The US-Saudi Starvation Blockade

Authored by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

Our aim is to “starve the whole population - men, women, and children, old and young, wounded and sound - into submission,” said First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill.

He was speaking of Germany at the outset of the Great War of 1914-1918. Americans denounced as inhumane this starvation blockade that would eventually take the lives of a million German civilians.

Yet when we went to war in 1917, a U.S. admiral told British Prime Minister Lloyd George, “You will find that it will take us only two months to become as great criminals as you are.”

After the Armistice of Nov. 11, 1918, however, the starvation blockade was not lifted until Germany capitulated to all Allied demands in the Treaty of Versailles.

As late as March 1919, four months after the Germans laid down their arms, Churchill arose in Parliament to exult, “We are enforcing the blockade with rigor, and Germany is very near starvation.”

So grave were conditions in Germany that Gen. Sir Herbert Plumer protested to Lloyd George in Paris that morale among his troops on the Rhine was sinking from seeing “hordes of skinny and bloated children pawing over the offal from British cantonments.”

The starvation blockade was a war crime and a crime against humanity. But the horrors of the Second World War made people forget this milestone on the Western road to barbarism.

A comparable crime is being committed today against the poorest people in the Arab world - and with the complicity of the United States.

Saudi Arabia, which attacked and invaded Yemen in 2015 after Houthi rebels dumped over a pro-Saudi regime in Sanaa and overran much of the country, has imposed a land, sea and air blockade, after the Houthis fired a missile at Riyadh this month that was shot down.

The Saudis say it was an Iranian missile, fired with the aid of Hezbollah, and an “act of war” against the kingdom. The Houthis admit to firing the missile, but all three deny Iran and Hezbollah had any role.

Whatever the facts of the attack, what the Saudis, with U.S. support, are doing today with this total blockade of that impoverished country appears to be both inhumane and indefensible.

Almost 90 percent of Yemen’s food, fuel and medicine is imported, and these imports are being cut off. The largest cities under Houthi control, the port of Hodaida and Sanaa, the capital, have lost access to drinking water because the fuel needed to purify the water is not there.

Thousands have died of cholera. Hundreds of thousands are at risk. Children are in danger from a diphtheria epidemic. Critical drugs and medicines have stopped coming in, a death sentence for diabetics and cancer patients.

If airfields and ports under Houthi control are not allowed to open and the necessities of life and humanitarian aid are not allowed to flow in, the Yemenis face famine and starvation.

What did these people do to deserve this? What did they do to us that we would assist the Saudis in doing this to them?

The Houthis are not al-Qaida or ISIS. Those are Sunni terrorist groups, and the Houthis detest them.

Is this now the American way of war? Are we Americans, this Thanksgiving and Christmas, prepared to collude in a human rights catastrophe that will engender a hatred of us among generations of Yemeni and stain the name of our country?

Saudis argue that the specter of starvation will turn the Yemeni people against the rebels and force the Houthi to submit. But what if the policy fails. What if the Houthis, who have held the northern half of the country for more than two years, do not yield? What then?

Are we willing to play passive observer as thousands and then tens of thousands of innocent civilians — the old, sick, weak, and infants and toddlers first — die from a starvation blockade supported by the mighty United States of America?

Without U.S. targeting and refueling, Saudi planes could not attack the Houthis effectively and Riyadh could not win this war. But when did Congress authorize this war on a nation that never attacked us?

President Obama first approved U.S. support for the Saudi war effort. President Trump has continued the Obama policy, and the war in Yemen has now become his war, and his human rights catastrophe.

Yemen today is arguably the worst humanitarian crisis on earth, and America’s role in it is undeniable and indispensable.

If the United States were to tell Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman that we were no longer going to support his war in Yemen, the Saudis would have to accept the reality that they have lost this war.

Indeed, given Riyadh’s failure in the Syria civil war, its failure to discipline rebellious Qatar, its stalemated war and human rights disaster in Yemen, Trump might take a hard second look at the Sunni monarchy that is the pillar of U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf.

For The First Time In 13 Years, U.S. Deploys 7 Aircraft Carriers Simultaneously

The US has simultaneously deployed 7 of the 11 U.S. nuclear aircraft carriers for the first time in over a decade according to the US Naval Institute. The three aircraft carriers with full air wings and strike groups positioned in the Western Pacific are the following: USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76); USS Nimitz (CVN-68); USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71). Another four are conducting “short training missions as part of training operations or workups ahead of deployment”.  Two out of four are operating in Eastern Pacific -  USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) and USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74) - and the remaining two are operating in the Atlantic, the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) and USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78).

Top: USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76), USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71), USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74)
Center: USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72)
Bottom: USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70), USS Nimitz (CVN-68), USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78)

Back in 2016, six carriers were underway and that was considered a “milestone event” by Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson. The last time 7 carriers were deployed dates back to 2004, according to USNI. The report quotes an unidentified Navy official to sheds more light on the upcoming drills:

The Reagan, Nimitz and Roosevelt strike groups are all operating in the U.S. 7th Fleet area of operations. Reagan is operating in the Sea of Japan near the Korean peninsula while Nimitz is returning to its homeport at Naval Station Kitsap-Bremerton, Wash. after a deployment to the Persian Gulf to conduct air strike against ISIS targets. Roosevelt deployed from San Diego, Calif. on Oct. 7 set to replace Nimitz as part of the continued U.S. operation against ISIS.

