ISIS attack on ROTC class at Old Dominion University stopped by student.

 

Police at Old Dominion University. CBC News/AP.

An ISIS attack on Old Dominion University in Virginia was stopped by a student armed with a pocket knife. CBS News. The suspect, 36 year old Mohamed Bailor Jalloh, was a former Virginia National Guardsman who had been convicted in 2016 for being a member of ISIS and planning a similar attack. He entered the classroom and asked if it was an ROTC course and when he was told it was, he opened fire, killing the instructor, Lt. Col. Brandon Shah. A student armed with a pocket knife attacked the attacker and managed to kill him. Two other people will wounded in the attack. 

My Comment:

This wasn't the only Islamic terror attack in the United States today. There was also a car ramming attack against a Synagogue in Michigan, but in that case the only person that died was the attacker, though there were injuries due to the car hitting someone and smoke inhalation. This attack in Virginia is the more serious of the two as it resulted in a death. 

One has to wonder why Jalloh was out on the street. From what I understand he had served most of his required sentence and was out on supervised release. One wonders how he was able to get a firearm as he would not have been able to purchase one legally. One also wonders why he was still in the country. Jalloh was a naturalized citizen from Sierra Leon. From what I understand it wasn't possible to revoke his citizenship as he was already past the five year limit for doing so when you join a terror group. 

Since he wasn't denaturalized and deported, he was able to conduct this attack. The attack was mostly a failure as a courageous student stabbed him to death with a pocket knife. Given the circumstances, a gunman in a classroom, it was the smart thing to do, but it still takes an insane amount of bravery to attack a man armed with a gun when you only have a pocket knife. 

I don't think the cadet will be charged in this case. From what I understand he was able to carry a pocket knife in Virginia, even on campus. Plus, the prosecutor would have to be insane to charge the cadet under these circumstances, but if any state would be willing to do so it would be Virginia under their new far-left Governor, Abigail Spanberger.  

The motivation for this attack hasn't been specifically discovered, but given this was a member of ISIS it is pretty obvious. I don't know if this attack was related to the war in Iran though. Again, much like the attackers in New York that threw a bomb at a protest, this was a Sunni Muslim ISIS supporter. I doubt they care too much about Iran being attacked. I am guessing he did this because he hated his term in the National Guard and didn't like the idea that the US military was used against Sunni Muslims in the ISIS war last decade, with the Iran conflict being a tertiary concern at best, though it may have been the thing that stirred him into action. 

It does seem like I was right that the Iran war could "stir up the crazies". This is the third major terror attack since the war started that I am aware off, and thankfully most of them have been failures. This was the most successful one, and even though it's tragic that LT. Col. Shah was killed, it's still nothing compared to what we were seeing last decade. 

FBI warned that Iran could attack targets in California.

 

A recovered Shahed 131. US government photo. 

The FBI has issued a warning that Iran could attack targets in California with drones. ABC News. The FBI said they had gathered intelligence indicating that Iran could use drones in such an attack if a conflict broke out. The attacks could come from shipborne drone carriers or from troops in Mexico. However, Governor Gavin Newsom said that he was unaware of any threats. There have been major incidents with drones from the Mexican border, but those have been operated by the Drug Cartels, not Iran. 

My Comment:

It's very strange that this report is coming out now given that if there ever was a threat from Iranian drones, it's almost certainly over now. Iran's fleet is in taters at this point and their drone carrier, the IRIS Shahid Bagheri, has either been crippled or destroyed. I don't know if Iran possesses any vessels at this point that could even reach the United States, let alone launch a drone attack. 

In theory, the threat was serious. Iran theoretically could launch a drone attack from a ship, either their dedicated carrier or from a converted cargo ship. If they were able to achieve surprise they could potentially launch an attack. 

But even then, I doubt it would have been successful. The Pacific Ocean is protected by the US Navy and they are regularly patrolling for suspicious vessels. This has only increased due to naval operations against drug smugglers. The Iranians would have to somehow evade the US Navy an Coast Guard. 

And even if they launched an attack? They would have to have their drones evade our air defenses. US air defenses are pretty good and we have pretty good anti-drone technology as well. Indeed, we have used our anti-drone lasers and other weapons against drones threatening our homeland before. In theory, if Iran somehow achieved total tactical and strategic surprise, they might be able to evade our defenses. But right now, I can't see it happening. 

The main threat cited by the FBI was an airborne attack from the ocean. The ABC article cited an expert that said the threat could come from Mexico. That seems even less likely than the attack from the sea. Mexico does have a small Iranian presence, but I seriously doubt that the Iranians were able to get a bunch of drones into the country without anyone noticing. And, again, the border is where our anti-drone defenses are the strongest. 

Regardless, I generally think that this report is outdated and the threat was mostly theoretical in the first place. Iran could have tried this before their fleet was destroyed and their military capabilities were degraded but if there ever was a threat, it's gone now. 

