Biden Drops Out

Biden drops out and the Harris candidacy! 

When President Joe Biden announced his withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race, it sent shockwaves through the nation during a particularly tense election season. But that shockwave also extended around the globe at a time of unprecedented conflict and crisis. Past American presidential elections have rarely been fought over foreign or national security policy, but the 2024 election could be different. Whoever is elected in November will face confrontations with America’s nuclear rivals – China and Russia. Both these ongoing “cold wars” are just one crisis away from dramatic escalation. 

Biden, known for his foreign policy bona fides and support for US allies, was considered a steady hand on the international stage. His decision to endorse his running mate – Vice President Kamala Harris – to take up his mantle has raised some questions, however, especially since many believe she has limited international experience.   

So, what does this decision mean for American national security and foreign affairs between now and the inauguration of a new president? Since it now appears Harris is the presumptive candidate for the Democratic Party, what is her background on national security issues and foreign policy views? How would a Harris administration differ from Biden’s or former President Donald Trump’s – and what policies might she pursue?  

Biden’s lame duck six months 

Before reviewing Biden’s final six months as president, It is important to acknowledge that there is no possibility that he will step down from the presidency despite the recommendation of the Speaker of the House and other Republicans.   

What is accurate, however, is that during these final days Biden will essentially operate as a “lame duck”. This was already likely to be true in terms of legislative or budgetary matters, as there was little chance of a significant vote by Congress prior to the election. As of now, considering their eagerness to return to the campaign trail, it appears Congress is more likely to lean onto a continuing resolution for the budget issues that remain. 

But that means that Biden can spend these final months focused on what has been a key part of his presidency – foreign policy and national security. Secretary of State Antony Blinken appeared to make it clear that would be a continuing focus in a statement that he made on X after Biden announced the end of his re-election campaign. 

President Biden “has restored U.S. leadership around the world and delivered historic accomplishments as President. I look forward to building on that record with him over the next six months,” Blinken wrote.  

Biden will undoubtedly want to use this time as an opportunity to cement his legacy. As with any transition of power, some of America’s foes may believe that the time is ripe to challenge the US or seek to simply “wait Biden out”. Moscow or Beijing might believe they will have an easier time with an untested Kamala Harris or a historically volatile Donald Trump. But the president has always maintained that this area is one of his key strengths, and he reportedly cited that regularly when he argued he should remain in the race despite questions over his mental acuity and age.  

He had an immense opportunity to push his legacy forward when he met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The president was expected to press the foreign leader on a ceasefire agreement in the Gaza Strip that both sides have reportedly agreed to, and the lack of electoral pressure could allow him to act more boldly. This might further set the stage for a larger agreement that the Biden administration has sought – Saudi normalization of relations with Israel. If this could be achieved, it would isolate Iran and send  a geopolitical earthquake through the Middle East.   

He will also likely continue his ongoing efforts in the aftermath of the recent NATO Summit to solidify support for Ukraine and the transatlantic alliance, while also providing further challenges to Russia and China. Biden and his political allies likely noted a night at the Republican National Convention themed “Make America Strong Again,” when numerous speakers blasted the president for his policies toward Iran, Russia and China. They will want to push back against that narrative.  

The Biden White House was already discussing future action against China over its support of Russia, with National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan suggesting that the US could announce additional sanctions against Beijing. Some believe this could include Chinese banks, which would be seen as extraordinarily escalatory. But that is only one action that was telegraphed just before Biden dropped out of the race. He could be much bolder from here.  

Harris’s national security experience 

It is well known that Kamala Harris does not have the foreign policy experience of President Biden, who chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for many years and served as vice president during the Obama administration. But Harris has also gained significant understanding as vice president, meeting with more than 150 world leaders and visiting 21 countries while in that role. 

Biden has also made her a key part of his national security team from the onset of the administration – continuing the tradition of his predecessors. As such, she receives daily top-secret briefings and has been reportedly consulted on major US foreign policy challenges, such as China’s efforts in the South China Sea, Iran’s work with militant groups, and the growing Chinese and Russian influence campaigns in Africa.  

She attended the Munich Security Conference in the past year, and she delivered remarks in support of NATO that denounced isolationism and vowed to support Ukraine “for as long as it takes”. She also represented the US in June at the “peace conference” convened by Ukraine in Switzerland where she also reaffirmed US support to Kyiv.   

Harris will likely take a different approach to the Israel-Gaza War than President Biden, who has maintained “unwavering” support for Israel. The vice president is an outspoken supporter of a two-state solution and was one of the first members of the administration to call for an “immediate cease-fire”. She has regularly raised concerns over the “humanitarian catastrophe for Palestinians” and has announced that she would not attend Netanyahu’s speech before Congress due to a previously planned campaign event. She will meet with the Israeli Prime Minister during his visits the US and tell him that the war needs to end, though reports suggest she will seek a direct confrontation.  

Despite a vice-presidential term heavy on foreign policy, some still question whether she is prepared to be commander-in-chief. In an effort to quash that narrative, more than 350 US national security leaders – largely Democrats – released a signed letter expressing their belief that she is the “best qualified person” to lead the country given her international experience. 

Harris may also choose to respond to such questions with her vice-presidential pick. While she is reportedly considering some governors who have limited national security experience, she is also vetting Arizona Senator Mark Kelly – a retired NASA astronaut and fighter pilot – and retired Admiral William McRaven, the man credited with overseeing the operation that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden.   

Both are also moderates in their party and their experiences contrast greatly with Trump’s running mate, JD Vance, who served in the Marines. Their views also could not be more different than Vance and Trump who have advocated for an isolationist foreign and security strategy. 

How a Harris administration might differ from Trump’s 

Harris’s campaign has seemed to push for an image of stability and continuity, which likely means she would pursue many of the policies of the Biden administration in the field of national security and foreign policy. Consequently, the distinction between a future Harris or Trump administration would be quite stark.  

Based on the Republican national platform and Trump’s remarks at the convention, this is not the party of Ronald Reagan with respect to national security policy. Great power confrontations have returned, and the country’s traditional approach to both allies and global security is being redefined. Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice observed recently at the Aspen Security Forum that there has been a return of “the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse – populism, nativism, isolationism, and protectionism”.  
 
Former President Trump opposes future military aid to Ukraine and has been – at best – skeptical about NATO and other American alliances. He has successfully helped push NATO members to meet their defense obligations, but he has also said he would “encourage” Russia” to do whatever the hell they want” to further increase pressure on those member states that fail to achieve NATO goals for defense spending. 

It is largely expected that Trump will maintain the transatlantic alliance, however, but he will downsize the US footprint in Europe and redirect military power toward the Pacific. Vance’s views regarding NATO and Ukraine are perhaps even harsher. He has been the leading congressional critic of American involvement in Ukraine, and his candidacy was welcomed by the Russians. 

“He stands for peace, for cessation of aid [to Ukraine],” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said of the pick at a press conference at the United Nations. “We can only welcome this because, in fact, it is necessary to stop pumping Ukraine with weapons, and the war will end.” 

Trump advisors have promoted a peace proposal if he wins the White House that calls for cutting off weapons to Ukraine if Kyiv doesn’t agree to peace talks. It also notably calls for “flooding Ukraine with weapons” if Russia doesn’t negotiate.   

The former president appears to be pursuing similar tactics with allies in the Pacific, as he recently stated that “Taiwan should pay us for defense…You know, we’re no different than an insurance company.”   

In response the conservative Hudson Institute noted, “A significant disruption to Taiwan’s semiconductor industry could affect as much as $1.6 trillion, or roughly 8%, of America’s annual gross domestic product — hurting industries like personal electronics, automotives and telecommunications.”  

Events are moving quickly, and there is still much that could happen in the approximately 100 days until Election Day. A normal election has its surprises, but this one seems to have shockwaves. That isn’t without its precedent.  

