them are the first up against the wall? Mind you, I have no use for such royal types. But I'd rather just de-fund and ignore the whole lot of them. Perhaps Harry and Meghan can ask the Romanov's if they want to confirm that risk. Oh wait, never mind. But don't feel sorry for them. The Kardashians are wealthy. This duo will do just fine. And they won't even need to put out a sex tape to start the ball rolling.

Iranian missile development. Which are nice if you have nuclear warheads to go on them.

Isn't this Texas decision really just a chance for "sanctuary" governments to demonstrate how morally superior they are?

The Russian soldier who killed 8 Russian soldiers in a shooting spree last October blamed his action on the hazing he endured. That is a traditional practice in the Russian military (and the Soviet and imperial Russian armies before). More senior soldiers (if just be half a year) target the new soldiers for abuse and theft. It hinders Russia's attempt to create a modern volunteer army.

Israel is hoping to get a couple new KC-46 tanker aircraft ahead of the U.S. Air Force.

I'm hardly a defender of mullah-run Iran, but that piece of equipment with the big red arrow pointing to it is not a bulldozer.

It's a front-end loader. Ah, reporters and their deep subject knowledge and layers of fact checkers. Iran may be hiding what happened to the Ukrainian airliner that Iran appears to have shot down, but the "bulldozer" is not Exhibit A. And since Iran now admits they unintentionally shot it down, what is there to cover up?

I'm not comfortable with calling this a "Matzneff Flap."  That disgusting piece of breathing garbage has gone too long not only not punished but celebrated in France. This should be the Matzneff Electrocution, the Matzneff Hanging, or maybe even the Matzneff Defenestration. May he rot in Hell one day. And may he face some justice on Earth as belated as it would be. The people who think this man is great are the real ogres in this whole revolting celebrity scandal.

The same night we nailed Soleimani and his comrades in Iraq we tried--but failed--to get an important Quds commander in Yemen, Abdul Reza Shahla'i. One item on his resume` is the plot to bomb a restaurant in Washington, D.C., in 2011. Tip to Instapundit.

Brokaw says the media is 24/7 rage. The man is right. I noted some time ago that I cut way back on television news to reduce my consumption of that rage (by both sides). And I've worked to cut down on linking to the "look at this outrageous thing the other side did today" stories. I really feel much better for this choice. Screaming at your television or computer screen is no way to go through life.

Military suicides have nothing to do with combat experience. Years ago--and I'm sure I mentioned it on TDR, but I didn't look for it--I thought that suicides back home were delayed war casualties. But I changed my mind after looking at the data.

So what? America (and our Western allies) and the USSR cooperated to defeat Nazi Germany! Are you saying that the USSR didn't consider America and the West in general an enemy that was temporarily useful? Really? I'm glad Soleimani is dead and I'm glad the USSR is on the ash heap of history. This isn't that complicated. Just ... stop.

In related news, the Russians are really a-holes under Putin. Their hostility is pointless, counter-productive, and speaks of mental health issues, really.

I think America and our allies could scrape China's artificial island bases in the South China Sea clean in a war. I don't think that my view that claims and control are two different things is inconsistent with saying that short of such a war that China's artificial island bases provide China with great advantages in efforts to intimidate neighbors into accepting Chinese territorial claims. And I don't think that conceding that China could put up a hard fight against an effort to scrape them clean denies that we could--and would--do that in case of a full-scale war. The author's statement that we can't smash them "early in a fight" is a standard for America that is too high. As long as the Chinese bases are scraped clean by the time the fight ends, that's good enough. The apparent idea that the standard must be that we can instantly smash them is ridiculous. Seriously, we will increase our ability to strike them as time goes on. And in the end, the author simply says that we'd have to cede control of the South China Sea in the early stages of the fight. So the author retreats a lot from the initial position, no?

I'd trade random Hong Kong protesters for random College Democrats on a one-to-one basis until every Hong Kong protester is safely in a free country. Tip to Instapundit.

Trump should say that the "cultural" targets in Iran that he said he would strike (he wouldn't, of course) are Confederate statues.

Okay, this is really funny:
 
She'll make him a commoner and cut him off. "Get woke, go broke," as the saying goes.

