Syria and Israel hold high level talks after airstrikes.

 

A Syrian Soldier manning a machine gun at the disused Abu Duhar airbase. AFP.

Syria and Israel held high level talks after Israel bombed a disused airbase in Northern Syria. AFP. Israel bombed the Abu Duhar airbase in Northern Syria in an effort to deny the base from Turkey. Turkey denied it was going to take the airbase. Tensions between Israel and Turkey are high and the strikes are the most recent strike among hundreds since the overthrow of the Bashar al-Assad regime. The talks, which was brokered by the United States and hosted by Jordan. Syria is an ally of Turkey but tensions between Turkey and Israel have left Syria in the crossfire. 

My Comment:

These talks were moderately successful. Israel and Syria seem to have made some progress, but not so much that tensions went down all that much. It does seem that Syria wants a security agreement with Israel, but the absolutely terrible relationship between Turkey and Israel is complicating things dramatically. 

Indeed, the entire incident was based on the fact that Israel attacked an airbase just because they suspected that Turkey was going to use it. If there was any real relationship between Turkey and Israel at all, then that absolutely would not happen. Indeed, we aren't even sure that Turkey was going to actually use the airbase. 

It fits a habit that Israel has fallen into. They often tend to strike first and ask questions later. It's one of the reasons why tensions are high with Turkey and in the region generally. I can understand why they wouldn't want a regional rival take an airbase that could be used to strike Israel's interests, but the evidence that Turkey was going to do so is pretty difficult to prove. 

Why are tensions so high between Turkey and Israel in the first place? It goes back to the October 7th attacks and the Gaza war that resulted. Turkey and Israel traded diplomatic insults since then, with Erdogan calling Netanyahu "Hitler" while Israel recognized the Armenian Genocide. I have to say that i think the Israelis were right, given that Hamas are terrorists and are hardly the "freedom fighters" that Turkey calls them. 

Things have gotten worse, not better, since Iran was humbled in the Iran conflict. There was a power vacuum that resulted from the conflict that both Israel and Turkey have tried to take advantage of. Both countries want to lead the Middle East and both are making major diplomatic push to do so. 

And Syria? They got caught in the crossfire. Syria is the buffer zone between the two countries. Turkey has a lot of influence over the Syrian's new former jihadist government and is arming and training them. But Israel does not want to end the progress it made by simply letting Turkey replace Iran. Israel has a long history of dealing with terror attacks coming from Syrian territory, and does not want Turkey to become the new Hezbollah. 

Regardless, it's not surprising that the Untied States is trying to ease tensions. We are in the unfortunate position of being allied with both Israel and Turkey. Israel was our partner in the Iran conflict and we provide them with billions of dollars in aid. Turkey is the largest member of NATO after the United States and is, arguably, the one with the most competent military.  

The FBI has arrested a woman for a plot to attack the New York State capitol for ISIS

 

FBI photo of the suspect buying bomb supplies from Home Depot. BBC.

The FBI has arrested a woman for a plot to bomb the New York State Capitol building for ISIS. BBC. Jessica Bowie, a 35 year old woman, had converted to Islam five years ago and pledged allegiance to ISIS. Bowie had surveilled the building several times in preparation for her attack. Bowie was going to use a Door Dash bag to smuggle a bomb into the building and she was given fake weapons and bomb making materials from the FBI before she was arrested. Bowie had a large social media presence and had been banned from several platforms for extremist statements. 

My Comment:

The actual chance of an attack happening here was pretty small. Bowie did not strike me as someone that was capable of actually planning an attack on her own and the only real way she would have been a threat is if she found an actual terrorist to pair up with. She did attempt to do that but was sold out by an FBI informant. Once the FBI was involved the chances of her actually doing something went down dramatically. 

It's another example of a stupid terrorist failing horribly. Had she simply bought a gun and waltzed into the Capitol, something bad could have happened. But she had ambitions beyond her abilities and she absolutely could not pull of the complicated bomb plot she wanted by herself. 

I don't believe she had any real ties to ISIS itself. ISIS is a shell of its former self and does not control much territory anymore. They probably would have tried to help this woman if they were able to contact her, but I doubt there were able to. They simply don't have the resources now and most ISIS related attacks these days are like this one, lone wolf nutjobs inspired by their propaganda and actions. 