Indeed, I don't think that Iran would have even wanted to do this. A direct attack on the US Homeland would be a massive escalation. If they had tried this and succeeded it would be the equivalent of Pearl Harbor. Blowing up a lot of Californians would likely unite the country and silence any anti-war voices and would invite a retaliation on a scale that the Iranians can scarcely imagine. And it could even lead to an actual ground invasion. Iran's strategy appears to just be to wait it out at this point and hope that President Trump will settle with the destruction of their military. Launching a major attack on the American homeland would be cross purposes for that. 

Senate Majority leader John Thune says the SAVE America Act will get a vote, but won't get rid of the silent filibuster to pass it.

 

Senate Majority John Thune. Senate Photo.

Senate Majority leader John Thune says the SAVE America Act will get a vote, but he won't get rid of the silent filibuster to pass it. AP. The act would greatly tighten election security by requiring Voter ID, eliminating mail in voting and requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote. It would also ban transgender surgery for minors and biological males participating in woman's sports. The bill is popular but is expected to fail as zero Democrats will vote for it and cannot pass without 60 votes. There has been a large push for the Senate to get rid of the "silent filibuster" which would force Democrats to actually speak to block the bill, which would most likely allow the bill to pass. Thune says there are not enough Republican votes to actually get rid of the silent filibuster rule. President Trump has vowed to not pass any new legislation (except funding for the Department of Homeland Security) until the SAVE America Act is passed.

My Comment:

This is just another example of how dysfunctional our Congress is. Voter ID is extremely popular and is supported by around 75 to 80% of voters. In a normal world 75 to 80% of the vote in the Senate would be voting for this too. But instead we can't even get 60 Senators to vote for this. 

I do understand why the Democrats are opposed to this. They absolutely hate the idea of voter security as they depend on voter fraud, mail in ballots and non-citizens voting in order to win. We don't know how bad this problem is, due in part because we simply don't have any national legislation like this. But I do think that cleaning the voting roles alone would be enough to secure the election for the Republicans in 2026. 

But for Thune and the other Republicans? I just don't get it. They claim that preserving the filibuster is more important than winning the 2026 elections. They don't seem to realize that the filibuster only exists because the Democrats still had a couple of moderates, Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, back in 2022. Those two Senators saved it but if the Democrats ever gain control of the Senate again, they will almost certainly kill it. And if that happens Thune is going to look like an absolute idiot, especially if it happens in 2026 specifically because this bill didn't pass. 

The failure of the bill will likely have a demoralizing effect on Republicans. This is a hugely popular bill and passed in the House easily. To see the Senate do absolutely nothing to defend it even though it is extremely popular is bad enough. To see them not do it when it could win the Republicans the Senate, House and probably the presidency in 2028? Absolutely infuriating. And it could lead to folks simply staying home because they don't think they can win an election that isn't' fair. And to be sure, our elections without voter ID are not fair. 

Keep in mind that Thune has been extremely obstructive to the executive branch. His commitment to tradition is blocking recess appointments and supporting non-MAGA candidates in various Senate elections, most notably in Texas this year with John Cornyn over Ken Paxton. At this point it seems like enemy actions and it seems he cares more about the stupid filibuster and obscure Senate rules than actually fighting the Democrats and working to help America. 

President Trump signals that the conflict with Iran may not last much longer.

 

President Trump at a press conference. NPR/Getty.

President Trump has signaled that the conflict with Iran may not last much longer but has not given an end date. NPR. Trump said that the United States had great success against the Iranian fleet and Air Force. He also said that due to the destruction of Iran's military he could end the operation now and call it a great success, but he would not end the war until Iran's nuclear capabilities were totally eliminated. Trump said that he had held off on hitting certain Iranian targets, like power generation. The conflict with Iran has caused volatility in the oil markets, but prices dropped today after a weekend panic. 

My Comment:

Folks are pretty happy that Trump is announcing this. Though people are divided on the war, nobody likes the economic disruption it is causing. Oil prices spiked dramatically yesterday, but dropped just as dramatically today, for multiple reasons. Nobody wants a long war with Iran and everyone would be a lot happier if it ended very soon. 

I do think that Trump is absolutely right, so far the Iranians have been rocked. As many as 42 of their ships have been destroyed, their Air Force is grounded and wrecked and even the last F-14's in active service appear to have been completely destroyed. Much of Iran's leadership is dead and every time one gets replaced they get killed as well. Indeed, there are already rumors that Iran's latest Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, son of the former Ayatollah, may already be wounded or dead. 

And Iran's threats to close the Strait of Hormuz? Not effective. Though many ships are stuck waiting for the conflict the end or for escorts to show up, there have been as many as 20 ships that have run the strait and none of them have been sunk. They just shut their transponders off and go through the Strait and Iran hasn't been able to do a thing about it. 

Given the military situation, i do think Trump is right. He could end the war today and call it a success and it would be hard to argue otherwise. It will take years for Iran to rebuild their drone and missile forces and decades to try and build up air defenses, an Air Force and a Navy again. And I do think that this is a possible way that the war will end, especially if the economic disruptions end up being real. 