More basic details were provided by the report for the remaining aircraft carriers:

• Vinson is conducting a planned sustainment exercise and flight tests with the F-35C Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter, while Stennis left Kitsap-Bremerton last week for training after coming out of a repair period. A sailor on Vinson was injured Friday after being struck with a plane being towed on the flight deck.


• Lincoln is undergoing a series of qualifications following the completion of a mid-life refueling and complex overhaul and return to the fleet in May.


• Ford is continuing years of tests and training before the ship will be fully integrated into the U.S. fleet and leave on its first deployment sometime in the early 2020s.

“Naval aviation is supporting the requirements of combatant commanders forward while building our capabilities for future deployments–and qualifying new pilots–with training near our shores,” Vice Adm. Michael Shoemaker, commander Naval Air Forces said in a Monday statement provided to USNI News.
“The addition of USS Gerald Ford is exciting, as we test the capabilities for the future. This optempo is not ordinary, but the demand for carriers remains as high as ever.”

Also on Monday, VoA"s White House bureau chief Steve Herman, confirmed what had been speculated previously, namely that 3 of the carriers will participate in an extremely rare drill in "the estern Pacific", read off the Korean peninsula. As the report states, this would be the first time the “7th Fleet converged for the “first simultaneous three-strike group training operations in a decade”.

Confirmed: @USNavy to stage exercise in western Pacific in coming days with 3 aircraft carrier strike groups.

— Steve Herman (@W7VOA) November 6, 2017

Last week, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Joseph Dunford tried to diffuse the situation, saying that “these three carriers are not there specifically targeting North Korea. This is a routine demonstration of our commitment to the region.” The exercise is overlapping President Trump’s 12-day excursion across Asia amid high-tensions between Pyongyang and Washington.

Indicatively, as of last week, this was the latest positioning of US Carrier Strike Groups, courtesy of Stratfor.

The timing of the 3-carrier drill in the Western Pacific coincides with President Trump’s trip to South Korea. As Trump’s latest tweet indicates (4:28pm), he is “getting ready to leave for South Korea”.

Getting ready to leave for South Korea and meetings with President Moon, a fine gentleman. We will figure it all out!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 6, 2017

With 7 carriers deployed today of which 3 about to launch drills in Western Pacific, we find it odd this is all occurring around President Trump’s trip to Asia.

On October 28, North Korea accused the US of making “criminal moves for igniting a war of aggression”, after Kim Jong-Un learned three US-Navy carriers will operate in Asian waters. According to Jim Mattis, United States Secretary of Defense, said “our goal is not war, but rather the complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula”, something North Korea has previously said it will never agree to.

Finally, another drill that should be closely watched is Israel’s “largest-ever aerial military drill”, which started yesterday. Sometimes these drills "accidentally" go live. 

Crash Landing Of U.S. F-18 Fighter Jet Closes Bahrain's International Airport

A US F-18 fighter jet crash landed at Bahrain"s international airport Saturday, causing the complete closure of the island"s main commercial flight hub. Photos and brief video footage quickly posted online shows a badly damaged but intact jet with its tail on the ground and nose in the air in a gravel area located completely off the runway.

According to a statement by Navy Cmdr. Bill Urban, the jet suffered engine trouble after taking off from the USS Nimitz in the Persian Gulf and attempted to make it to Sheikh Isa Air Base in Bahrain but instead had to attempt an emergency landing at the busy commercial airport. The pilot ejected as the jet skidded off the runway and escaped unharmed.

US Navy Super Hornet at Bahrain International Airport. Image: Twitter

Bahrain, which is connected by bridge to Saudi Arabia, is home to the US Navy’s 5th Fleet and about 8,000 US military personnel which are mostly attached to the island nation"s Naval Support Activity base, which monitors and supports all 20+ US and coalition naval vessels in the Persian Gulf. Britain is also currently constructing a major base on the island.

The airport shut down for about 7 hours and Bahrain"s Ministry of Transportation and Telecommunications said that no one was injured in the crash.

Bahrain and allies Kuwait and the UAE are geographically at the forefront of a pro-Sunni GCC arch (Gulf Cooperation Council) along the Persian Gulf, which seek to maintain a collective barrier against Iranian interests.   US military presence in these countries is considered vital by the host nations in ensuring both defensive posture against Iran and stability against Shia opposition groups and popular movements at home. 

The Persian Gulf has been increasingly busy in terms of military and naval activity over the past years, with the potential for highly visible provocations between Western vessels and Iran on the rise. A 2016 incident in which an Iranian boat intercepted two US Navy patrol boats on their way to Bahrain resulted in the brief arrest and detention of ten US service members by Iran"s elite Revolutionary Guards. At the time US media presented the incident as an Iranian act of aggression, though a US Navy investigation later confirmed that the US boats were in Iranian territorial waters after having violated dozens of Navy protocols. A total of nine officer and enlisted personnel were later disciplined over the incident - with some officers being relieved of their command - which reportedly embarrassed the White House shortly before Obama"s last State of the Union address.

