With A Storm On The Horizon, Israel Turns On Its Latest Defense System, Pictures Capture U.S. And S Korea Marines Training

With a storm on the horizon, Israel turns on its latest missile defense system

Storm clouds, both literal and figurative, loomed overhead as two batteries of Israel’s latest missile defense system — the David’s Sling — went operational on Sunday.

At a ceremony at the Hatzor Air Base not far from the Gaza Strip, Israel’s top defense officials boasted of the capabilities afforded by the state-of-the-art batteries, as tensions with Hamas threaten to put them to a real-time test soon.

Tensions with Hamas — who have reportedly now also acquired rockets with much larger warheads — have spiraled in recent weeks following the killing of a top Hamas leader.

Hamas has accused Israel of the apparent assassination of its terror chief Mazen Faqha on March 25 and threatened revenge.

Israel has not acknowledged any role in the hit and early Syunday Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman insinuated the terrorist group was responsible for killing Faqha.

As the ceremony was taking place Hamas rejected Liberman’s hints and said it came from a place of fear.

While Liberman also said Sunday that Israel has no plans for another “adventure” in Gaza, some analysts and officials have raised the possibility that a fourth round of violence between the Israel Defense Forces and Hamas approaches.

Just before the event, the head of the Israeli Air Force’s Aerial Defense Command, Brig. Gen. Tzvika Haimovitch warned that such a conflict with Hamas would “be more challenging” than previous ones in light of the highly explosive, short-range rockets reportedly acquired by the terrorist group.

The David’s Sling, which is designed for mid-range missiles, would not protect Israel against this new variety of projectile and even the IDF’s Iron Dome short-range interceptor system would also struggle against these rockets.

However, standing in front of one of the David’s Sling batteries, Haimovitch said his unit was better prepared than ever to face the rocket threat.

Pictures capture US and South Korean Marines training

These awe-inspiring pictures show South Korean marines practicing a landing operation as a part of their annual military training with US troops.

Amphibious assault vehicles fired smoke bombs into the air which covered the movements of the marines as they sprinted onto the beach in Pohang, South Korea. 

The crack troops crawled along the sand peering into their rifle scopes as others bearing mortars came ashore.  

The annual exercises called Foal Eagle come as tensions with North Korea mount after recent missile and rocket testing in the communist state.

Visiting the headquarters of an army unit last month, the North's leader Kim Jong-Un praised his troops for their 'vigilance against the US and South Korean enemy forces that are making frantic efforts for invasion'.

Kim also ordered the troops to 'set up thorough countermeasures of a merciless strike against the enemy's sudden air assault.'

On Friday US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said North Korea must be stopped on its path toward being able to threaten the United States with nuclear attack.

Pyongyang is widely seen as behind the murder of Kim's half-brother Kim Jong-Nam in Kuala Lumpur in February by two women using a banned nerve agent.

Washington and Seoul have agreed to deploy the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defence system to counter growing nuclear and missile threats by the North, and the first parts have recently arrived in the South.

The plan has angered Beijing, which fears it will undermine its own ballistic capabilities, with China's foreign ministry saying THAAD 'jeopardises the strategic security interests' in the region and warning of 'consequences' for Seoul and Washington. 

Moscow And Beijing Join Forces To Bypass US Dollar In Global Markets, Shift To Gold Trade

The Russian central bank opened its first overseas office in Beijing on March 14, marking a step forward in forging a Beijing-Moscow alliance to bypass the US dollar in the global monetary system, and to phase-in a gold-backed standard of trade. 

According to the South China Morning Post the new office was part of agreements made between the two neighbours "to seek stronger economic ties" since the West brought in sanctions against Russia over the Ukraine crisis and the oil-price slump hit the Russian economy.

According to Dmitry Skobelkin, the deputy governor of the Central Bank of Russia, the opening of a Beijing representative office by the Central Bank of Russia was a “very timely” move to aid specific cooperation, including bond issuance, anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism measures between China and Russia. 