Mark Twain once observed that history does not repeat, but it may occasionally rhyme. Nearly 60 years ago, an incumbent president announced he would not run for re-election, the Democrats held a convention in Chicago, a Kennedy was running for president, an assassin shot a presidential candidate and there was an unpopular foreign war causing civil unrest in the US. The times and terms of 2024 are certainly much different than they were in 1968, but – whatever happens – we can be certain that the country will have an interesting and historical next 100 days.  

And the War Came

 Nearly 100 hundred years ago, President Abraham Lincoln said of the Civil War that “all sought to avert it…And the war came.”  History is replete with examples of wars that occurred despite the desire of leaders on both sides to avoid them.  Over the past couple of weeks, events in the Middle East have brought Lincoln’s words new resonance.    

The assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, a top leader of Hamas, in Iran – in addition to other recent Israeli military strikes – has rapidly edged Israel’s war in Gaza to a greater regional conflict. President Joe Biden and others have worked intensely on a ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas, but that is now in jeopardy. The coming days may determine whether the situation moves from bad to much worse.  

Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has reportedly issued an order to strike Israel directly – again – due to the killing of Ismail Haniyeh, the political leader of Hamas and head of their delegation negotiating a ceasefire agreement. Meanwhile, Hassan Nasrallah, the influential and long-time Hezbollah leader, said the war with Israel had entered a “new phase” after Fuad Shukr, his senior military advisor, was assassinated in an Israeli strike on Beirut. Israel has successfully killed leaders of various terrorist groups in past, but the seniority of these two figures and the circumstances of their assassinations may have undermined any chance for peace.    

Crises and wars, when examined in retrospect, follow a pattern of escalation and de-escalation – an increase (or decrease) in the intensity or geographical scope of conflict or confrontation. They proceed in an “action-reaction cycle” until ultimately arriving at a “strategic inflection point.”   At that moment, escalation either spirals and a much larger conflict ensues, or serious de-escalation begins and leads to eventual stability.   Finding a path to stability grows more complex with a greater number of actors, as each has its own demands and narratives.    

Many now fear this conflict could rapidly spiral into a regional war that would stretch from the Mediterranean to Iran and draw the United State directly into the conflict.   With that in mind, let’s consider how we got here and what this might mean for American national security.      

The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have battled Hamas for over eight months following the horrific attack on 7 October 2023.  More than 1,200 Israelis were killed that day and another 250 taken hostage.  116 hostages have been released alive.  Most were released during a brief ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in late November that was honored by all sides.  It is believed approximately 130 are still being held, though 30 or more may have been killed in the fighting. 

Over 39,000 Palestinians have been killed and roughly 90,000 injured in the Gaza Strip – a land area roughly the size of metropolitan Philadelphia.  Other actors in the region joined the war almost immediately in support of Hamas – Hezbollah in Lebanon, Palestinian groups in the West Bank, the Houthis in Yemen, and various militia groups operating in Syria and Iraq.  All are armed and equipped by Iran and described as the Axis of Resistance. 

It is widely believed, however, that Tehran has sought to avoid a larger war, as it is beset by social and economic challenges. It recently had a sudden national election after the unexpected death of its president. Over the decades, Iran has relied on Hezbollah, which is its primary regional client, to serve as a key deterrent to balance against any possible large-scale Israeli attack.  At the onset of this crisis, Hezbollah forces included 100,000 armed fighters and possibly 150,000 missiles and rockets capable of striking the entirety of Israeli territory.     

Various forms of escalation have subsequently occurred to challenge that delicate balance. Israel has employed over 35,000 airstrikes against Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis since the October attack.  The Houthis have launched missiles against Israel and attacked commercial shipping as well as the US Navy resulting in an ongoing American air campaign against them.  Furthermore, Iranian-supported militia groups operating in Syria and Iraq have attacked US bases in both countries nearly 200 times.  These attacks stopped in February following retaliatory airstrikes ordered by the Biden administration, but they have recently resumed, and the United States has now – once again – targeted militants in Iraq.   

In the aftermath of an Israeli airstrike in Syria that killed several senior Iranian Revolutionary Guard officers, Tehran became a direct protagonist and conducted large scale drone/missile attack against Israel on 19 April.  This was largely defeated by Israel and a coalition of nations including the US, the United Kingdom, Jordan, and others. It also elicited a retaliatory raid by Israel against targets in and around Tehran.  Consequently, the decades-long “shadow war” between Iran and Israel – whereby both sides had attacked each other clandestinely or via proxies – emerged into the open. This attack now serves as a baseline for any future Iranian retaliation against Israel.  

On 22 July Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu arrived in Washington at the invitation of the Speaker of the House to address a joint session of Congress. There was growing optimism that the ongoing negotiations brokered by the US, Egypt, and the UAE between Israel and Hamas might result in a ceasefire that would also allow Hezbollah, Iran, and the Houthis to stop hostilities and lead to the release of some of the hostages still held by the Hamas.   
 
Congressional leaders warmly received Netanyahu’s speech in which he underscored the need for even greater American support and solidarity with Israel.  He subsequently had private meetings with President Biden, Vice President (and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee) Kamala Harris, and finally stopped in Mar-a-Lago for a private meeting with former President Donald Trump.   

But events suddenly moved in an even deadlier direction.  On 27 July a rocket launched from Lebanon struck a soccer field in the village of Majdal Shams, which is located in the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights.  It killed 12 children and was described by the Israeli military as the deadliest attack on civilians since the war began.   

A few days later Israel retaliated with a drone strike against a residential neighborhood in Beirut that killed Fuad Shukr, the senior Hezbollah military commander.  The IDF alleged he was responsible for the Majdal Shams attack. Ironically, Shukr was also accused by the United States of overseeing the bombing of an American Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 that killed 241 Marines. This attack clearly escalated tensions due to Shukr’s seniority but also the fact that Israel had largely restricted attacks to southern Lebanon and only struck Beirut a few times – the last such attack was in January.  

Only a few hours later an explosion occurred in an IRGC guesthouse in Tehran killing Ismail Haniyeh. No group has claimed responsibility for the attack, but it is widely believed Israeli intelligence was behind it.  Haniyeh was chief of the Hamas leadership group since 2017 and a key figure in the ongoing ceasefire negotiations. He was in Tehran to attend the inauguration of the new Iranian President, Masoud Pezeshkian.  It has been reported that a bomb had been planted in the IRGC guesthouse several months ago, which was detonated remotely when it was determined Haniyeh was present in the building. 

This attack is clearly a global embarrassment as well as a strategic disaster for the Iranian regime and its new president.  In the aftermath, the Iranian stock market suffered one of its biggest crashes, Iran’s currency hit a new low, and citizens mocked the government on social media with suggestions that it should focus more on protecting high-level guests than sending security forces to arrest women.   

The attack in Tehran was clearly planned far in advance and shows that Israeli intelligence has been able to penetrate the security of the IRGC for a long time.  This is of enormous concern to the Iranian regime and may only encourage Iran to respond in a much more aggressive manner. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has said, “the criminal and terrorist Zionist regime has prepared the ground for severe punishment with this action.”  The implications for all members of the Axis of Resistance as they calculate their next steps are huge, and the possibility of achieving a ceasefire and a hostage release is increasingly remote.  

Iran and Hezbollah now have major incentives to escalate, and Tehran is reportedly conducting efforts to coordinate a large-scale attack by all members of the Axis of Resistance.  Hezbollah may escalate its ongoing missile and drone attacks by striking more deeply into Israeli territory or by using so many weapons that it overwhelms Israel’s Iron Dome.  Iran may believe that any attack by its forces must now exceed its 13 April 2024 attack, which included over 300 cruise missiles, drones, and ballistic missiles.  Finally, Israeli leaders must also be concerned about growing tensions in the West Bank and whether additional missile/drone strikes could come from Yemen, as the Houthis could respond to domestic pressures by seeking to demonstrate their solidarity.  

There are also reports that Tehran has already given its “fully blessing” to Iranian backed militias to resume targeting US forces as well as Israel, and it appears the Islamic Resistance in Iraq have begun to do so.  Consequently, American military forces throughout the region – including naval forces operating in the Persian Gulf, Arabian Sea, Red Sea and Mediterranean – must be placed on a higher level of alert and may be increased.  