Iranian Drone Flies Within 100 Feet Of U.S. F-18 In Persian Gulf

While the US government is busy deciding how to tag and track the millions of drones flying over populated areas, potentially jeopardizing aircraft as they take off and land, the US military just had a close encounter in the Persian Gulf, where Reuters reports that an Iranian drone came within 100 feet of a U.S. Navy warplane as it prepared to land on the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier off the coast of Iran in the Gulf. The officials said the drone forced the US aircraft to take evasive action.

As AP adds, the drone came within 100 feet below the aircraft and 200 feet to the side of the aircraft. The F/A-18 was in a landing pattern several thousand feet off the deck of the ship waiting to land.

The F/A-18 maneuvered repeatedly to avoid the Iranian QOM-1 drone. The drone did not appear to be armed.

The officials said the drone encounter was considered unsafe and
unprofessional. The US used an emergency radio frequency in the
immediate area to warn those operating the drone to back away. It did
eventually move off.

Since there is no rain over Bedminster, NJ today and Trump is out golfing, we will have to wait at least 3-5 hours before there is an official White House tweet response.

Analysis: Advantages And Disadvantages Of US Seaborne Laser Weapon System

Authored by Andrei Akulov via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

This news hits the world media headlines.

US Navy has started life-tests of the world"s first drone-killing laser reported to move at the speed of light and to be "more precise than a bullet". Laser weapons project a coherent ray of directed photons (light) that strike their target virtually instantaneously. The massive amount of energy released from the weapon was able to down the drone by setting its wing on fire. The speed – 50,000 times the speed of an incoming intercontinental ballistic missile – makes it unnecessary to lead the target.

Silent and generally invisible, as it usually operates at an optical wavelength indiscernible to the human eye, the Laser Weapons System (LaWS) runs off its own electrical generator and needs no ammunition. Highly accurate, it is very effective when used against small, speedy targets, including incoming rockets, small drones and artillery shells. Low maintenance, high safety, and long lifespan are desirable characteristics.

The cost is «about a dollar a shot». Intended primarily to disable or destroy aircraft and small boats, the 30-kilowatt laser weapon is currently onboard the USS Ponce deployed in the Persian Gulf. It is predicted to be combat ready by 2020. A full-power hundred-kilowatt Free Electron Laser is slated for testing in 2018, and might see use on the Navy’s new Zumwalt-class stealth destroyers. The Navy plans to create 150 kilowatts lasers in more distant future.

To believe what the media say – the US has made a great stride ahead to acquire a superweapon, giving it a critical advantage over any potential enemy in the world. No doubt, the ongoing tests testify to the fact that the US Navy has achieved some progress in developing small-size laser systems capable of striking small targets at limited ranges. This is a story of success but it also calls for an objective review.

There are limitations and shortcomings.

Directed energy weapons are still in their relatively early days. The maximum range is limited as laser energy tends to diffuse in the atmosphere, especially when obstructed by sand, smoke or fog. Atmospheric absorption, scattering, and turbulence prevent shipboard lasers from being all weather weapons.

A laser beam has difficulty burning through denser materials. It needs time to inflict the damage and disable a heavy projectile. With no kinetic impact, a laser may fail to stop the target. In theory, laser weapons may be used for offensive missions, but the primary function is defensive. The LaWS has a very limited operational range – one to three km. It is no comparison to other combat systems. Lasers are no substitute for guns and missiles. They can add to the defensive capabilities but cannot be used as primary strike weapons.

The operator of a laser weapon must account for the movement of the target, the movement of the firing platform, decoys, dummies, or multiple war warheads that the enemy may use. Countermeasures to laser guidance also include laser detection systems, smoke screen and anti-laser active protection systems. Targets can be coated with materials that can absorb laser energy. Countering saturation attacks is also a problem.

Are laser weapons as low price as they are described for advertising purposes? But an infrared laser’s sophisticated optical guidance system and focusing lenses are not cheap. The weapon is fast but still a target must be designated, information processed and communicated to ensure accuracy. It is not done as immediately as media describe, it does take a few seconds. So, it is not exactly “the speed of light”. Besides, a laser weapons is installed on a platform vulnerable to precision-guided weapons.

There are some legal restrictions: the 1995 Protocol On Blinding Laser Weapons, a part of the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons – forbids the use of “dazzler” lasers explicitly designed to permanently blind the eyesight of adversaries. It discourages the use of laser combat systems as anti-personnel weapons but it can be used against platforms – aircraft, armor vehicles and ships.

The LaWS is no game changer. It boasts no dominant role in modern warfare. Besides, with the current tests conducted with a thumb pressed firmly on the scale, the system has never seen combat. With all the limitations mentioned above, the weapon will not likely be ready for prime time anytime soon.

Navy Unveils World's First Active Laser Weapon In Persian Gulf

Three months ago we introduced China"s "silent hunter" experimental laser gun, and now, as CNN reports, in the waters of the Persian Gulf looms the US Navy"s first - in fact, the world"s first - active laser weapon.

The LaWS, an acronym for Laser Weapons System, is not science fiction. It is not experimental. It is deployed on board the USS Ponce amphibious transport ship, ready to be fired at targets today and every day by Capt. Christopher Wells and his crew.

CNN was granted exclusive access to a live-fire test of the laser.

For the test, the USS Ponce crew launched the target -- a drone aircraft. Immediately, the weapons team zeroed in.