The new central bank office was opened at a time when Russia is preparing to issue its first federal loan bonds denominated in Chinese yuan. Officials from China’s central bank and financial regulatory commissions attended the ceremony at the Russian embassy in Beijing, which was set up in October 1959 in the heyday of Sino-Soviet relations. Financial regulators from the two countries agreed last May to issue home currency-denominated bonds in each other’s markets, a move that was widely viewed as intended to eventually test the global reserve status of the US dollar.

Speaking on future ties with Russia, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang said in mid-March that Sino-Russian trade ties were affected by falling oil prices, but he added that he saw great potential in cooperation. Vladimir Shapovalov, a senior official at the Russian central bank, said the two central banks were drafting a memorandum of understanding to solve technical issues around China’s gold imports from Russia, and that details would be released soon. 

If Russia - the world's fourth largest gold producer after China, Japan and the US - is indeed set to become a major supplier of gold to China, the probability of a scenario hinted by many over the years, namely that Beijing is preparing to eventually unroll a gold-backed currency, increases by orders of magnitude.

David's Sling: Israel's Long-Range Anti-Missile Defense, Goes Live

David's Sling, Long-Range Anti-Missile Defense, Goes Live

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday morning told the weekly Cabinet meeting that the David’s Sling missile defense interceptor would become operational later in the day.

“This afternoon, the David’s Sling missile defense interceptor will become operational,” Netanyahu said. “This is important news; all of Israel’s citizens experienced the important achievement of the Iron Dome system against short range missiles in the last Gaza campaign.”

David’s Sling, formerly known as Magic Wand, is an IDF system being jointly developed by the Israeli defense contractor Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and the American defense contractor Raytheon, designed to intercept enemy planes, drones, tactical ballistic missiles, medium- to long-range rockets and cruise missiles, fired at ranges from 25 to 185 miles.

David’s Sling is meant to bolster the second tier of Israel’s theater missile defense system. The two-stage radar and electro-optic guided system’s range is three times that of Iron Dome.

“We have an absolute obligation to the security of Israel’s citizens,” the PM noted, adding that “in the context of this obligation, we are working systematically to strengthen the offensive capability of the State of Israel against its enemies. We are also working, to the same degree, to strengthen our defensive capability against our enemies.”

“Of course, we also developed the Arrow system against strategic long-range missiles, as well as other systems,” Netanyahu said. “David’s Sling acts in the intermediate range and is of great importance to Israel’s security. I would like to commend the people at the Defense Ministry, the IDF, the R&D people and everyone who worked to make this system operational. We are defending the home front.”

Growing Threats To Israel: The Syrian Concern, International Community Ignoring Hezbollah Threat, 'Hezbollah Is Lebanon Is Hezbollah

The Syrian concern: Israel sends clear signals following border escalation

Israel wants Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria to be more conscious of its vital security interests and what it defines as its "red lines," and has recently been trying to convey the message more explicitly to the Syrian regime via Russia. 

Israeli decision-makers from both the military and the political echelons know very well that Syria will soon be reshaped by a new era fast approaching. However, they're also clear on the fact that Syria is not likely to return to being the state it was six years ago when the civil war broke out.

And while the situation in Syria continues to remain as volatile as it has so far been, Israel fears that if and when Assad consolidates his grip on parts of Syria, it could potentially lead to the deployment of Iranian, Hezbollah or other Shi'ite militiamen along the Israeli border in the Golan Heights. 

Nowadays, this possibility is the most serious concern preoccupying Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman and IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gadi Eisnekot when it comes to Syria. 
So much so that they are even more concerned about this than they are about the transfer of long-range and precise missiles from Iran to Hezbollah in Lebanon via Syria, which has occasionally triggered Israeli air strikes on Syria, according to foreign reports. 