I would be very interested in figuring out what on earth went wrong with Bowie. A white woman converting to Islam, walking around in a full naqab and then trying to pull off a major terror attack is unusual to say the least. If I were to speculate, I am guessing her life did not turn out the way it wanted and she was desperate for something to belong to, and she fell into Radical Islam. 

Regardless, if she wasn't a woman this wouldn't be notable. Folks that convert a religion become extreme in it so often it has a term, the Zeal of the Convert. Though that is found in many religions, it's especially true for Islam, and it's probably worth finding out why. This does happen fairly frequently after all. 

Fired Ukrainian Defense Minster calls for new elections

 

Former Defense Minster Mykhailo Fedorov. BBC/Reuters.

Fired Defense Minster Mykhailo Fedorov has called for new elections in Ukraine. BBC. Ukraine has been under martial law since Russia invaded in 2022 and President Zelensky has overstayed his term by two years. Fedorov was fired six months after his appointment and is still extremely popular. And though he hasn't said that he wants to run against Zelensky, many people are interpreting the criticism as an announcement. His criticism echoes calls from the United States and Russia for the country to have new elections. Zelensky has long avoided holding elections, citing the difficulty of doing so during a major war. 

My Comment:

I agree that elections would be difficult during an active conflict, at least at the national level. They could certainly hold local or oblast level elections in western Ukraine, which has not been affected by the war anywhere near as much as the other parts of the country. 

But nationally? It would be difficult to say the least. You would need to somehow get absentee ballots to the men on the front line. And there is the simple fact that many Ukrainian citizens have fled the country and you would have to figure out if their votes should be counted and somehow get them ballots too. Plus you would have to wonder if Russia would play along, it's hard to go to the polls if you are worried you are going to get bombed. 

With that being said, I absolutely think that Ukraine should deal with it regardless. I don't know how you can call Ukraine's current government legitimate if it's got a de jure ban on elections. Under current Ukraine law, if the country is in martial law, elections cannot be held. They just keep extending the emergency and prevent any elections. 

Keep in mind that Russia has been able to conduct elections. They might not have been the most legitimate elections in the world, but they are probably at the same level as the ones here in the United States. And Russia had many of the same issues and they were able to hold elections in 2024. We had elections in 2020 during the pandemic and also during World War II. Though I agree that elections would be difficult, both legally and logistically, they should be done regardless and I don't really buy Ukraine's excuses here. 

Regardless, I do think that this could be a bad sign for the Zelensky government. Though I tend to think this is more about Fedorov trying to make a bigger name for himself, and perhaps getting his Defense Minster post back, it is a sign that cracks are starting to form for Zelensky. Folks there aren't blindly worshiping Zelensky anymore and it's clear that his government has some major flaws. Fedorov is right, elections should be held and corruption is a massive problem for Ukraine. 

Finally, I think this is a case of too-little too-late. The problem with having elections now is that Ukraine's air defenses have crumbled. Ukraine has used up all their Patriot missiles and those are the only weapons they have that can credibly counter Russia and North Korea's ballistic missiles. This is very different from earlier stages of the war, especially in 2024 when Zelensky's term expired. But now, things would be a lot more difficult and it would require at least some kind of cease fire with Russia to pull off. 

Polling firm admits that polls in Wisconsin Democratic Primary and LA Mayor race were totally fake.

 

File photo of Francesca Hong. Fox News.

A polling firm called Median Strategies have admitted that two polls in the Wisconsin Democrat Primary and the LA Mayor race were fake as a "social experiment". Fox News. The polls had Francesca Hong in Wisconsin and Karen Bass far ahead of their opponents. However, the polling outlet said it was an experiment to see how false information could spread and then shut down their doors. Both polls ended up bein inaccurate, as Hong lost her race in the primary while Bass won by a much slimer margin. 

My Comment:

This is one of the more irresponsible things a polling outfit has done. Putting out entirely false polls is, quite frankly, disgusting. And it calls into question the very concept of polling. If there are outfits out there fabricating data, do we really have any idea of how is winning and losing our political races?