"We don"t have to lead a target," Hughes explained. "We"re doing that engagement at the speed of light so it really is a point and shoot -- we see it, we focus on it, and we can negate that target."

In an instant, the drone"s wing lit up, heated to a temperature of thousands of degrees, lethally damaging the aircraft and sending it hurtling down to the sea. The strike comes silently and invisibly.

"It is more precise than a bullet," Wells told CNN.

"It"s not a niche weapon system like some other weapons that we have throughout the military where it"s only good against air contacts, or it"s only good against surface targets, or it"s only good against, you know, ground-based targets -- in this case this is a very versatile weapon, it can be used against a variety of targets."

LaWS begins with an advantage no other weapon ever invented comes even close to matching. It moves, by definition, at the speed of light. For comparison, that is 50,000 times the speed of an incoming ICBM.

"It is throwing massive amounts of photons at an incoming object," said Lt. Cale Hughes, laser weapons system officer.

"We don"t worry about wind, we don"t worry about range, we don"t worry about anything else. We"re able to engage the targets at the speed of light."

All the $40 million system needs to operate is a supply of electricity, which is derived from its own small generator, and has a crew of three. No multi-million-dollar missile, no ammunition at all.

The cost per use? "It"s about a dollar a shot," said Hughes.

President Trump"s military budget problems solved?

Persian Gulf Feud

Riyadh accusing Qatar of supporting terrorism ignores the pernicious regional infestation of Saudi-supported extremist Wahhabism, the ideology connected to ISIS and likeminded groups.

Both countries support regional terrorist groups, both US allies, despite mixed messages from Washington on Qatar.

Secretary of State Tillerson called for “no further escalation by the parties in the region, (urging) calm and thoughtful dialogue” to resolve things, asking other Gulf states to ease their blockade, citing humanitarian reasons ignored by Washington in all its wars.

Qatar is home to the Pentagon’s Central Command, thousands of US military personnel stationed in the country. During his visit to Riyadh, Trump met with emir al-Thani, saying Washington’s “relationship (with the country) is extremely good.”

On Friday, he tone changed, calling Qatar a longtime “funder of terrorism at a very high level…Stop teaching hate. Stop the killing,” he said.

The diplomatic standoff continues. Iran offered Qatar use of its southern ports to import needed goods. The tiny Gulf state is import-dependent.

On Wednesday, an Iranian cargo plane delivered tons of supplies to Qatar. National Agricultural Products Federation of Iran president Reza Nourani said talks are underway to export food to the nation.

It’s currently sending around 50 tons daily to the region. Some of it could be diverted to Qatar. Iranian ships can supply much more of what’s needed.

Turkey’s Erdogan pledged support for the al-Thani regime, one rogue leader supporting another.

Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the UAE, Egypt, one of the rival Libyan regimes, the Saudi-supported Yemeni one, and the Maldives cut ties with Qatar, imposing a land and sea blockade.

On Thursday, they designated 59 individuals and 12 entities in the country as terrorist organizations.

Qatar is Turkey’s staunchest regional ally. It plans building a military base in the country to confront unnamed “common enemies,” according to Turkish ambassador Ahmet Demirok.

Ankara is already allied with Qatar militarily, small numbers of its forces in the country. Plans are for many more to be deployed.

Gulf states welcomed Trump’s criticism of Qatar. It has nothing to do with supporting terrorism, no nations more supportive than America, its key NATO allies, Israel, the Saudis and other regional rogue states.

Part of the dispute is over Qatari/Iranian ties and its alleged Muslim Brotherhood support. A larger issue is over control of regional oil, gas, pipelines supplying it and their routes.

If the region wasn’t resource rich, it wouldn’t suffer from endless US-led wars. Syria is targeted for regime change to eliminate an Israeli rival and isolate Iran – ahead of longstanding plans to replace its government with pro-Western puppet rule.

Will Saudi forces invade Qatar to transform the state into a Riyadh satellite? Is Trump signed on to the scheme?

Is another regional war likely besides those raging in Iraq, Syria and Yemen?

Institute for Gulf Affairs director Ali al-Ahmed believes it’s coming. He “received reports of Saudi military movements near the Qatari border” days earlier.

“They are preparing,” he said. If Saudi terror-bombing of Yemen eases, it would indicate a likely move against Qatar, he said.

“I have it on good authority that Trump has already told the Saudis he would have no objection,” he explained. Egypt, the UAE and Bahrain will support the action, he added.

Riyadh wants Qatar reduced to satellite state status, along with control over its resources and cash reserves, said al-Ahmed.

“Saudi Arabia was a state founded on the principle of robbery and looting. That is what the al-Saud originally were: They were desert raiders and looters. They were desert pirates. Now they desperately need money again,” he explained.

If he’s right, Saudi war on Qatar with US and regional support could happen any time.

Dubai's First "Robocop" Reports For Duty

Dubai is bringing job-killing automation out of the factories and into the streets as its first robotic police officer officially reported for duty on Thursday. The United Arab Emirates hopes that "robocops" like this one will comprise 25% of Dubai"s police force by 2030.

As Agence France Press reported, the robotic cop posed for souvenir photos with tourists at the foot of the Burj Khalifa on Thursday. Dubai’s government plans to deploy its new cadre of robot officers at tourist destinations like the world"s tallest tower.