This concern has led Israel to try and advance its Syrian agenda and influence the various processes facilitated by the international community to reach a post-war deal or agreement to regulate the situation in Syria. 
The main actors participating in the efforts to reach such an agreement are Russia, the US, Turkey and even Arab nations such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Israel is currently trying to reach out to each of them to discuss its concerns and red lines. 

It's worth noting in this context that according to the Disengagement Agreement reached after the Yom Kippur war in 1974, Syria's army has the right to erect posts alongside the border. However, most of its positions were taken over by rebel forces during the war and now most of the border is controlled by al-Qaida, ISIS and moderate rebels. Only in the north near Mount Hermon can remnants of Assad's army still be seen.

Knowing that the keys are in Moscow explains why Netanyahu has met with Russian president Vladimir Putting five times in the last a year and half and talked to him over the phone at least two dozen times.

Col. Kemp: International community ignoring Hezbollah threat to Israel

Former British commander with Friends of Israel Initiative says UK should consider preventing return of citizens who joined Islamic State.

Countries that maintain relations with Iran and Lebanon need to focus on the threat of Tehran-directed Hezbollah attacking Israel, rather than wait for war to come and then point fingers, Col. (ret.) Richard Kemp, a former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, says.

“The purpose really [of my visit to Israel last year was] to determine what the current threat is and see how Israel can counter that threat,” he says. “We want to highlight to the international community that unless something is done to prevent Hezbollah under direction of Iran from attacking Israel – and Israel will respond, and there will be civilian casualties and Israel will be condemned by the international community – [this could happen, and we need] to give notice to the international community that this could happen, and that when it does happen the casualties are not Israel’s fault but Hezbollah’s.”

Now back in England, he wants to emphasize how important it is that the world keep an eye on Hezbollah’s threats and Islamist terrorism.

Pressure should be put on Lebanon to end Hezbollah’s arms buildup.

“No one seems to be even paying attention to the 100,000 missiles pointing at Israel’s civilian population.” He also argues that the international community should pressure Tehran, which supports Hezbollah, and points to the Iran nuclear deal that has resulted in billions of dollars being released to the Islamic Republic that empowers it and Hezbollah.

Kemp thinks the decision to leave the EU will make the UK more secure. This is especially true in light of the recent London terrorist attack, the first since 2013 and the most serious since the July 2005 bombings.

“The current estimate is that there are 3,000 active jihadists considered to be a threat by MI5 [Britain’s domestic counter-intelligence and security agency]; that same threat extends across the whole of Europe in France, Belgium and elsewhere, and the thing is complicated, one of the reasons the threat is there is because Islamic State has been allowed to continue to exist – its existence and defiance have inspired terrorists to act,” says the colonel.

The threat of lone-wolf terrorism, such as that carried out by London attacker Khalid Masood outside Parliament on March 22, will be minimized once the UK reestablishes its borders with the EU. “Currently we can’t control jihadists coming in from other EU countries; we have border controls, but if we know someone is an active jihadist then we can’t stop him coming here, so it gives our security services a problem monitoring those who travel.”

Naftali Bennett: Hezbollah is Lebanon is Hezbollah

In July 2006 mortars and rockets were fired from Lebanon at Israel’s cities and infrastructure. At the same time, Lebanese militants crossed the border and attacked Israeli soldiers – killing three and abducting the bodies of two others to the Lebanese town of Ayta a-Shab. More Israelis were killed as they chased the attackers into Lebanese territory. Despite this, Israel did not retaliate against Lebanon.

Following a request by the US, Israel distinguished between Sovereign Lebanon and Hezbollah. As a result, I – and thousands of other Israeli soldiers – found myself trying to stop an Iranian paramilitary organization using only tweezers. After weeks behind enemy lines, I can tell you: it is impossible to fight like that.

Lebanese President Michel Aoun’s recent comments on Egyptian television make it clear he sees no distinction between Hezbollah and the Lebanese government. Hezbollah’s weapons “are essential, in that they complement the actions of the army and do not contradict them,” he said, and noted: “They are a major part of Lebanon’s defense.”