In the assassinations’ aftermath, Prime Minister Netanyahu was elated and said Israel had “delivered crushing blows to Iran’s proxies”.  He did not, however, take credit for the killing of Haniyeh, but promised Iran would “exact a heavy price for any aggression against us.”  Netanyahu has reason to be happy.  He likely believes his trip to the United States prior to this attack solidified American support, and the Arab world will widely believe he obtained a “green light” from President Biden, Vice President Harris, and former President Trump for this attack. Furthermore, on 28 July the Israeli Knesset ended its summer session and began a three-month recess.  Consequently, it may be politically difficult to challenge him domestically until they return in late October.    

The Biden Administration denied Netanyahu had provided Washington any advanced notice of the attack but has clearly accepted that the geopolitical landscape has been struck by an “earthquake”.  President Biden had wanted to spend his remaining time in office bringing an end to the war and achieving a much sought after transformation of the Middle East.  This included an agreement normalizing relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia that would have been transformational for the region.  A ceasefire in the short term as a precursor to a longer-term realignment now appear increasingly remote for an administration, which must now accept its “lame duck” status. It seems clear that Prime Minister Netanyahu now feels unencumbered by American influence since Biden announced his departure from the presidential race.   

Israel and its enemies are at a “fork in the road” or inflection point.  One path leads to an ever-increasing spiral of escalation – greater death, destruction, and uncertainty.  The other moves in the direction of reduced violence, greater stability, and a possible end to hostilities. This may also be the last opportunity to reach a ceasefire and freedom for at least some of the remaining hostages.   

Iran and the “Axis of Resistance” have the next move in this deadly chess game, and there are enormous pressures on their leaders to escalate for domestic as well as international reasons.  Prime Minister Netanyahu, however, may now have greater tactical flexibility.  He could argue Israel has achieved its goal of destroying Hamas’s ability to govern or launch attacks from Gaza and push for a ceasefire. Neither side wants a major regional war, but events are moving the region inextricably in that direction.   

Year of Elections Continues

More than 70 elections, representing some 4.2 billion people, are being held this year – and June may have been the most consequential month. There have been elections in India, Mexico, South Africa as well as European Parliamentary elections. In the Indian election alone, more than 642 million voters (65% of the country’s nearly 1 billion eligible voters) cast their ballots in an election that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s party suffered a surprising defeat.

Elections were also announced and campaigns held in multiple countries key to US interests. The death of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi in a helicopter crash on 19 May means that Tehran will hold a presidential election on 28 June. British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced that new elections will be held in the United Kingdom on 4 July, and current polls show the opposing Labor Party could win as many as 450 of the 650 seats in the British Parliament. French President Emmanuel Macron announced “snap elections” in France beginning on 30 June after his party suffered a devastating defeat to the far-right in the European Parliament elections.

June has proved to be consequential in a year defined by the number of elections held and ballots cast. With that in mind, let’s review the outcomes and what they ultimately could mean.

India

The Indian election was expected to be a perfunctory exercise for Prime Minister Modi. His Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) went into overdrive to get out the vote and undermine the opposition. There were allegations of manipulation of voter rolls and voting machines. Opposition parties alleged Modi’s government had frozen their campaign funds, jailed leaders and even taken legal action against them. The Indian prime minister, who had enjoyed electoral success in the previous two elections, had also focused on the country’s ethnic and religious fault lines during the campaign. Modi challenged the country’s secular democracy while promoting Hindu nationalism and even proclaimed that he was selected by God to lead India.

But the results proved to be an electoral earthquake. He and his party had hoped  to secure 400 seats in the Lok Sabha, or Indian parliament, as it would allow them to make changes to the nation’s constitution. But they won only 240 seats, and 20 of Modi’s cabinet members were not reelected. The Indian National Congress that harkens to the nation’s founding has recovered to challenge Modi under Rahul Gandhi’s leadership. The party won 100 seats, but it boasts 232 seats through the alliance it forged with 27 other opposition parties committed to challenging the BJP. They named their bloc Indian National Democratic Inclusive Alliance – or INDIA.

The election forced Modi to form a coalition government, which returns India to political conditions  before he came to power.  For decades no single party has been able to achieve an absolute majority. The voters’ decision will return some balance to the world’s largest democracy, which has seen its democratic institutions tested under Modi’s leadership.

The BJP’s loss reflects growing popular dissatisfaction with Modi and his party. The Indian strongman came to power with the promise of ushering in a new era of economic growth, which he delivered on – in a way. India is the world’s fastest-growing economy and fifth largest. But his challenge to India’s democratic secularism, the rise of Hindu nationalism and growing economic inequality has led to dissent.  

India’s massive economic growth has not addressed its jobless rate. It is particularly high among the country’s youth, who currently account for more than 80% of the nations unemployed. That economic issue among voters has been buoyed further by an uneven recovery since the pandemic. While India’s very wealthy have enjoyed extreme financial gains, workers – particularly those in agriculture and manufacturing – have been left behind. 

It remains to be seen what Modi will do. While confidence in the BJP has declined, analysts do not believe that Modi’s new coalition will derail India’s economic growth and development. It is also unclear whether he will dampen his efforts to transform India into a Hindu nationalist state.  

The new government has not outlined its key priorities, but it is expected to continue the country’s infrastructure development with nearly $134 billion dedicated toward capital expenditures largely focused on constructing railways and airports in fiscal year 2025. Modi will likely continue an aggressive push for India to overtake China as Asia’s largest manufacturing powerhouse, which was buoyed by major companies announcing investments in the Indian semi-conductor industry. The prime minister will need to capitalize on that further, and increase foreign investment to aid estimated market capital growth of $40 trillion over the next 25 years.

Mexico
America’s closest neighbor to the south held its election on 2 June. Mexico elected Claudia Sheinbaum as its president, making her the first woman and Jewish person to assume national leadership. The former mayor of Mexico City, Sheinbaum is a climate scientist and a close ally of the outgoing president - Andrés Manuel López Obrador. She earned 58% of the vote in a landmark election that saw two women compete for the nation’s highest office. It is a remarkable achievement in a male-dominated Catholic country where women have often faced violence.

Mexico’s president-elect won the election by promising to cement López Obrador and the Morena party’s legacy. She has bristled, however, at any claim that she is his pawn – despite his status as her mentor and her being largely supportive of his ideas. But the president-elect faces severe challenges. The country must confront  its largest budget deficit since the 1980s, the state-owned oil company has unsustainable debt, migration through the country has risen to historic highs, and widespread drug cartel violence torments the country. Sheinbaum alleges she will fight the social drivers of violence – not the criminal groups – ensure lawbreakers are punished and work to build up the national guard.

What could prove most worrisome to markets is that the Morena party has won a two-thirds majority in Mexico’s Congress. This “super majority” will allow it to change the constitution, which could result in significant judicial reforms and unfunded government benefit programs proposed by López Obrador. The outgoing president has already pledged to promote 20 constitutional changes. This includes undoing the country’s individual retirement account system and the elimination of most independent government oversight and regulatory agencies. His proposed judicial reforms would make all judges, who are currently appointed or approved by legislators, to be elected. Some have argued he remains upset that the judiciary blocked his reforms in past, but he maintains that “these are justices who are employees of the big corporations.”

Sheinbaum’s decisions will prove important to Washington. Americans often underestimate Mexico’s importance to the US economy at their own financial peril. The country is America’s largest trading partner at roughly $800 billion in goods and services annually. Still, Sheinbaum’s electoral triumph ironically occurred as President Biden announced stiff executive actions to slow migration from our southern neighbor.

South Africa

The African National Congress (ANC) lost a clear majority of parliament for the first time since the end of apartheid in 1984. Previously, it had regularly earned 60 to 70% of the vote. Now, the country had to form a national unity government nearly 30 years after a similar deal helped it transition to a full democracy from an era of apartheid.