A camera installed on the robot sends a live feed to police headquarters, while a touchscreen installed on its chest area will allow citizens and tourists to report crimes, pay traffic tickets and submit paperwork, according to United Press International. Its facial recogniition software can also be used to identify facial expressions, so if somebody approaches the robot looking upset or scared, it can try to calm them down.

The robot, which travels on wheels, is five feet, five inches tall, weighs 100 kilograms and can speak six languages, according to UNI.

Gadgets360: Robocop Joins Dubai Police to Fight Real Life Crime https://t.co/7LqtnjMpbI pic.twitter.com/khlD6rSr35

— Ravindra Bhadu (@RavindraBhadu) June 1, 2017

As AFP reports: “The main purpose is to ‘find a new way to deal with people’, said Brigadier Khaled al-Razzooqi, head of Smart Services at Dubai police."

Al-Razzooqui acknowledged that the robot wouldn’t be able to replicate certain tasks, like arresting suspects, that’re best reserved for humans.  Though Dubai is hopeful that advances in artificial intelligence might allow it to patrol the streets, make arrests and perform other more complex tasks by 2030.

Police in Dubai, a popular tourist destination that attracted 15 million visitors last year according to AFP, previously made headlines by purchasing luxury cars like Ferraris and Lamborghinis and using them as patrol vehicles.

Time For The US To Take A Step Back From Afghanistan

Submitted by James Durso, originaly posted op-ed via The Hill,

Otto von Bismarck said, “The whole of the Balkans is not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier.” America should apply the same reasoning to Afghanistan.

This month we learned the U.S. Marines are back in Helmand, Afghanistan’s most violent province and the center of opium poppy production, and their mission may expand. President Trump will soon decide if he should send 8,400 more troops there for the latest chapter in America’s longest war. Should he?

I think not. We gave Afghanistan out best effort: over 2,200 dead soldiers, over 20,000 wounded, and over $700 billion for everything from ammunition to medical care for veterans. We need to face the fact that it’s an endemically violent place and may never change and another “whole of government” effort may not make any difference.

And don’t take my word for it: the Talban has rejected peace talks with the Afghan government as surrendering to the enemy and against Islam.

The Afghans have seen off every visitor and invader, from Alexander the Great to the U.S. Central Command, so why spend another dollar there? For example, the regional transport network has avoided Afghanistan and the enthusiasts for a New Silk Road or One Belt, One Road haven’t absorbed that the world is avoiding Afghanistan not out of stupidity but out of hard-won experience.

Yes, there is wealth to be had: Russian, British, and American geologists have found that Afghanistan has enormous untapped mineral resources, valued at $1 to $3 trillion. The minerals are in the ground, sure, but there’s no way to get them out so they’re effectively worth nothing. And there’s no way to get them out because the country is violent and corrupt which scares away prudent investors.

In 2008, the Chinese won the rights to the Aynak copper mine for $3 billion and an alleged $30 million bribe to the minister of mines. In 2017, no copper has yet been mined and the Chinese executive heading the project has been expelled from the Communist party for corruption. The only good news, if you can call it that, has been the recent Taliban green light for the restart of the project.

Wise Western investors should temporarily cede the field to the Chinese, Pakistanis, and Iranians — our enemies and frenemies — and let them try to make something of it. Afghanistan will still want friends in the West and we should exercise some of that recently derided “strategic patience” until the time is right and the Chinese have worn out their welcome when the Afghans realize they won’t create any jobs. Dealing with Afghanistan should be like buying a used car — let someone else take the loss and get it later at a savings. In this case, the savings of American lives and the bandwidth our leaders can devote to tractable issues.  

What should the U.S. do? 

• Ensure the Afghans who helped our military and diplomatic effort as translators or other helpers get visas to the U.S. Yes, that will cause a brain drain, but as it stands now, they’re not being given the chance — by their own government or the Taliban — to do what they’re capable of, so their talent is being wasted. It won’t be wasted in the U.S.

• Enact a soft cordon to protect the neighboring Central Asian states. They have less transparency than we like but have functioning governments and moderate, secular societies. The U.S. should increase military-to-military and cop-to-cop relationships with Central Asia, both for security sector reform and border security to stanch the flow of drugs. If the effort works, and the flow is diverted via Pakistan and Iran, it will increase addiction and public corruption and give the U.S. another lever to use when dealing with Tehran and Islamabad. Central Asia has a lot of human potential, mineral and energy resources, and is an East-West transport route. The transporters will lose a north-south route to the Indian Ocean and the Arabian Sea via Afghanistan and Pakistan, but the Central Asian states can continue to trade to the Persian Gulf via Iran.

• Focus our effort on the narcotics trade and its twin, money laundering. Afghanistan has one successful export: poppy, which accounts for 90 percent of worldwide production of heroin, and the area under cultivation has increased in fits and starts since 2002. Destinations for drug proceeds and stolen government funds, like the United Arab Emirates, are more interested in being word-class business centers than hosting crash pads for narcos, so we can count on their continued cooperation and assistance. U.S. assistance to Afghanistan’s counter-narcotics effort, which will be centered in Helmand Province — the destination for all those Marines — can be refashioned to technical intelligence support to supplement HUMINT networks. 