Now that Lebanon has made it clear it is Hezbollah and Hezbollah is Lebanon, it is time for Israel and the world to let the Lebanese public know: if a rocket or mortar is fired from Lebanon at Israel it will be considered an act of war conducted by the Lebanese government; if Lebanon allows and enables terrorists to stage attacks from its sovereign territory, Israel will hold it accountable.

Unlike last time, if we defend ourselves against a future Lebanese attack we will not use tweezers to search for a needle in a haystack: we will neutralize the haystack.

In the decade since 2006 Iran strengthened Hezbollah as its well-trained and well-equipped proxy. Its arsenal now contains more than one-hundred-thousand rockets, and many of its members have gained combat experience fighting for Syria’s Bashar al-Assad in the civil war. Moreover, even as it lost hundreds of fighters helping Assad butcher other Syrians, Hezbollah readied itself for a potential war with Israel, stocking itself with advanced weaponry and fortifying its positions and command centers throughout Lebanon.

But Hezbollah is not only an Iranian-trained army stationed in Lebanon. It is part and parcel of the Lebanese government, boasting 12 seats in Parliament and two ministers in Cabinet. In fact, Aoun made it clear he no longer views the group as an alternative but as part of his government and strategy: “It is no longer an urgent matter to discuss the need to strip Hezbollah of its weapons,” he said in Cairo, hinting that Hezbollah is part of his army’s strategic planning.

This leads to a simple conclusion: if Hezbollah attacks Israel, it is tantamount to a Lebanese declaration of war against Israel.

If we are forced to fight – and to be clear, we have no desire to go to war – we will view all Lebanese governmental institutions as potential targets: any place used as a launch site for rockets at Israel a military post; any village hosting munition storages or command centers a military base; any Lebanese building or infrastructure used to attack Israel would become a valid military target for us to strike.

The results would be tragic for the Lebanese people.

However, the Lebanese people are the only ones who can make sure this scenario never becomes reality.

By removing Hezbollah’s rocket launchers from their backyards, hundreds of Lebanese families can save their homes. By stopping Hezbollah from using their schools as command centers, principles can protect their pupils. So long as Hezbollah is a welcome guest, the hosts are responsible for its actions.

Hezbollah’s power stems from its being embedded in Lebanon, and from Lebanon not being held accountable for Hezbollah’s acts of terror. Aoun made it clear this separation was artificial and irrelevant. As a result, Israel must let the world, and especially the Lebanese people, know Hezbollah is Lebanon.

IDF prepares for Islamic State to attack on foot, in cars

Israel set to unveil newest missile defense system

Benjamin Netanyahu: David's Sling missile interceptor to become operational Sunday

The Muslim Brotherhood Swoops into Sweden

Londonistan: 423 New Mosques; 500 Closed Churches

Cold Turkey: US Secretary of State Fails to See Eye to Eye With Erdogan

Liberman suggests Hamas behind killing of top terrorist

Airports And Nuclear Plants On Terror Alert, EU On The Verge Of The Abyss, Sets Guidelines For Two-Phase Brexit Talks

Airports and nuclear power stations on terror alert as government officials warn of 'credible' cyber threat

Britain’s airports and nuclear power stations have been told to tighten their defences against terrorist attacks in the face of increased threats to electronic security systems.

Security services have issued a series of alerts in the past 24 hours, warning that terrorists may have developed ways of bypassing safety checks.

Intelligence agencies believe that Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) and other terrorist groups have developed ways to plant explosives in laptops and mobile phones that can evade airport security screening methods.

Now there are concerns that terrorists will use the techniques to bypass screening devices at European and US airports.

There were also fears that computer hackers were trying to bypass nuclear power station security measures. Government officials have warned that terrorists, foreign spies and “hacktivists” are looking to exploit “vulnerabilities” in the nuclear industry’s internet defences.

Jesse Norman, the energy minister, told The Telegraph that nuclear plants must make sure that they “remain resilient to evolving cyber threats”.