The deal allows Cyril Ramaposa, the head of ANC, a second term as president, but only through a coalition government. His party had to make an unlikely agreement with the Democratic Alliance (DA), a white-led group that opposed apartheid but advocates for free-market economics – which is at odds with the ANC’s left-wing priorities.

But “gravitating to the center” was the best way to respond to the voters’ decision, according to ANC Secretary General Fikilie Mbalula. He said the election shows South Africans want political parties to work together to bring stability to the country, which is beset by  corruption, unemployment, power shortages, and violence. And the announcement of a coalition government calmed investors and those in the private sector, who welcomed a period of balanced politics and stability.

Still, policy disagreements between the coalitions two main parties are stark. The DA opposes the ANC’s national healthcare proposal  as well as its black economic empowerment program. The minority party believes affirmative action policies are inefficient, do not reward merit, and only enrich ANC leaders.

There is also concern that the ANC will continue to pursue its radical left-wing policies that are also supported by smaller parties that have proved to be its natural allies – specifically the nationalization of land and property with an aim toward a redistribution of wealth. For now, the coalition with the DA, should keep that effort in check.

European Parliament

Across Europe more than 360 million people from all 27 member countries of the European Union (EU) voted to elect 720 members to the EU parliament. These elections are not considered as consequential as those held to elect each nation’s leaders, but they often act as a bellwether for the direction of politics within Europe. And this round proved to be troubling, as it showed the momentum of the right-wing parties, particularly for Germany’s Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) and the National Rally in France.

Results show that centrists parties that include a center-left and center-right groupings – won just over 400 seats in the latest round of voting. Centrists lost about 16 seats from their total in the 2019 election, but it is above the 361 needed for a majority.

Still, it was hard for moderate parties to declare success, as the right-wing and center-right parties celebrated a clear momentum shift. The National Rally took 33% of the vote in France, far exceeding President Macron Renaissance Party’s 16%. In Germany, the extreme right-wing AfD won 15 seats in the EU parliament, beating out the party of Chancellor Olaf Scholz and its 14 seats. His party’s coalition partner – the Green Party – lost nine of its seats, while the center right CDU/CSU party appears poised to win the next German national election in September 2025 after garnering 30% of the vote. Center-right parties also did well in Greece, Poland and Spain – and they made significant advances in Hungary.

Immigration and the economy were major issues for voters.  Around 5.1 million immigrants entered EU countries in 2022, which was double the number in the previous year. In Germany and France, more than 80% of people polled said that the massive flow of immigrants had caused their lives to become more dangerous.

As previously mentioned, Macron called for snap elections for a new French parliament in the aftermath. The election will be held in two rounds: on 30 June and then on 7 July. This is only a few weeks prior to France hosting the summer Olympics in Paris, which means the results will be a regular topic of discussion over the summer – particularly if Macron’s party loses.

At this moment, he and his party are struggling. With just over a week before the first vote, Macron’s approval rating fell six points to match a historic low. Meanwhile, the National Rally party, led by Marine Le Pen, saw its polling numbers rise to 38%. Her party is followed by the left-wing New Popular Front at 29%, with Macron’s Renaissance-led coalition sitting in third at 22%. But even if President Macron’s party should lose these elections, it will not affect his position as President of France.

It could result in a new prime minister, however. That will likely be Jordan Bardella. He is a 28-year-old protégé of Le Pen, and he has helped with the popularization of the far-right among young people. Young voters who backed the right-wing party said their main issues included: getting rid of technocrats, returning Europe to a continent of nations, addressing immigration and weakening parties they perceive as corrupt and ineffective.

Undoubtedly, all these elections will have a significant effect on government policies as well as global affairs. Across the board, voters appear concerned about similar issues – immigration, economics, inflation and potential social unrest. While right-wing populism enjoyed a boost during this election, democracy self-regulates and succeeded in India and South Africa.

More elections are to come, most notably the US election in November. But the world has now witnessed an incredible democratic exercise that will continue throughout the year with votes in Iran, the United Kingdom, France, Moldova, Georgia, Iraq, Venezuela and at least 15 other countries. These elections will surely bring change as well, but the question is whether they will also ensure stability – or bring about conflict, chaos and discord. Only time will tell.

Thucydides or Kennan?

The past few weeks have seen a flurry of events that are all related to the most vexing problem facing American policymakers. Should the United States pursue a policy of confrontation or managed competition with the People’s Republic of China (PRC)? This is a central foreign policy, national security, and economic issue in the upcoming November election. It may also be the most difficult national security decision since American diplomat George Kennan formulated a policy of “containment” to deal with the Soviet Union at the onset of the Cold War.

After President Biden’s meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in November, both China and the US appeared to acknowledge the importance of their relationship and sought at least a plateau to avoid further tensions. But finding that new “plateau” and maintaining it has been a challenge. American attitudes towards the PRC have plummeted since 2019 when roughly 50% of Americans had a favorable attitude of China. Today, that favorability rating sits at about 20%.

On 26 April, Secretary of State Blinken made his second trip to China in the past year. He met not only with his counterpart, Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi but also with President Xi. Many interpreted Xi’s willingness to host the Secretary of State as further indication that the Chinese desired a return to “normal” relations. Blinken used the opportunity with Xi to warn the Chinese against providing military assistance to Russia in support of the war in Ukraine, and he urged Beijing to halt its aggressive policies toward Taiwan and the South China Sea. Blinken also sought to convince them to reduce China’s export of cheap electric cars that undermined America’s increased production of similar vehicles. In response, President Xi reportedly told the secretary that the United States must avoid “zero-sum games” and “while each side can have its friends and partners, it should not target, oppose, or harm the other.” Xi’s statement was not overly aggressive, but it did demonstrate that little progress has been made on these contentious issues.

Blinken’s trip did result in further discussions on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and joint efforts to curb the export of chemical precursors for the production of fentanyl. And it seems to have been another step the Chinese have taken in recent months to re-examine their approach towards relations with the United States, but finding a “plateau” remains elusive. The Chinese were obviously aware that the United States Congress passed a military aid bill only a few days prior to Blinken’s arrival, which included $8 billion to counter Chinese efforts in the Indo Pacific region. Within that package was also a law that bans the App TikTok in the United States if its Chinese owner fails to divest the popular app over the next nine months. Shortly after Blinken’s departure from China President Biden also announced the US would quadruple tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles – pushing it from 25% to 100% – in a move designed to boost American manufacturing and jobs. “I’m determined that the future of electric vehicles be made in America by union workers. Period,” Biden said after the long-telegraphed move was made official.

Xi then traveled to Europe for his first visit in five years. The purpose of his trip was to improve China’s diplomatic and economic relations with the EU, and it was also aimed at promoting divisions between Europe and the United States. It was not an accident that Xi’s trip included a visit to Serbia on the 25th anniversary of a misdirected American airstrike during the Kosovo war that struck the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. Xi was welcomed warmly, but there is little immediate evidence that his mission was successful.

At the same time, President Putin was inaugurated for his fifth six-year term followed by Victory Day in Russia. Xi returned to China to host Putin on 15 May. Putin’s visit – the first trip after his inauguration – was full of pageantry. The two leaders stressed the "no-limits" relationship between the two countries, but it also underscored Moscow’s increasing dependency on the Chinese. There is little to no doubt that China as well as Russia and Iran are either pursuing a strategy of “managed chaos” or – at a minimum – looking for opportunities to exploit geopolitical advantages as they arise. They are also challenging the international order established at the end of World War II, which ushered in US global leadership – though they would describe the current environment as American hegemony that must be countered and undermined.

Putin clearly articulated that in his remarks during his recent inauguration (7 May) and Russia’s Victory Day (9 May). Xi did so as well during his recent trip to France, Serbia, and Hungary. The war in Gaza, meanwhile, has served as an opportunity for both countries to describe the United States as hypocritical in its opposition to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and “neocolonial” in its support for Israel. Furthermore, they have used every opportunity to exploit this in their dealings with the so-called BRIC countries and the global south.