We did our best in Afghanistan, but it’s time to move on.

Trump Inks Largest Arms Deal in U.S. History with Country He Said Funded ISIS

There was a lot of pomp and circumstance upon Trump"s arrival in Saudi Arabia. It"s important to note, after 8 years of Iranian friendly Obama, the Saudis have strong motives to curry the favor of the new American President.

The visit to Saudi Arabia is historic. It marks the first time in American history a President had chosen to make Saudi Arabia his first international visit. Upon landing in the oil rich gulf state, the President signed a massive arms deal -- which could swell to more than $350b over the next decade. The deal includes blackhawk helicopters, a modified version of the Freedom-variant Littoral Combat Ship, thousands of precision guided weaponry, cargo helicopters, transport helicopters, 115 M1A2s tanks, anti-ballistic missile systems (THAAD), and "maritime assets."

The theory behind arming Saudi Arabia is that it would permit them to handle Iran in the Persian Gulf, granting us license to throw a few logs on the fire and doze off a bit while they do all the work for a change. All that sounds well and good, especially since the money will be spent with our weapons manufacturers, who employ thousands of Americans. But what about all of the stuff Trump said about Saudi Arabia during the campaign? Does that count for anything, or was it just election time shit talking?

Here"s Trump chastising Clinton for accepting Saudi money, a country that "kills women" and "treat women horribly."

Or what about the time Trump told The Morning Shill that Saudi Arabia was arming ISIS?

This is the "if, then" logic I want to put on the table for you to think about. If Saudi Arabia funds radical Islam and ISIS, like Trump said, then should we be selling them advanced weaponry?

One minor detail that is vexing me today. All of the conservatards are out in force, praising Melania Trump for not wearing a headscarf, which she"s 100% right for doing.

But Michelle Obama didn"t wear one either. I don"t know why people are saying she did wear one.

As a matter of fact, President Trump actually had the stones to criticize Michelle for doing so back then, calling it an insult.

Many people are saying it was wonderful that Mrs. Obama refused to wear a scarf in Saudi Arabia, but they were insulted.We have enuf enemies

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 29, 2015

If we"re gonna talk about this "historic trip", let"s be honest about it then.
Content originally published at iBankCoin.com

Caught On Tape: U.S. Security Contractors Open Fire On Somali Pirates

Following the highjacking of a cargo ship near the coast of Somalia in April of 2009, ocean transport companies began taking the threat of modern day pirates seriously. For years Somali pirates were able to easily board ships and hold their crew for ransom, at times even going so far as to torture or kill hostages until their demands were met.

But, as SHTFplan.com"s Mac Slavo writes, it looks like the pirate business has gotten significantly more dangerous for maritime criminals who are often under-equipped and travelling in speed boats.

As the following series of videos shows, U.S. security contractors are prepared to take rapid and deadly action when being pursued or engaged on the high seas:

One guard begins by firing warning shots around the boat which can be seen landing just feet away from the speedboat.

After firing dozens of rounds at the speedboat which crashes into the ship’s hull, one contractor can be heard shouting: ‘Where they at, what’s their position?’

As one speedboat careers off in retreat security can be heard calling: ‘Second skip coming in.’

A second boat races towards the starboard of the ship.

Security guards fire dozens more rounds at the vessel which eventually retreats. 

Full report: The Daily Mail

In the first video, security contractors initially fire warning shots at an approaching ship. The initial volley of firepower doesn’t seem to slow the pirates down, however, leading to a barrage of bullets:

In the second video, shot from various angles, we see the contractors engage a second pirate vessel (skip to about 0:45 for new footage):

According to common maritime law, a ship that is engaged in international waters may defend itself through force when confronted by armed pirates:

Private security teams patrol the decks of around 40% of large vessels in the “high-risk area” that stretches from the Persian Gulf to the Seychelles in the south and the Maldives in the east. When pirates attack, these armed guards respond with flares or warning shots. This usually scares off assailants (or sends them in search of easier prey). If it fails, they fire at an attacking boat’s engine, before finally turning their sights on the pirates. No ship carrying armed guards has so far been hijacked.

Fight Of The Century

Submitted by Jeff Thomas via InternationalMan.com,

In March 1933, the Enabling Act was passed by the Reichstag, Germany’s parliament. Its purpose was to provide Chancellor Adolf Hitler with the ability to bypass the Reichstag. It allowed him (amongst other measures) emergency powers to legally wage pre-emptive war without any further parliamentary or presidential approval, or even discussion.

In January 2017, H.J. Res 10 was introduced to the US House of Representatives. Its intent was simple and straightforward:

This joint resolution authorizes the President to use the U.S. Armed Forces as necessary in order to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Introduced by Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL), the bill seeks to give the president unilateral authority to legally wage pre-emptive war without any further Congressional approval, or even discussion.

So, is it possible that the US is following a similar path to that of 1930’s Germany? Well, let’s look a bit closer and see.

During his campaign, Mister Trump was very vocal with regard to his sentiments toward Iran and, since his inauguration, has famously put Iran “on notice.”

He has the full support of his chief advisers on this issue. His national security adviser, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, and his defence secretary, Gen. James Mattis, have both recently accused Iran of being the world’s leading “state sponsor of terrorism.” New head of the CIA, Mike Pompeo, also favours invading Iran.

