Some good advice for celebrities...

Samantha Bee. Montclair Film.

This week has been all about celebrities putting their feet in the mouths. First Roseanne compared Valerie Jarrett to an ape. That cost her highly rated and hugely influential show. Not wanting to be outdone, late night TBS tv show host Samantha Bee went even further and called Ivanka Trump the "c" word. She still has her job as of this writing but sponsors are starting to pull out.

Of course, the spirit of free speech says that neither woman should be fired for their statements. Indeed, in each case there were a lot of people that weren't offended. And we, in general, should be more tolerant for other peoples ideas, even when those ideas are horrifically offensive.

But that is not the world we live in. We live in a world where the 1st amendment only applies to government action, and does not prevent private companies from firing you if you say something offensive. I think there is a real debate to be had about that subject, but the current status quo is that if you say something offensive, you risk getting fired.

Both Roseanne and Bee got in to trouble because they either forgot that was the status quo or thought they were immune from it. That may still be true with Bee as she hasn't been fired yet, since she is liberal, but she still could have avoided a lot of trouble if she hadn't said something horribly offensive.

Why would they forget such a thing? Because they thought their audience was a monolith. Roseanne probably thought that her post wouldn't have gone viral and would have only been noticed by her followers, most of which probably didn't care and may have agreed with her. The same thing happened with Samantha Bee. She never thought for a second that people who would be offended would even hear what she said, and even if they did, they wouldn't be able to do anything about it.

In both cases they were rather obviously wrong. The people that disagreed with them politically pounced on the opportunity they were given and punished them, not so much because of what they said, but because it was an opportunity to hurt the other said. And those people knew that it wasn't just their side that was going to be angry about what they said, it would be politically neutral people as well. Normal people aren't going to care too much about the politics in each case but they are going to be offended by perceived racism and sexism.

So my advice is this. If you are someone that is at all politically active and you are vulnerable to losing your job, don't give your enemies any unnecessary ammunition. Yes, it is terrible that we can't say what we want in this country in the current political environment you are a fool if you say whatever you want in public. Yes, this means some things aren't going to be able to said, but that's what anonymous posting is for.

This is of course a bad state of affairs. If what happened to Roseanne and Bee could happen to them, it could happen to you. I don't see much of a solution for this other than perhaps making it illegal for people to get fired for their political statements. That doesn't seem likely to happen, and a cease fire in the culture war doesn't seem like it will happen anytime soon either... For now, caution must rule the day and you have to make sure that if you want to say something others may consider horribly offensive, you may end up paying for it with your job... as sad as it is to say.

My thoughts on the Roseanne scandal.

Roseanne Barr. Leah Mark.

As you are likely aware, Roseanne Barr got into some trouble today and ended up with her hit ABC show being canceled. What did she do? She compared former White House adviser Valerie Jarrett an "ape", which many people consider racist. She was fired quickly after and, of course, the whole thing has turned into a giant mess. Roseanne is a famous supporter of Donald Trump, though I wouldn't go so far as to call her a conservative, so many people are saying that this firing was motivated by politics and nothing else. 

Full disclosure, I have never watched any of Roseanne's TV shows or other material. I don't really have strong feelings about here either way. I do know she has a history of saying controversial things, mostly related to politics, so this isn't surprising. 

Was ABC right to fire her? I will answer that question in a second, but I do think that ABC had the right to fire her. She did bring some negative attention to the network from some very powerful and influence people, ie the former members of the Obama administration and their various hanger-ons and followers. Bringing negative attention to your business can and will get you fired. Just like I think the NFL had the right to crack down on the anthem kneelers, ABC has the right to fire Roseanne. As of right now the 1st amendment doesn't protect people from getting fired for political speech. I think there is a real discussion to be had if that should be the case or not, with me being on the "it's not ok" side, but as the law reads now they can do what they did. 