But I do think there are a couple of war goals that aren't yet accomplished which will prevent President Trump from doing this. First, the nuclear material that Iran produced has not been secured and either it will have to be destroyed through an airstrike (which is unlikely), surrendered as part of a peace deal, or secured directly on the ground. The last operation has been hinted in the media but if that's the case I am guessing we are in for weeks of bombings to make sure that operation isn't opposed. 

Second, I don't think President Trump wants the current Iranian regime to survive. And neither does anyone else, with the Houthis in Yemen and Hezbollah being the only exceptions. Israel has their own war goals and they absolutely want the Iranian regime gone, and so do the Saudis and the other Gulf States. A Venezuela situation where the United States turned it int a vassal state, or more accurately a suzerainty, doesn't seem possible with the current Iranian regime and I don't see how the war ends with the current Iranian government still in power. They would have to give up a lot in order for that to be acceptable to the Israelis and the Gulf States, and I don't know if the Iranians are there yet. 

Regardless, it does seem like the war is more likely to last weeks as opposed to months or years. Iran no longer has a credible military and there are signs of extreme stress on the regime. The main issue is like I said, the regime still exists and so does the nuclear material. But I also don't think that this will last much longer. Of the three outcomes I think the Iranian regime bending the knee to Trump or falling completely would be the most likely, and a special forces raid to be the least likely. But in any case, I do think we are close to the end game. 

The FBI has launched a terrorism investigation after an IED was ignited at a New York Protest.

 

A suspect drops an IED while police react. CBS News/AFP/Getty.

The FBI has launched a terrorism investigation after an IED was ignited at a protest in New York City. CBS News. The incident occurred at Gracie Mansion, which is where Mayor Zohran Mamdani lives. An anti-Islam protest was occurring, along with a counterprotest when two men from Pennsylvania launched an attack. 18 year old Emir Balat ignited and threw a device and then retrieved a 2nd bomb from Ibrahim Kayumi, a 19 year old, and lit that device as well before dropping it. Neither device worked but the FBI says they were serious IED's, loaded with screws and nails, and had M-80 fireworks as the fuse and a large amount of TATP. It is unclear what the motivation of the attackers were but they did shoot "Allahu Akbar" and are being investigated for ties to ISIS. Both men had recently traveled to the Middle East. 

My Comment:

This is a somewhat confusing situation as it's not clear if these men were members of the counter protests and if they were targeting just the right wing original protest, or both groups. The CBS article describes the attackers as left wing, though I don't know if they should. These guys seem like regular old radical Muslims that happened to be aligned with the left on this particular protest. 

Regardless, everyone was lucky that the bombs didn't go off. From the picture above, the 2nd device absolutely could have killed or wounded the suspect (Emir Balat) along with the police officers that were trying to confront him. And the 1st device could have killed and wounded people on both sides of the protests. 

It was luck that both devices didn't blow up. The design appears to have been sound, but something didn't work. It could have been the fuse or the mixture of the explosives but in both cases the devices failed. If they hadn't we probably would have seen, at the very least, double digit casualties, and potential fatalities. 

I would not be surprised if these attackers had links to ISIS or other terrorist groups. They were traveling in the Middle East and could have made contacts there. Indeed, that may have been where they learned how to make their bombs. Generally speaking, you want someone who has experience to teach you how to build a bomb as trying to learn it yourself is a good way to blow yourself up, so I am guessing they had help while they were overseas, assuming they didn't have domestic help here to build them. If they didn't build them, than that is a real problem as a bombmaker is on the loose... 

I don't think this has too much to do with the war in Iran. It's possible that it was a secondary motivation, but this protest was the motivating factor. It was against Islam in general and New York City's Muslim Mayor Zohran Mamdani and had very little to do with Iran. Plus, my guess is that the attackers were Sunni, given the countries they traveled to and the fact that they might have ISIS ties. Iran's Islam is mostly Shia and I doubt there are going to be too many radical Sunni Muslims that would attack in defense of that regime. 

As for the protest and the counter protest, both of them were pretty cringe if I am honest. You can make an argument that Islam in general is incompatible with the west, but protesting against Mamdani himself because of it (instead of his politics) seems to cross the line to actual harassment. I don't like Mamdani either but it's because he's a leftist, not because he's a Muslim. Indeed, he's an example of a Muslim that doesn't seem that devout and should be left alone, not harassed. He can and should be protested for being a left wing nutjob, not a Muslim. 

The counterprotest was just as cringy. They called this an anti-Nazi rally, as if the only people in the world that would have a problem with Islam are Nazis. Plus, they were protesting in favor of the people throwing the bombs as well. In my view neither of these groups were covering themselves in glory here.

Either way, I do think we are seeing an uptick of Islamic violence again. The good news is that there doesn't seem to be a large terror group like ISIS funding and inspiring it. The bad news is that there are a lot of things that are stirring up the crazies. I don't think we are going to see a major ISIS attack or Iranian sleeper agents (if that was going to happen it would have happened last year), but there are lot of lone wolf attackers that might try something...