On the other side of the fence, Ayatollah Khamenei has behaved with traditional Iranian braggadocio, saying of Mister Trump,

We actually thank this new president… What we have been saying for more than 30 years about the political, economic, moral, and social corruption within the US ruling establishment, he revealed during the election campaign and after the elections.

With each side goading the other, both sides seem to be as eager to “get into the ring” as Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier were in 1971’s “Fight of the Century.”

So, will the match take place? Well, it appears that the sabre-rattling has become more serious of late and, unless one side chooses to back down, war could occur early in the Trump presidency. Ironically, for Mister Trump, this could be a good thing, as the US has never been more divided with regard to its support of its president. However, in times of war, party rhetoric dies down considerably and nations rally round their leader.

I have previously described Mister Trump with the medical term “productive narcissist,” as he is a textbook example. Were I an American citizen, any criticism of Mister Trump would likely label me a liberal, which I am not. But, at the present time, Americans are so divided that they are expected by their peers to be “pro-Trump” or “anti-Trump,” with little allowance for objective observation.

If my psychological assessment is correct, Mister Trump could be predicted to not only pursue conflict with Iran, but revel in it. Certainly, the conflict would result in his becoming the most focused-on man on earth. An EU breakup, collapsing economies, failing currencies, and bank confiscations would all take a back seat to the main event: the fight of the century, as Mister Trump and the Ayatollah step into the ring.

Unfortunately, war, as attractive as it often is to political leaders, tends not to work out as well as expected. It tends to be more prolonged and more devastating than any leader ever anticipates.

First, each protagonist tends to underestimate the ability of the other to wage war successfully. Second, he tends not to take into account whom his opposite number can count on for support. This is especially significant with regard to the upcoming contest, as both Russia and China have declared their support for Iran. It’s unlikely that the US, even if it were to gain the support of the EU, could take on both these nuclear powers. In addition, the EU may well be on the verge of collapse. Individual European countries have sought to increase their trade with the Russians even as the US has sought to implement sanctions against them.

Further, as I have often stated, “Any country that is considering waging war against another country should first consider that the loser is almost always the country that runs out of money first.”

The US is at present more greatly in debt than ever before in its history and can ill afford to dive into a war that is almost certain to become a world war.

The last time the world was this close to a world war was in 1962, when US President John Kennedy wrestled with the Cuban Missile Crisis. At that time, the military Joint Chiefs of Staff advised an all-out attack. Mister Kennedy, thankfully, took a backward step and appealed to Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev to do the same. Mister Khrushchev agreed, and the world was saved from nuclear war by two men who had the sense to calm down and back off.

So, some fifty-odd years later, will we be so fortunate? The US President appears to approach aggression with gusto. A lover of challenges, he appears quite willing to put on the gloves and to do so soon.

Another difference between 1962 and 2017 is that, back then, most Americans wanted no part of warfare, having lived through World War II. Today, with the help of the media, the average American not only believes in “American exceptionalism,” but has been programmed to believe that Russian President Putin is a highly aggressive leader who needs to have his wings clipped. If anything, Mister Putin is, in fact, more the diplomat than his predecessor, Mister Khrushchev, and has exhibited a desire to tone down the ongoing vitriol from the West.

Effectively, the US media and many Americans are already filling up the grandstands before the Fight of the Century has even been announced. At present, only two small acts remain necessary to bring about the match.

The first would be the passage of H.J. Res 10, which, as it has been proposed by a Democrat, is likely to gain support by the left as well as the right. After that, all that would be necessary would be a decision from a president who, if appearances are correct, is seeking his place in history as “the Great Man.”

Hopefully, sanity will prevail, but the odds don’t seem to support that possibility.

Indeed, the UK, US, and allied military forces are about to undertake operation “Unified Trident,” a joint exercise in the Persian Gulf, intended to simulate a military confrontation with Iran. (Iran most certainly will not look upon this as mere “games.”)

It’s always wise to hope for the best but assume the worst. If H.J. Res 10 does pass, the reader would be advised to begin his plan as to where he wants to be if a world war erupts. He should bear in mind that, in the two previous world wars, many countries did not participate and relative calm existed in many places in the world. The same promises to hold true this time around.

*  *  *

In the months ahead, a fight with Iran pitting the US against Russia and China in a full-blown world war is a real possibility. But, unfortunately, “collapsing economies, failing currencies, and bank confiscations” are virtual certainties.

Armed with the right knowledge, you can sidestep this chaos. We recently released an urgent video with all the details. Click here to watch it.

BREAKING: US Navy ‘Fires Warning Shots’ at Iranian Vessels in Strait of Hormuz

According to unnamed defense officials, a U.S. Navy ship fired warning shots at four Iranian Revolutionary Guard vessels in the Strait of Hormuz after the ships advanced to close to their American counterparts.

Reuters reports:

“The officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the USS Mahan established radio communication with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps boats but they did not respond to requests to slow down and continued asking the Mahan questions.

“The Navy destroyer fired warning flares and a U.S. Navy helicopter also dropped a smoke float before the warning shots were fired.”

Defense officials claim the Iranian ships came within 900 yards (2,700 feet) of the Mahan, which had been tasked with protecting other U.S. vessels in the area.