Mr Norman said: “The Government is fully committed to defending the UK against cyber threats, with a £1.9 billion investment designed to transform this country’s cyber security.”

He said the civil nuclear strategy published in February sets out ways to ensure that the civil nuclear sector “can defend against, recover from, and remain resilient to evolving cyber threats”.

The EU is on the verge of the abyss. Here's why Theresa May has a winning hand and must go all in

The Prime Minister should exploit the current turmoil in the EU to get the best deal for Britain in the upcoming Brexit negotiations, Telegraph columnist Allister Heath argues.

In a new video, Article 50: Theresa May's Winning Hand, Heath shows just how powerful her negotiating position could actually be.

He contends that the rise of populism on the continent, the strength of Britain's economy and Europe's fear of terrorism all make a good deal for the UK more likely.

And he urges Mrs May, as she triggers Article 50, to recognise that she could have the upper hand and go "all in" when the chance to strike arises.

"The EU is on the verge of the abyss," he says. "We need to leave quickly. But it is clear that Theresa May has a winning hand."

EU guidelines set out two-phase Brexit talks

The EU’s draft Brexit negotiating guidelines were sent to member states on Friday (31 March), two days after the UK triggered its exit procedure from the bloc.

The guidelines, obtained by EUobserver, set out the political priorities and principles for the Union. 

Member states are now going through the text to finalise their positions. The guidelines will then be adopted at a summit of EU leaders on 29 April.

The EU will want to create certainty for the EU citizens caught up in Brexit - either EU nationals living in the UK, or Britons living in the EU.

The issue is very complex: negotiators will first need to identify who these people are, who is living in the UK now, as well as who has lived there before and might return. What about relatives - what should happen to their right to work, and their access to benefits and health care?

The EU wants "reciprocal, non-discriminatory" rules that are “enforceable” on both sides. This means that some sort of mechanism, or court, will have to oversee these rights. In the EU it is the European Court of Justice (ECJ), but there is still questions about what type of procedure will suit the UK. 

The Republic of Ireland remains a key issue for the EU, as it wants to preserve the peace settlement in Northern Ireland, and to avoid hard borders. 

But an EU official confirmed that "it will be an external border of the EU, so in a legal sense there will be a new quality [to] the border,” indicating that there will need to be changes to the current arrangement.

He added the EU’s commitment is to be "flexible and imaginative” about figuring out a way of doing that without undermining the single market, or the EU's legal order.

The EU’s draft guidelines state that the first phase of the negotiations should aim to agree on a divorce settlement on the rights and obligations of the UK.

It would have the goal of providing "as much clarity and legal certainty as possible to citizens, businesses, stakeholders and international partners” on the future.

An agreement on these points does not have to be achieved for the EU and the UK to start talking about the future in a next phase, but “sufficient progress” is necessary.

It is a political assessment, and it is for the EU leaders to decide when that sufficient progress has been achieved, based on the recommendations of the EU's chief negotiator, Michel Barnier.

"Brexit will have consequences, things will change,” warned a senior EU official. 

“There will be some level of destruction, barriers, not because of Brussels bureaucrats but because of the UK's decision,” he added, reiterating European Council president Donald Tusk’s sentiments that the Brexit talks will amount to “damage control”. 

The draft guidelines will be further discussed on 11 and 24 April at the meetings of EU affairs advisers, who give counsel to the leaders. 

The EU affairs ministers will also comb through the text on 27 April, in preparation for the 29 April summit.

New Terrorist Fears: Laptop Bombs May Evade Airport Security, Does The Washington Establishment Seek War With Russia?

First on CNN: New terrorist laptop bombs may evade airport security, intel sources say

US intelligence and law enforcement agencies believe that ISIS and other terrorist organizations have developed innovative ways to plant explosives in electronic devices that FBI testing shows can evade some commonly used airport security screening methods, CNN has learned.

Heightening the concern is US intelligence suggesting that terrorists have obtained sophisticated airport security equipment to test how to effectively conceal explosives in laptops and other electronic devices.