The collapse in American attitudes towards China occurred in the aftermath of three events. First, the onset of the coronavirus that originated in Wuhan, China in late 2019, which some believe was part of a failed Chinese biological warfare effort. Second, the visit by then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan in August 2022. And, finally, the downing of a suspected Chinese surveillance balloon that travelled over the United States in February 2023.

In their aftermath, American opposition to China has at times approached hysteria. Some have even argued that the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza are part of a concerted strategy by the Chinese against the United States with both Russia and Iran as willing clients. But it is highly unlikely Moscow and Tehran would accept a role as Chinese puppets, and improved relations between these three countries over the past few years are ultimately transactional.

China might support Russian aggression in Ukraine privately but has publicly tried to portray itself as a supporter of global peace. Beijing will buy oil and natural gas from Russia but only at discounted prices. At the same time, it has steadfastly avoided becoming totally dependent on Russian energy. Furthermore, the Chinese have a long memory. They remember that Russia only declared war on Japan two days after the bombing of Hiroshima at the end of World War II and immediately occupied a large territory known as Manchukuo that Japan had seized from China in 1932. This territory remains part of the Russian Federation. In a similar fashion, Iranians have not forgotten that the USSR occupied northern Iran in 1946 and is experiencing internal turmoil based on the death of its president.

Finally, the Chinese are wary of a war in the Middle East between the US and Iran. A major conflict would likely sever the oil and natural gas that flows through the Persian Gulf to China and remains critical to its economy. Iranian exports of crude oil grew by 50% last year to over 1.2 million barrels per day and the vast majority went to China. Beijing is also increasingly concerned by Houthi efforts to attack commercial shipping in the Red Sea, which functions as a critical trade route for goods travelling to Europe from China. But even if China is not a “puppet master” that is orchestrating a highly coordinated strategy to destroy the United States, Beijing clearly seeks to undermine American global leadership over time and is supported in this endeavor by both Moscow and Tehran. Consequently, the question for American policymakers remains – is it better to pursue direct confrontation with China or attempt to cooperate with Beijing?

Those who support “managed competition” point out the many global issues (climate change, North Korea, etc.) demand American and Chinese cooperation. Consequently, both sides seem to be trying to limit hostilities to address these problems. Over the past few months military dialogue between Beijing and Washington has resumed, and Secretary of Defense Austin recently spoke with his Chinese counterpart for the first time since November 2022. This is a matter of necessity as China continues the expansion of its strategic nuclear forces and is not a concession by one party to the other. Both sides clearly have an overriding interest in avoiding war by accident.

Others have argued that the United States should pursue a modified strategy of “containment” and describe the current relationship between Beijing and Washington as a “second Cold War.” But this is an imperfect comparison. There was never any real economic competition between the US and the USSR, as the Soviet economy was roughly the size of Belgium’s. China, meanwhile, is the largest foreign holder of American treasury bills, buys US debt to support the value of the dollar and remains a huge trading partner.

Trade between the two countries has contracted in the last few years, but in 2023 China still exported over $400 billion in goods to the US – and the United States exported nearly $150 billion to China. Washington may be able to “de-risk” the American economy from China, but it will be unable to “decouple” it. Similarly, Beijing realizes that its economic relations with the US and Europe are of critical importance and far larger than its economic ties with Russia. Some policymakers believe that conflict between the US and PRC is inevitable, and Washington should prepare accordingly. In similar fashion, there were those that recommended an American preemptive strike against the Soviet Union because they believed war was unavoidable. Fortunately, those recommendations were never acted upon.

A policy of direct confrontation could bring us to the so-called “Thucydides Trap” (named after the Greek author of the history of the Peloponnesian War). It argues that there is a natural discombobulation that occurs when a rising power (China) threatens to displace a ruling power (United States), and the resulting structural stress makes a violent clash or war inevitable. Thus, policymakers have a choice: either manage the rivalry or accept the inevitable.

China has enormous domestic challenges that will only become more difficult – demography, slow growth, climate, social conditions, etc. The threat posed by China is real, but it is important that American policymakers do not elevate the threat to something larger than it may be. For example, in the 1980’s some strategic analysts argued that war between the US and Japan was inevitable due to the dramatic rise in the Japanese economy – obviously that never occurred. Consequently, the US must confront China when necessary and pursue cooperation when it can. The United States must always remain cleareyed about our relations with Beijing, and aspects of the deterrent strategy articulated by George Kenan at the onset of the Cold War may be helpful. He argued that the US should avoid hysteria and seek to contain the Soviet Union until it collapsed due to its internal contradictions. And that is what turned out to have happened.

John Batchelor Show: 4/17/2024: #IRAN: Confronting Iran and its Axis Allies

John Batchelor Show: 4/10/24: #GAZA: Unknown date certain for Rafah.

John Batchelor Show: 4/10/24: #Ukraine: Pause for the Russian build-up.

A Terrorist Attack in Moscow

On the evening of 22 March, a popular concert hall outside Moscow became the site of the largest terrorist attack against the Russian Federation in decades. Four terrorists opened fire at thousands of concertgoers and set fire to the Crocus City Hall, a sprawling shopping mall and entertainment venue. Around 140 people were killed and the number of dead could continue to rise. More than 200 people were injured and 80 remain hospitalized. The entire attack lasted eighteen minutes. Considering the size of the attack and the response of the Russian government as well as its people, this assault will have a massive effect on the political situation within Russia, how the Kremlin pursues the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, and other security interests.

Who conducted this attack and why?

An Islamic State affiliate immediately claimed responsibility for the violence. US intelligence reported it had obtained evidence confirming ISIS’s involvement, and French President Emmanuel Macron said France also had intelligence that an “ISIS entity” was responsible. Most experts believe it was the Islamic State Khorasan(ISIS-K) which is a Salafi jihadist group active in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Central Asia. It is believed ISIS-K conducted the attack at the Kabul International Airport during the withdrawal of American forces that resulted in the deaths of 13 US service members. They were also likely behind a recent terrorist attack in Iran and the 2015 Paris attack.

Russia’s Federal Security Service, or FSB, said it arrested 11 people the day after the attack. This included the four suspected gunmen who are reportedly Tajik nationals and were brought to a Moscow courtroom soon after. They all appeared to have been severely beaten and tortured. One struggled to remain conscious during the hearing. There had been several advanced warnings of a possible terrorist attack against Russia. The US advised Russia of an impending terrorist attack in Moscow on 7 March, and the State Department also issued a warning to American citizens in Russia to avoid crowds for this reason. There have now been subsequent reports that Russian intelligence had circulated internal warnings of an ISIS-K attack by radicalized Tajiks. On March 9th the FSB announced it had foiled a terrorist plot to attack a synagogue that resulted in two Kazakh citizens being killed in a gun battle with Russian anti-terrorist forces. But President Putin publicly dismissed these alerts. In a speech to the FSB Board on 19 March, he described Western warnings as “outright blackmail” that sought to “intimidate and destabilize society.”

In the immediate aftermath, Russia’s leadership and social media accused Ukraine of being involved. Putin waited nearly a day before speaking to the nation but alleged that a link existed between the attackers and Kyiv. Ukraine immediately denied any involvement, and an attack like this would be contrary to the country’s best interests. Killing hundreds of innocent civilians in such a callous attack would alienate Western supporters at a critical moment when additional military assistance for Ukraine is being debated in the US Congress.

The Kremlin spin on a tragedy

In the days that followed, it has become increasingly clear that this attack was very likely planned and executed by ISIS-K. They publicly claimed responsibility twice and released both videos as well as photos of the terrorist and the attack. Despite these facts, the Kremlin has launched a disinformation campaign that promotes the idea that Ukraine and the West are to blame. This claim fits well with Putin’s war narrative and seeks to diminish the significance of Moscow’s security failure.