As the southern entry point to the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz — although technically the territorial waters of Oman — is considered international waters and thus traversable by any nation. However, Iran — positioned on the north of the strait — has repeatedly threatened during instances of geopolitical turmoil to refuse entry to the United States and other nations.

With the situation in the Middle East — particularly regarding Syria and Yemen — still fueling tension between the West and a growing bloc of nations allied with Russia, there have been hints Tehran could follow through on its threat to close the maritime ‘choke point.’

In January 2016, ten U.S. Navy members were briefly captured and detained by Iran after their ship putatively experienced a malfunction of navigational systems and strayed into Iranian waters. That incident came under intense scrutiny, and an internal probe found both Iran and U.S. crew members at fault. According to Admiral John Richardson, in part,

“The investigation concluded that Iran violated international law by impeding the boats’ innocent passage transit, and they violated sovereign immunity by boarding, searching and seizing the boats and by photographing and videotaping the crew.”

Pictures and video of the Navy crew being detained sparked international controversy and heightened tensions between the two countries as Iran rightly called out the U.S. for breaching its territory and the U.S. admonished Tehran for the way it handled the incident.

In October, the U.S. reported missiles launched from Houthi rebel territory in Yemen led the military to fire back, knocking out strategic radar sites and other important targets in the area. As The Free Thought Project explained at the time,

“Yemen’s Shi’a Houthis — who captured capital city, Sana’a, last year — have long been suspected by Washington to be receiving direct but surreptitious support from the Iranian government, which flatly denies the allegation.”

Because the Houthis denied having fired upon any U.S. ships — and the situation seemed murky and inexplicable — retaliation drew the ire of Yemeni government-allied Iran, which deployed a fleet to the area.

That incident is believed to be the official U.S. entry into the war in Yemen, although the situation didn’t escalate further with Tehran.

Years of hostilities between the United States and Iran cooled somewhat over a deal to curb Tehran’s nuclear weapons ambitions; however, Reuters notes, “serious differences still remain over Iran’s ballistic missile program as well as conflicts in Syria and Iraq.”

According to one unnamed official whom Reuters paraphrased, “the warning shots fired on Sunday were just one of seven interactions the Mahan had with Iranian vessels over the weekend, but the others were judged to be safe.”

Should Iranian vessels harass any U.S. Navy ships, President-elect Donald Trump warned in September, they would be “shot out of the water.”

Reuters was unable to reach the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps or Trump’s transition team for comment on the weekend’s events.

US To Sell 8 Million Barrels Of Oil From The Strategic Petroleum Reserve

Two weeks ago we previewed that the U.S. Department of Energy could begin to sell off some of its strategic petroleum reserve (SPR) as soon as January, the beginning of a multi-year process to shrink the nation’s stockpile of oil. Congress has authorized DOE to sell off $375.4 million worth of oil in its recent budget resolution. The DOE said that such a sale could be held in January 2017.

Part of the motivation to sell crude is to finance upkeep for the SPR itself. The reserves are held in salt caverns in Louisiana and Texas, setup decades ago in the aftermath of the Arab Oil Embargo in 1973. The SPR system can hold more than 700 million barrels of oil, the largest strategic stockpile in the world. The idea is that the SPR holds 90 days’ worth of oil supplies, which could be released in the event of a global outage. A release has only occurred a handful of times, such as the Persian Gulf War, Hurricane Katrina and the Arab Spring.

Some of the storage systems are rusting and corroding after decades of use. In September, the DOE issued a report to Congress, which came to a dire conclusion about the condition of the reserve. “This equipment today is near, at, or beyond the end of its design life,” the report said. The sale "will allow the Department to take necessary steps to increase the integrity and extend the life” of the reserve, a DOE spokesperson said in December after the budget resolution was passed.

In the past, the SPR has been viewed as a cornerstone of US energy security policy. As long as the U.S. had 3 months’ worth of supply, it could weather unexpected disruptions. The International Energy Agency was setup in the 1970s as well, and participating members – in addition to the U.S., the group includes Europe, Japan, Korea, Australia and New Zealand – also have pledged to hold a 90-day supply. However, U.S. policymakers no longer view the SPR is all that important. Even the more hawkish members of Congress have been lulled into a sense of security from the surge in U.S. oil production and the resulting crash in oil prices. The world is awash in oil, so why does the U.S. need to stockpile such a massive volume of oil at great expense? The ostensible reason of selling off oil from the SPR is to finance its maintenance to ensure its existence over the long-term, but if the Congress still truly believed in the importance of the SPR, they would have found funding elsewhere instead of reducing the stockpile.

In any event, the previously previewed sale is about to take place, and according to an announcement by the DOE, the US will offer to sell some 8 million barrels from the petroleum reserve. According to the notice of sale, the Energy Department is accepting bids on sweet crude oil until 2pm CT Jan. 17. The contracts will then awarded by the end of January, with early deliveries expected in February and other deliveries in March, April.

The sale includes:

• Up to 3m bbl from Bryan Mound


• Up to 3m bbl from Big Hill


• Up to 2m bbl from West Hackberry

It is unclear yet if the upcoming sale will pressure oil prices, or whether China - which unlike the US has been aggressively stockpiling oil for its own strategic petroleum reserve over the past year - will be the ultimate buyer.