The intelligence, gathered in the last several months, played a significant role in the Trump administration's decision to prohibit travelers flying out of 10 airports in eight countries in the Middle East and Africa from carrying laptops and other large electronic devices aboard planes.

The findings may raise questions about whether the ban is broad enough. CNN has learned that, through a series of tests conducted late last year, the FBI determined the laptop bombs would be far more difficult for airport screeners to detect than previous versions terrorist groups have produced. The FBI testing focused on specific models of screening machines that are approved by the Transportation Security Administration and are used in the US and around t

"As a matter of policy, we do not publicly discuss specific intelligence information. However, evaluated intelligence indicates that terrorist groups continue to target commercial aviation, to include smuggling explosive devices in electronics," the Department of Homeland Security told CNN in a statement. "The U.S. government continually re-assesses existing intelligence and collects new intelligence. This allows DHS and TSA to constantly evaluate our aviation security processes and policies and make enhancements when they are deemed necessary to keep passengers safe. As always, all air travelers are subject to a robust security system that employs multiple layers of security, both seen and unseen.

US authorities have said the electronics ban is focused on the eight countries in part because of intelligence indicating a greater threat there. Intelligence and law enforcement assessments done in recent months also indicate that, though the broader vulnerabilities exist, the US has more confidence in detection machines and security screeners at airports in the US and Europe. Advanced technology and training helps mitigate the risk.

Aviation security expert Robert Liscouski, a former Homeland Security assistant secretary for infrastructure protection, said limiting the ban to eight countries makes sense based on the capability and locations of terrorist groups.

Not only are US and European airports better protected, he said, but developed countries have a "better policy regime" that allows them to set standards and ensure uniform compliance.

"We don't have the same level of confidence in other areas of the world because we don't have the government bodies and stature to assure compliance," said Liscouski, president of Secure Point Technologies.

When the electronics ban was announced, US officials told CNN they were concerned that terrorists had developed ways to hide explosives in battery compartments. But the new intelligence makes clear that the bomb-makers working for ISIS and other groups have become sophisticated enough to hide the explosives while ensuring a laptop would function long enough to get past screeners. Though advanced in design, FBI testing found that the laptops could be modified using common household tools.

FBI experts have tested variants of the laptop bombs using different battery and explosive configurations to assess how difficult it would be for airport screeners to detect them. 

The intelligence that contributed to the ban on electronic devices was specific, credible and reliable, according to three officials who used the same words to describe it. One official called the intelligence "hair-raising."

US believes jihadists found innovative ways to put explosives in laptops

US authorities reportedly believe that jihadist organizations have discovered innovative ways to insert explosives inside electronic devices that can evade common screening techniques used by most airports.

The intelligence gathered in recent months played a role in the Trump administration’s decision to issue bans prohibiting electronic devices such as laptops and tablets in the cabins on flights from several Middle Eastern countries, CNN said.

Does the Washington Establishment Seek War with Russia?

Which Is scary to Washington’s Establishment: a U.S. President who wants to reach new agreements with Russia, or a U.S. President who wants to replace all of Russia’s allies?

What we’ve been having recently is solely Presidents who want to replace all of Russia’s allies — and they’ve been succeeding at that:

We replaced Saddam Hussein.

We replaced Muammar Gaddafi.

We replaced Viktor Yanukovych.

We’re still trying to replace Bashar al-Assad, and also Iran’s leadership.

There’s question as to whether U.S. President Donald Trump will continue that string, and many in the press consider him to be too favorable toward Russia.

The newsmedia pick up from the Democrats and the other neoconservatives, and therefore Trump is being pressed hard on his being ‘Putin’s stooge’ or even ‘Putin’s Manchurian candidate,’ though the presumption in those statements is that Russia is doomed to be America’s enemy unless America outright conquers it — and this is a war-mongering and arrogant presumption for the U.S. government to be making about Russia, and it’s also very far from being a realistic assumption about Russia. Will Russia tolerate having all of its allies overthrown by the U.S.? How many more U.S. nuclear missiles will Russia accept being placed near and on its borders in formerly allied countries that now are in NATO — the anti-Russia military club?