The Russian president has now said repeatedly that Kyiv and Washington had a role in the attack. He claimed that the attackers were planning to escape to Ukraine, and that the Ukrainian military had opened a “window” for them to escape. There is no evidence to support these assertions. The escape route appears to show that the attackers were headed for Belarus, and their car had Belarusian plates. Recent comments by Belarusian President Lukashenko reinforce this view. But the FSB has continued the narrative. Aleksandr Bortnikov, FSB Chief, even claimed that the assault “was prepared by both radical Islamists themselves and, naturally, facilitated by Western special services.” Putin even expressed surprise that Muslim extremists would attack given Moscow’s stand for a “fair solution to escalation in the Middle East.” This clearly ignores the Kremlin’s invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 and brutal wars in both Chechnya and later Dagestan.

These conflicts have long made Russia a target of Islamic terrorist groups. This was further compounded by the Russian intervention in the Syrian civil war where Russian soldiers and mercenaries supported the Assad regime against the Islamic State and other rebel groups. Furthermore, several Tajik’s hold prominent roles in the Islamic State, which has continued to target both Russia and Europe despite the collapse of its caliphate in Syria and Iraq in 2019.

But disinformation has long been a favored tool of Putin and his Kremlin allies. Consequently, there is rampant speculation that the attack could be a “false flag” perpetrated by the Russian FSB to galvanize support for the Ukraine war and opposition to the West. Many will recall that in 1999 there was clear evidence that Putin (then serving as Russian Prime Minister) orchestrated a series of bombings against four apartment buildings in Moscow and two other cities. More than 300 people were killed, and Russian officials blamed Chechen militants. Soon after, Putin used this narrative to rouse support for the Second Chechen War, which led to the destruction of Grozny and may have resulted in 200,000 civilian deaths. Still, the Crocus attack is unlikely to have been a “false flag,” as it comes shortly after Putin’s recent success at the ballot box and underscores the vulnerabilities and mistakes of his wartime regime.

He had clearly believed the so-called “special military technical operation” against Ukraine would be over in a few days. The Kremlin was also visibly unsettled by the brief mutiny led by Putin confidant Yevgeniy Prigozhin and his Wagner mercenaries in June. Now the Kremlin appears shockingly unprepared to protect the Russian people from a terrorist attack. These are indicators that can lead to a regime being challenged. Consequently, Putin will continue to “spin” and cling to a narrative of Ukrainian and Western involvement. Accepting that Islamic militants were alone responsible for the worst terror attack in Russia in decades would dilute his message that Russians must unify around the war with Ukraine–and the West. The Kremlin cannot afford to divert attention from this existential battle that they have now created. It is now the raison d’etre for the Putin regime. And this effort to obfuscate is already showing results.

Several members of the Russian Duma were quick to condemn Ukraine for the attack and called for even more missile and drone attacks in response. Expanded attacks on Ukrainian cities have followed, and the voices blaming Ukraine and its Western partners are only growing louder. Even the social media accounts of Russian embassies are now promoting claims the Moscow attack was either not conducted by ISIS or it was ISIS under the direction of US, UK, and Ukrainian intelligence. This attack also exposes weakness and vulnerability in Russian internal security. It occurred even though Russia boasts more police and internal security forces than almost any country (except perhaps China). Furthermore, Putin had already instituted widespread policies of repression as demonstrated by the arrest of thousands of Russians for any form of peaceful protest against the war, elimination of any opposition during the presidential elections, and even recent efforts to stop crowds from attending the funeral of Russian dissident Alexi Navalny.

What are the implications?

Putin had made support for the Ukraine war a centerpiece of his reelection “campaign” and will undoubtedly use this narrative to build additional domestic support. The Kremlin will continue to portray Russia as under threat from the West and may use this attack to justify a second round of reserve mobilization in preparation for a likely summer offensive. Putin could also expand the number of draftees that are conscripted during the spring and continue ongoing efforts to move the Russian economy to a “wartime footing.” This narrative has also resulted in more bellicose rhetoric throughout the country. Russian oligarch Konstantin Malofeev, for example, called for a nuclear strike against Ukraine. Other Kremlin allies have also pushed for increasingly devastating strikes that they believe would end the war. This effort should not be discounted. Putin will certainly use this attack to redouble his attacks on Ukrainian cities. He as well as his press spokesman have now begun to refer to the Ukraine conflict as a “war” and no longer a “special military technical operation,” indicating an important shift in their narrative. But it will not only be used to galvanize Russian support, it will also be a central part of Russian propaganda campaigns across the global south to justify expanded strikes against Ukrainian cities and the country’s civilians. Putin may also believe that an expanded effort coupled with a continuous messaging of Ukrainian duplicity may further discourage Western support for Ukraine, particularly as the US Congress begins its deliberation of additional military aid for Kyiv. This could further serve to divide and weaken NATO while encouraging Europeans to believe that the United States is backing away from its leadership role in the alliance .But as lawmakers in Washington squabble, two conclusions can be drawn from the terrorist attack on the Crocus City Hall. First, Kremlin propaganda will continue to focus on the US, Ukraine, and its allies as the main culprits of all nefarious acts that Russia suffers. This will serve to discourage all sides from any possibility of a negotiated peace settlement. Second, senior American military leaders have warned that ISIS-K is estimated to have 6,000 fighters overall and may be able to strike the US soon. Consequently, this attack on Moscow should also serve as a warning to the West. Still, many Americans believe our Islamist terrorist problem is largely behind us. That is sadly untrue. No matter whether what happened in Moscow is an Islamic terror attack or an FSB conspiracy, it augurs badly for us.

John Batchelor Show: 4/3/24: #Israel: Two shocking Israeli air strikes.

John Batchelor Show: 4/3/24: #Ukraine: The drone war.

John Batchelor Show: 3/20/24: #Ukraine: Drone attack of the refineries

John Batchelor Show: 3/20/24: #WorldWar2: The little wars that became a global war.

John Batchelor Show: 3/13/24: #Ukraine: Needing 500,000 recruits & What is to be done?

John Batchelor Show: 3/13/24: #ISRAEL: Rafah operations won't wait. Nor Hezbollah operations.

The Impending Battle for Rafah

More than 100 Palestinians recently died when Israeli troops fired on a desperate crowd pulling food from an aid convoy in Gaza City. It brought the death toll in the ongoing conflict in the Gaza Strip to more than 30,000, threatened negotiations for a potential ceasefire between Israel and Hamas being brokered by the US, Qatar, and Egypt, and increased international condemnation as Israel prepares for its next major offensive that could lead to even greater civilian casualties. In the aftermath, the Biden administration announced that it would commence airdropping humanitarian supplies into Gaza illustrating the enormous ongoing human crisis and that relations between the United States and Israel are under enormous stress.

After nearly five months of war in Gaza, Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have advanced to Rafah in the territory’s south, where about 1.4 million people are currently sheltering in what can only be described as a humanitarian disaster of near epic proportions. Over one million people in Rafah are refugees who fled their homes as the IDF invaded Gaza following the Hamas attack on October 7. Many have done so at the urging of Israeli forces and have already relocated several times during the fighting.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced he is delaying a planned IDF assault against the city temporarily, as he appears to pursue the ceasefire and the release of Israeli hostages held by Hamas. President Biden has also said a ceasefire could occur soon and warned that an attack on Rafah would result in dramatic civilian casualties and cost Israel further international support.

Under the terms of the current ceasefire framework, according to media reports, Hamas would release about 40 hostages in exchange for a six-week ceasefire and the freeing of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners currently being held by Israel. Some Palestinians would also be allowed to return to their homes in northern Gaza. But this ceasefire, which will likely encompass the holy month of Ramadan (that begins on March 10), is not forever, according to the Israeli government.

Netanyahu has pledged that his forces will still enter Rafah, a city close to the border with Egypt, and argued that the US public will back Israel in response to Biden’s negative remarks about the potential offensive. He and other hardliners in the Israeli government believe Rafah is Hamas’ final stronghold, and the prime minister contended in an interview with CBS Face the Nation that once the operation begins Israel will be “weeks away, not months” from its goal of destroying Hamas and ending its devastating war in the Gaza Strip – which is at the cusp of becoming one of the deadliest for civilians since World War II.