Calling it a social experiment is nonsense as well. And it is funny that the experiment failed in the Wisconsin Governor's race. From what I understand, that poll was largely ignored as larger and more reliable outlets dominated the news. 

Regardless, there were absolutely other ways to demonstrate that false information is a problem without contributing to it. Indeed, that's exactly what they did. These polls probably didn't have too much of an effect, as the Wisconsin one was ignored and the LA one only got a little coverage. But it's pretty easy to think that it could have affected things, especially in a race as close as the Wisconsin Democrat primary was this year. 

But I also think that the "experiment" excuse is probably false. This was probably a scam of some kind. What is likely is that the firm was just lazy and didn't want to do the actual work. By faking the polling results they could get attention and funding, but it fell apart when the LA Times investigated the whole thing. 

It's also possible that this was a scam based on prediction markets like Polymarket or Khalshi. Large amounts of money is bet on the results of these races and by putting out false info they could affect the odds and get a bigger payout. Given that bets can be on just about anything, even overstating a poll could cause a lot of people to place bets that they otherwise would not, so faking numbers might have been a way to increase the payouts of opposing bets. 

If this sounds like a good argument to ban these kinds of prediction markets, I would agree. I hate the incentives that the existence of these prediction markets creates and we have already seen the effects. And this could be another example, and it shows it goes far beyond just sports betting. 

Regardless, this story is going to further erode confidence in American polling this cycle. We have already seen some massive upsets, even beyond the Wisconsin race. The Michigan Senate race is another example and even tonight we saw something similar in Florida's Senate Race for the Democrats. People have already lost faith in the polls and having an outlet out and out faking results is not going to help things. 

President Donald Trump seems to be reaching out to North Korea for a diplomatic win.

President Trump shakes Kim Jong Un's hand on a TV in South Korea. Reuters. 

President Donald Trump seems to be reaching out to North Korea in search of a diplomatic win. Reuters. Trump made a major diplomatic push during his first term to try and warm relations with North Korea, which remains a pariah state. However, Trump appears to be renewing focus on North Korea now. He has scaled back US participation in a major military drill with South Korea, due in part to their refusal to help with the Iran conflict. Trump and Kim Jong Un do have a respectful relationship and both men claim to understand each other. North Korea is in a better negotiating position, due to an economic boom from participating in the Russia-Ukraine war. 

My Comment:

I speculated yesterday that Trump's canceling of the exercise with South Korea had less to due with South Korea and more to do with North Korea. Given Trumps statements about Kim Jong Un, I think that is the case. South Korea did anger the United States by not helping in Iran, given that they too have an interest in keeping the oil from the Middle East flowing, but it's really not about them, that much. 

The cynics are saying that this is just a ploy to get some positive media coverage for Trump ahead of the midterms. There is probably some truth to this, a diplomatic win would probably be helpful for Republican chances in November. But I also don't think that's the only factor. Trump wanted a deal during his first term, and if 2020 had gone different, he probably would have gotten one. He also seems to genuinely like Kim Jong Un, and he has a good relationship with him. 

Kim Jong Un has good motivation to at least talk to Trump. Doing so would be a win for him too, largely because it would give him quite a bit of prestige and legitimacy. It would also bring some predictability to the relationship between the United States and North Korea, which is a major concern. 

The problem is that North Korea really is in a good position right now. Their participation in the Ukraine war has been an absolute economic boom for them, funneling billions of dollars into their economy. They have sold billions of dollars worth artillery shells and missiles and are getting paid for every soldier they deploy in Russia to help defend the country from Ukrainian attacks. 

This means that Trump and Kim Jong Un will probably meet each other as equals and any diplomatic deal will have to be limited in nature. Getting rid of North Korea's nuclear weapons are not a realistic goal for Trump if they do meet. However, a test ban, an official de jure end to the Korean war and/or a ban on missile tests in exchange for sanctions relief could be a real possibility. 

I do think that this is a positive thing. Korea has been a tinderbox for far too long and ratcheting down the temperature again would be useful. Indeed, it was something that should have been done during the Biden administration, but Korea was just yet another issue that Joe Biden was out to lunch on. I don't think a major deal is likely, but any kind of talk is a positive.