Trump made clear during his campaign, that he wants to be allied with Putin’s consistent war against “radical Islamic terrorism” — no one can challenge that Putin has always, and consistently, been uncompromisingly determined to oppose that — never to arm nor train jihadists like the U.S. and its Saudi ‘ally’ the Saud family, do (in order to overthrow Russia’s allies).

So: which of the two is scary — the Hillary Clinton and John McCain crowd, the neocons, who want to crush Russia; or, the few people in Washington who (at least until Trump became elected) were that crowd’s enemies?

As soon as Trump became elected, his fear of being dubbed ‘Putin’s stooge’ or ‘Putin’s Manchurian candidate’ caused him to appoint a national-security team who were hell-bent on replacing Russia’s remaining allies, Iran and Syria. But even this hasn’t been enough to satisfy the neocons who run both Parties, and the newsmedia. Trump has been trying to accommodate the people who are doing all they can to bring him down, but it doesn’t seem to be appeasing them. The Washington Establishment has terrified him away from his campaign promise of creating an alliance with Russia to cooperate together in wiping out jihadism — and jihadism is something that didn’t even exist in modern times until the U.S. and its Saud allies introduced it into Afghanistan in 1979 to overthrow the secular, Soviet-allied leader of that country, Nur Muhammed Taraki. This joint effort with the Sauds created jihadism in the modern age. Zbigniew Brzezinski said of his and the CIA’s and the Sauds’ achievement, in a 1998 interview, “Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it?” It became the model for what they’re now doing to Syria. 

Trump had said that his top national-security priority would be against jihadism, not against Russia and its allies. But so far, his foreign policy in this regard seems more like what had been widely anticipated in the event of a Hillary Clinton win. (Even Trump’s focus against “radical Islamic terrorism” is directed almost exclusively against seven mainly Shiite nations that America’s Saudi allies — who are fundamentalist Sunnis and hate Shia muslims — despise. And two of those Shiite-run nations, Iran and Syria, are backed by Russia; so, Trump might just be continuing his predecessor’s pro-Saud policy there.) Yet nonetheless, the neoconservatives press on with investigations of whether Trump is a secret Russian agent.

What does the Washington Establishment really want? What is their real demand? Putin’s head on a stake? Or do they really want Trump’s head on a stake, for some entirely different reason? The motivations that they are stating for wanting to replace Trump by his Vice President, Mike Pence — a rabid neoconservative — don’t make sense, and the ‘evidence’ they’re basing this campaign on, is, as of yet, after months of trying, still more smears than authentic evidence. Clearly, there are ulterior motives behind it. And they seem to be winning — whatever their real motivations are.

Experts: A Single Nuclear Warhead Delivered By North Korean Satellite Could Blackout National Electric Grid And Kill 90% Of Americans

For those who are skeptical about North Korea’s capabilities, there is an excellent article presented by The Hill, entitled How North Korea could kill 90 percent of Americans.”  The article is authored by none otherthan R. James Woolsey, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and by Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, the Executive Director of the EMP Task Force on National and Homeland Security and a former analyst with the CIA.

Although the President is moving forward with his agenda, he has hit a “stall” in these first two months just on repealing Obamacare: The Republican Party has been the stall, refusing to give him the necessary votes and impetus to overcome it.  As mentioned in previous articles, it will take the President at least 6 months before his actions and effectiveness can be assessed.  Six months is a long time.  In the meantime, the U.S. continues to emplace measures such as THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Aerial Defense) being deployed to South Korea.

China and Russia view it as an aggressive measure and a threat rather than a defensive strategy to protect South Korea and Japan.  This is partially correct.  The important thing to consider here is that North Koreans and their leader are starting to become more irate regarding the deployment of THAAD, the ongoing military exercises of U.S. and South Korean troops in the latter’s nation, and the demand by Japan for a first strike initiative to occur.