In addition to 30,000 Palestinian dead there are 70,000 more who have been injured – most are women, children, and the elderly. An invasion of Rafah would cause those numbers to grow precipitously. The roughly 100 hostages still held by Hamas, who are believed to be in Rafah, are unlikely to survive Israel’s assault. Consequently, the impending “Battle of Rafah” is a major inflection point in this war, and it could have a significant bearing on the future of the Jewish state.

Netanyahu has said repeatedly that Israel’s goal is the total destruction of Hamas, but this remains a problematic contention. Hamas leaders are scattered throughout the Middle East, with a significant presence in Lebanon and Qatar. Even if Israel could destroy Hamas, it is a “movement,” and Israel may have “grown more” terrorists than it has neutralized. If Hamas were successfully destroyed physically, it likely would not take long for another militant group to take up its cause – particularly if thousands more die.

Netanyahu has said the IDF will present a plan to allow civilians in Rafah to evacuate safely prior to an attack. But so far, no plan has been presented, and it is unclear where they might be moved. Some media reports have suggested the IDF is considering allowing Palestinian civilians to pass through Israeli lines to areas north of Khan Younis and south of Gaza City. Moving these people out of harm’s way will be a monumental logistical and security task, however. It will require the establishment of safety corridors that must also ensure Hamas fighters aren’t allowed to flee or that weapons are not smuggled into areas previously secured by the IDF. Operational plans must also support humanitarian assistance to refugees during and after evacuation at a moment when some experts describe Gaza as an impending famine area.

The only thing Israeli officials have emphasized publicly is that they will not be pushed into Egypt, which is just south of Rafah. It is reported that the IDF chief of staff, Herzi Halevi, and the director of Israel’s security agency, Ronen Bar, visited their Egyptian counterparts in Cairo last week to further assure them that the Rafah operation will not lead to Palestinian refugees being forced into Egypt.

There could be major issues if there are. Israel and Egypt have had a peaceful security relationship since President Jimmy Carter brokered a 1979 treaty between them. Egypt has said that agreement, the backbone of Israeli security in the Middle East, would be ruptured if Palestinian refugees were forced into Egyptian territory. Egypt has already constructed a wall and additional barriers on the border to stop the movement of refugees into the country.

In the meantime, the plight of the Palestinian population in the Gaza Strip has become the greatest ongoing humanitarian crisis on the planet, and multiple international relief agencies (World Food Program, Doctors Without Borders, Oxfam, etc.) have continued to describe the situation in apocalyptic terms. Shortages of fresh water, food, and basic medical assistance have brought many Palestinians to the point of starvation. Relief supplies, if they arrive in the Gaza Strip at all, are only a tiny fraction of the current requirement. As Samantha Powers, the USAID administrator, noted on social media last week: “More than 500 trucks should be entering Gaza daily. In the past week only ~85/day managed to get through.”

The world community supported Israel in the immediate aftermath of the tragic and heinous attack by Hamas terrorists on October 7 that resulted in over 1,200 innocent Israeli dead. But since the start of the war, Netanyahu has refused to discuss the war’s aftermath and any type of longer-term political solution. Instead, he has suggested that the IDF will occupy Gaza to ensure Israeli security. Gaza will be demilitarized and the southern border with Egypt will be more tightly sealed. This will require Israel to deploy and maintain tens of thousands of troops in Gaza for an indefinite amount of time.

Some conservative Israeli government ministers have urged the expulsion of all two million Palestinian inhabitants from Gaza and filling the Strip with Jewish settlements. This effort has caused Israel to become even more isolated globally. Many nations have condemned the settlement dialogue and Israel’s military actions publicly, and several now refuse to provide them support.

Most importantly, however, it has strained the relationship between the US and Israel, and the one between Biden and Netanyahu. The two have known each other for more than 30 years, and Biden has been a staunch supporter of Israel throughout his political career. But the president, who is facing pressure from within his own party, is now describing Israel’s military operations as excessive.

The United States was the first country to recognize Israel as a sovereign state in 1948. Presidents from both parties have backed Israel in its conflicts with its Arab neighbors in 1956, 1967, and 1973. Washington has further supported Israel in multiple conflicts with Hamas in recent years. Israel, prior to this conflict, was one of the largest recipients of American military assistance – over $3 billion annually. But this conflict has put the “special relationship” between the two countries in jeopardy.

The White House is fully aware that this war could lead to expanded violence across the region. While strikes from Iran-backed groups in Iraq and Syria have declined since the US conducted major strikes in recent weeks, there continues to be multiple flashpoints. Hezbollah has continued artillery and missile attacks against Israel’s north, and there are now calls for a greater military response so the 80,000 Israelis who have fled the north can return home. The Houthis in Yemen continue attacks on commercial ships and US naval vessels in the Red Sea. There is also increased violence in the West Bank, which could worsen because of restrictions imposed on Muslims at the onset of Ramadan. Over 400 Palestinians have been killed in fighting with the IDF and Jewish settlers since October 7. Another 6,000 have been detained. All of these “fronts” in Israel’s ongoing war will likely intensify if it attacks Rafah.

Israelis are beginning to call for elections and the removal of Netanyahu. The Israeli economy is now suffering from rising unemployment, reduced credit ratings, gross domestic product has shrunk dramatically, and several major companies have departed. Previous wars that Israel fought were brief in comparison, as this war drags on concerns are rising about how long Israel can keep 300,000 reservists in uniform.

Biden has publicly expressed confidence that there will be a ceasefire soon and must privately hope that this will translate into an end to hostilities. Perhaps that is the case, and the Israelis have telegraphed their intention to attack Rafah to buttress their negotiating strategy to secure the release of hostages. What is certain, however, is that this war is at an inflection point, and the path ahead will have dramatic implications for the future of Israel, the region, and the globe.

Jeff McCausland is a national security consultant for CBS Radio and TV and a Visiting Professor at Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. He is a retired Colonel from the US Army having commanded during the Gulf War and served in the Pentagon as well as on the National Security Council staff in the White House. He is the Founder and CEO of Diamond6 Leadership and Strategy, LLC. (www.diamondsixleadership.com)

John Batchelor Show: 3/6/24: #Ukraine: The German leak.

John Batchelor Show: 3/6/24: #Gaza: Fog of War. War of the North.

The worst implications of Trump’s 'America First' isolationism are coming into focus

Donald Trump’s apparent disconnect from reality during a challenging time in global history exposes the stakes of this year’s presidential election.

During a recent campaign rally, Donald Trump said he told a NATO leader he would “encourage” Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to countries that were “delinquent” and had not paid bills they “owed” the alliance. His remarks set off a firestorm domestically and internationally, as the U.S. Congress argues over how and when to provide Ukraine with additional military assistance in its efforts to halt Russian aggression.

This situation was exacerbated by the sudden death of Alexei Navalny in a Russian Arctic penal colony. Navalny was a long-standing opponent of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s dictatorial rule. The Kremlin had even attempted to poison Navalny in 2020 and jailed him on trumped up charges upon his return to Russia in 2021. Despite these facts, Trump refused to condemn Putin. Instead he compared his own extensive and ongoing legal struggles to Navalny’s struggle for freedom in Russia, casting himself as a victim.

Read full article here on MSNBC.

John Batchelor Show: 2/21/24: #NATO: #RUSSIA: Ukraine conflict is building into something worse

#NATO: #RUSSIA: Excerpt from a conversation with colleague Jeff McCausland of CBS News, re the conversations we have learned of and the observations we have read the last weeks that the Ukraine conflict is building into something worse.  More of this later today.

Train Wreck: The Congress, the Defense Budget, and National Security

The U.S. nearly plunged into its fourth government shutdown in 10 years, a troubling development avoided by a Continuing Resolution (CR) that passed with just hours to spare. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy had failed to whip his Republican conference and right-wing members into a consistent voting bloc to pass the FY2024 Federal Budget and had to seek support from Democrats to secure a CR. Now he has 45 more days to find a solution, but it is likely the nation will be in the same predicament when the current deal expires. Leaders in the White House and Wall Street had warned that the nation’s economy would suffer from a shutdown, and this may have contributed to action at the eleventh hour. But in the aftermath, right-wing GOP members are preparing to oust McCarthy from leadership and appear uninterested in compromise.