Seriously, the Russians are total a-holes. Not that their accusations greatly exceed the positions of a number of Democrats, of course.

Al Shabab's aggressive language and expansive threats to America after their attack on a joint US-Kenyan airfield in Kenya makes me wonder if the Iranians have pushed the Somali terror group to go after America.  Still, the issue of how the terrorists pulled this off is partly explained by the very question of why AFRICOM "has yet to explain how a lightly-armed detachment of Islamist fighters, probably numbering no more than 15, managed to cross into Kenya, advance unspotted on foot across 50 miles of bush before killing three Americans and wrecking six hi-tech surveillance aircraft." A small number of lightly armed men is hard to track and spot--even by a force with lots of surveillance assets. Being 50 miles inside Kenya is another explanation. Still, local security really should have been better than that, even for some small outpost.

Well, to be fair, the worst and most clueless failure of a secretary of state can hardly be expected to be aware of what the rest of the administration did wrong. And if there was no "whiff" of scandal that's simply because the neutered bloodhounds in our press corps weren't interested in sniffing out such things. Well, from 2009 through 2016, anyway.

So what's up in Iran? I'm not seeing a rally-around-the-mullahs that our media insists must be happening after we justly killed that Quds monster Soleimani. A presidential tweet of support to Iranians and massive Farsi likes? The British ambassador to Iran briefly arrested after a mourning for the Ukrainian flight victims turned into an anti-government rally by hundreds of students? Iran's sole female Olympics medal winner defects to the West? And it remains tense, with the Revolutionary Guards commander briefing their faux parliament on the Soleimani crisis. We've seen things like this for a couple decades now, so I don't assume it means anything bigger. Just how lucky is Trump?

ACK! doesn't like involuntary payments to her governing body and refuses to pay. Doesn't she know that it takes a village to raise a campaign war chest? I'd say Pelosi should retaliate by stripping ACK! of committee assignments, but Lord knows what the representative would do with her mouth and plenty of time on her hands.

Back channel diplomacy helped to de-escalate the Soleimani crisis.

All sides in Libya (jihadis excepted, I assume) accepted the Russian-Turkish ceasefire proposal. I'm so old that I remember when the 2011 Libya War was a test case for bombing the dictator to death and then getting out of the way so the locals can sort out their differences without our terrible meddling. That was the left's lesson from Iraq. But there was no sorting out. And now our annoying foe and allynemy (a more formalized frenemy) are poking their noses in to force a sorting in alignment with their (competing) interests. Libyans will lose in whatever deal they manage to impose. And Europeans won't like it either, if Turkey and Russia are in charge of the migrant spigot in Libya. The Obama era "Smart Diplomacy" continues to pay negative dividends.

Good grief, he's still a professor here? His concerns about endless drone bombings took a sabbatical from 2009 to 2016.

Nobody wants a war with Iran (although if the choice is between a nuclear-armed Iran and war, I'd lean strongly to the latter in a limited form targeting the nuclear sites). But do the protesters simply oppose war or do they support the Iranian mullah regime? Would they agree that the bloodless fall of the mullah regime would be a good thing for Iran, the region, and even the world? Sure, reality will fall between war with Iran and a bloodless regime change, but the answer would still be informative.

Sure, that was certainly annoying. But if I may point out the obvious, if the woman in front of the blocked woman was completely bald the woman taking the picture would still have been blocked from seeing the full screen. Just deal, people.

Should America and North Korea declare that the Korean War is over?  Recall that technically we just have a ceasefire. Perhaps that would do some good. As long as it has no legal effect. I like having the UN Security Council formally defending South Korea because if that role is ended there is no way the UN Security Council with Russia or China wielding a veto would allow the UNSC to defend South Korea if North Korea renews the war. Perhaps I'm simply refusing to accept an opportunity. But this is an issue. Perhaps if we make it a conditional end based on whether North Korea gives up nukes. The language would need to be tight so that if North Korea doesn't denuclearize that the condition that allowed for the ending of the war did not take place, so the declaration had no validity.

I literally had that poster up in my dorm room. Cancel me now for my past thoughtcrime. Tip to Instapundit.

The Army is coping with a brief recruiting shortfall. I had my own contribution to the issue a few years ago in Army magazine. The Army seems to be doing fine without my suggestion.