Here are some excerpts from the article that readers should keep in mind:

“The mainstream media, and some officials who should know better, continue to allege North Korea does not yet have capability to deliver on its repeated threats to strike the U.S. with nuclear weapons.  False reassurance is given to the American people that North Korea has not “demonstrated” that it can miniaturize a nuclear warhead small enough for missile delivery, or build a reentry vehicle for an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of penetrating the atmosphere to blast a U.S. city.

Yet any nation that has built nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, as North Korea has done, can easily overcome the relatively much simpler technological challenge of warhead miniaturization and reentry vehicle design.”

These two paragraphs clearly state that North Korea can miniaturize a warhead.  Once again, the naysayers will only be satisfied that they “can” when either an EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse) weapon and/or a nuclear warhead is delivered with either complete loss of power in the U.S. and/or the loss of an American city.  When such occurs, the naysayers will then say nothing.

The objective is not to be “right” in this debate, but to be aware…to foster such awareness and help others to make whatever preparations they can before such occurs.  Here is another declaration by this article…a deep one:

“The notion that North Korea is testing A-Bombs and H-Bomb components, but does not yet have the sophistication to miniaturize warheads and make reentry vehicles for missile delivery is absurd.”

The threat could not be made any clearer than that.  The article goes on to describe assessments made in February and March of 2015 by former senior national security officials who warned this:

“…North Korea should be regarded as capable of delivering by satellite a small nuclear warhead, specially designed to make a high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack against the United States.”

In April Admiral William Gortney, former Commander of North American Aerospace Defense (NORAD) warned at a press conference that the KN-08 mobile ICBM missile system of North Korea could strike the United States with a nuclear warhead.

Exactly six months later, Gortney declared (based on intelligence analyses) that North Korea has nuclear weapons, the capability to miniaturize them, and is capable of placing them on a missile that can reach the continental United States. This last excerpt of the article is very important due to the gravity of the current situation (the article was written today), the warning it gives, and the denouncement of the MSM (mainstream media) for obfuscating the facts on the matter and “underreporting” an issue of this magnitude:

“According to the Congressional EMP Commission, a single warhead delivered by North Korean satellite could blackout the national electric grid and other life-sustaining critical infrastructures for over a year – killing 9 of 10 Americans by starvation and societal collapse.  Two North Korean satellites, the KMS-3 and KMS-4, presently orbit over the U.S. on trajectories consistent with surprise EMP attack. 

Why do the press and public officials ignore or under-report these facts?  Perhaps no administration wants to acknowledge that North Korea is an existential threat on their watch.  Whatever the motives for obfuscating the North Korean nuclear threat, the need to protect the American people is immediate and urgent…”

These men are experts in the field.  Why is the United States (as a whole) being so lackadaisical when it comes to such a problem?  As I have written in the past, it is my fervent wish that it never comes to pass…because the death of millions is not a “fair tradeoff” just to be able to be “right” or “correct” in a point of view.  For me personally, it is not about that.  It is about paying attention to men who make it their full-time business to be aware of the true threat that the MSM does not report, and reporting it here.  In this manner, you may be able to give yourself a small edge to make it by being aware and taking any precautions you can take with your family.  It is better to be aware, prepared, and have nothing happen than to wake up one morning and find an American city has been nuked and an EMP has rendered us without power.  Let us hope that doesn’t ever happen.

With Turks out, Raqqa operation is short of tanks

Intel Official Behind "Unmasking" Of Trump Associates Is "Very Senior, Very Well Known"

'Russiagate' Is Failing And Its Supporters Are Getting Concerned

Obama spying looks even worse than Trump claimed

'The Only Good Russian is a Dead Russian'? NATO's Hypocrisy in German Drill

Russia's Pacific Fleet Flagship Sets Sail: Where's It Going, What's it Doing?