The last shutdown occurred in 2018-19 and ended after more than 35 days. Given the level of acrimony and a potential drawn out battle for congressional leadership posts, it appears very possible that a shutdown in this Congress could test that record.

But the country’s national security is also at risk. McCarthy and his caucus failed to pass the fiscal 2024 Pentagon spending bill after numerous votes, which clearly has major implications for the country’s defense. One major obstacle for Congress has been aid to Ukraine. The Senate, on a bipartisan basis, proposed sending $6 billion in military aid to Ukraine, but House Republicans made it clear that was a nonstarter. Right-wing members of the House even balked at including $300 million targeted at training Ukrainian soldiers and the purchase of weapons in the CR. While a tiny amount in terms of the overall budget, even that small number was considered a poison pill.

Thus far the U.S. has provided $46 billion in military aid, and the administration is seeking $24 billion more. President Joe Biden made it clear that Ukraine funding remains a top priority to him, and he issued a statement that bluntly pointed the finger at Congress to figure it out.

"We cannot under any circumstances allow American support for Ukraine to be interrupted," he said. "I fully expect the Speaker will keep his commitment to the people of Ukraine and secure passage of the support needed to help Ukraine at this critical moment."

Democrats and Republicans will have to come together to pass further funding for Kyiv. It may take quite a bit of time to get there, however. Congress still needs to figure out how to ensure the Pentagon remains funded for FY2024, and a CR still hinders America’s ability to secure its national security interests.

The CR will not allow for increases in munition production without a waiver, and in the past, this has affected the production lines of the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System and Patriot missiles, William LaPlante, the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, said last week.

LaPlante also warned that a shutdown would be “horrible” and halt weapon system testing, the government’s ability to accept finished military equipment from manufacturers as well as acquisition/sustainment projects. He noted, glibly, that China’s military does not suffer through continuing resolutions or government shutdowns.

“Can you imagine if the Chinese had something like this, where their government would shut down every few years, and they would freeze their budgets?” he said to a crowd at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “We would not view that badly. We could teach them how to do that. That would be helpful.”

The crowd laughed in response, but without the passage of the defense budget and the $886 billion that President Joe Biden requested there is real concern that a shutdown will dramatically affect the nation’s security in a variety of ways. Personnel costs, procurement, research and development, maintenance and operations are all at risk. A lack of funding would also negatively affect American prestige abroad and unity with our allies. Not to mention, it raises significant questions about our continued support for Taiwan as well as Ukraine’s counteroffensive. All are intrinsically tied to the nation’s security and its position in the world.

Personnel

If a November shutdown were to occur, obviously the most dramatic effect would be on soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who will not be paid. There are 2more than 2 million military personnel (roughly 1.3 million active-duty soldiers, plus another 800,000 reservists) who are required to continue to perform their duties and, like in past shutdowns, will receive back pay once it is over. There are also 804,244 DoD civilians. About 45% are deemed “essential” and would continue to work during a shutdown. They as well as those furloughed would receive back pay in the aftermath. Government contractors, however, are not guaranteed back pay.

Many junior military personnel live paycheck to paycheck, and roughly 20% of junior enlisted families live in homes that are food insecure. Consequently, any interruption of pay means thousands of suffering military families who will struggle to buy groceries, and pay rent, car payments, mortgages, childcare, etc. In a recent survey, 54% of junior enlisted military families said they would be “greatly affected” by a shutdown. One-third of these families have less than $3,000 in savings. Even grocery stores on military bases, called commissaries, and childcare centers will likely close and elective surgeries and dentistry will pause.

This would also have a negative impact on military recruiting and the retention of highly qualified military personnel. It occurs at a particularly difficult moment as all the services have failed to meet their FY2023 recruiting goals. It is impossible to believe that the failure of Congress to pay the troops will encourage more young Americans to enlist in its aftermath.

Procurement and R&D

LaPlante also warned that a shutdown would cause the country’s military procurement and research and development efforts to grind to a halt. He recalled that as head of Air Force Acquisition during a previous shutdown he had to furlough all employees from the Defense Contracting Management Agency. This group examines new equipment prior to acceptance by the military, and this essentially froze F-35 fighter and munition production lines. We will likely see some manufacturing freezes due to the CR particularly with respect to any new programs or the expansion of previous programs.

Defense industries are well aware of the significant challenges caused by a shutdown or CR.

Aerospace and major defense companies have more than 2 million employees, and the industry's lead trade group, AIA, said last week that it wants Congress to “act now to fund the federal government…especially for the Department of Defense, as well as the Federal Aviation Administration and NASA.” They cite national security and aviation safety as their major concern, but it obviously has major business implications as well.

If a shutdown continued for an extended period, it would impact these industries. A CR, meanwhile, stops any expansion of manufacturing. Existing major procurements (ships, aircraft, missiles, etc.) are multiyear contracts as is ongoing construction. Consequently, they are unlikely to be affected. But items like the production of munitions, particularly artillery rounds, have been a single-year budget line. Because of the growing demand brought about by the Ukraine war, the U.S. has sought to resurrect its defense industrial base to meet the dramatic demand for ammunition. A shutdown would bring those new production lines to a halt, but a Continuing Resolution effectively does the same.

Beyond the immediate effect, a shutdown and even the CR could further discourage industry from expanding manufacturing lines as promised. As a result, the Pentagon may pursue multi-year contracts to avoid future issues for industry, which is not an approach favored by Congress. Typically, lawmakers on Capitol Hill have sought greater oversight of such contracts because of the impact they have on individual states or constituencies.

In the Air Force alone, there could be major challenges for key modernization initiatives that are still in research and development. For example, the Air Force has a new program to convert F-16s to be compatible with artificial intelligence (AI). The experimental operations unit, which is tasked with testing the new capability as part of Project Venom, is slated to get $72 million in the fiscal 2024 budget. But because it’s a new program, a CR means the program cannot begin until a new budget passes.

Operations and Maintenance

Failure to pass the defense budget will also affect ongoing military operations and training. Military exercises that are not within the current budget may need to be curtailed or cancelled. It could also curtail the ability of the U.S. military to perform new support missions along the U.S. border and to maintain equipment and other assets. Ironically, a shutdown, which some hardline Republicans were openly supportive of pursuing, could undermine many things that Freedom Caucus Republicans staunchly claim to defend by draining resources for border security and increasing overall costs.

Whether in a shutdown or under a CR, there will be some waivers for ongoing operations and training. The Pentagon previously announced that it would not pause the training of Ukrainian soldiers in the United during a shutdown, for example, as it falls under one of the excepted activities that can still be pursued. Still, this effort cannot be expanded absent a new budget which could slow the training of Ukrainian pilots to fly the promised F-16 fighters. A shutdown or a budget freeze also threatens a major multibillion-dollar diplomatic agreement between the U.S. and three key Pacific Island nations that are a cornerstone of the Biden administration’s Indo-Pacific strategy. The administration has stated that the renewal of decades-old “compacts of free association” (COFAs) with the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau are the “bedrock of the U.S. role in the Pacific.” Consequently, it has sought to respond to growing Chinese influence by expanding U.S. access to military bases and improved diplomatic ties with countries in the region.

Conclusions

This last-minute budget deal is a further indicator of how political battles in Washington undermine America’s national security as well as its international presence and reputation with allies abroad. Unfortunately, there is every reason to believe the nation will be at this same point on November 17th .

Furthermore, both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jingping are enjoying the disarray in the U.S. Congress. Both will likely use this as a clear illustration that democracy is in decline and the superiority of their respective political systems.

Some congressmen attempted to minimize the possibility that Congress might fail to pass the Federal Budget resulting in a government shutdown. Representative Andy Biggs of Arizona claimed during the budget effort that this would “not be a shutdown of government,” but a pause in “out-of-control federal spending related to nonessentials.” This is at best naïve and at worst uninformed. He might well consider the words of our second president, John Adams who said that “facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”