But should they have done it? I don't think so. Roseanne was a huge hit for them and one that got a group of people that absolutely hate the media to give them some credit for finally allowing someone with a different view on TV. They aren't going to see this as a justified firing because she said something that some consider racist, they are going to see it as yet another example of liberal bias. Throwing away a major hit just because Roseanne said something controversial, when you knew she would eventually anyways, is not a good economic move. There is already serious talk of boycotts against ABC and there is a decent chance of that hurting the companies bottom line. The NFL found out the hard way why you shouldn't piss off red tribe America and I think ABC might be getting the same treatment. 

Was what Roseanne said racist? I don't really think so, even though she was a complete idiot for saying it since so many people disagree. Scientifically we are all apes so calling someone one is essentially calling them human. It's certainly rude though but I hate the double standard that you can only use that word on people that aren't black. Nobody who is upset about what Roseanne said cared when Bush got called a chimp or Trump gets called an Orangutan, but if you say Valerie Jarrett looks like a cast member on Planet of the Apes or Obama looks like a monkey, you get in trouble. They funny thing is that objectively that there is an argument to be made in each case. They are all kind of goofy looking people, not that Roseanne is one to speak, or me either for that matter. 

Still, if we as a society have decided that calling someone an ape is not ok, than it shouldn't be on a case by case basis. If it is racist to call Valerie Jarrett an ape, than it should be racist to call Trump the same thing. Conversely, if it's ok to call Bush a monkey, than it should be ok to do the same for Obama as well. People hate these kinds of double standards and would be much more understanding if there wasn't so much hypocrisy. The race of the individuals involved should not matter at all. 

Of course there is also the fact that Valerie Jarrett doesn't look like a typical black women. Some of Roseanne's defenders are saying that she didn't know she is black. She has fairly light skin and though I don't think she looks white, I would not be surprised if someone mistook her for a different race. I have no idea though if that is what Roseanne was thinking, or if that should be an excuse, but I will post a picture so you can judge for yourself. 

Valerie Jarrett. White House photo

I also think that people aren't going to be all that sympathetic to Valerie Jarrett. She was a major figure in the Obama White House and one of his most trusted advisers. As far as many on the Republican side think, she's a demon wearing a skin suit. That's way more offensive that what Roseanne said but I doubt I will get in trouble for saying it.

I do have to wonder if the Valerie Jarrett comments are the real reason why Roseanne has gotten fired. She also went off on George Soros, calling him a Nazi. I don't know if her claims are actually true or not, but George Soros has even more pull than the former Obama administration and even Barack Obama himself. Picking a fight with him may have been what really set this whole thing off... 

Memorial Day.

Memorial Day is the day that we honor the men and women who gave the ultimate sacrifice for their country. We here at Politics War and Culture honor their sacrifice. Remember, today isn't the day you honor living veterans or current members of the military. It's about the ones that didn't make it back.

Major ISIS raid in Syria kills dozens, including Russians.

A Russian soldier in Syria. AFP. 

A major ISIS raid in Syria's Dier Ez Zor province has killed twenty-six Syrian troops and nine Russians. AFP. The attack occurred in Mayadeen and shows that ISIS is still active in the area. Of the nine Russians killed in the attack, only four have been confirmed to Russian soldiers, with the rest likely being mercenaries. Two of the Russians were killed at the scene of the battle with two more dying at the hospital. Forty-three ISIS fighters were killed in the attack. 

My Comment:

A fairly significant attack in Eastern Syria. It just goes to show that though ISIS has lost most of their territory in Syria, they are still a major threat. Dier Ez Zor province is one of the last remaining hot spots and this attack shows why. It's one of the last places ISIS holds land and it's where the majority of their core supporters are now, with the last holdouts in Damascus being defeated. 

If the casualty figures are accurate it wasn't that great of a showing for the Syrian regime and their Russian allies. They lost 35 troops compared to 43 ISIS fighters killed. In terms of body count that's a victory, but a pyrrhic one. The Syrian government can afford those kinds of losses more than ISIS can but it is still a bad showing for a battle hardened military like Syria. And though they have larger reserves than ISIS, their military has been bleed dry after years of fighting. They can't afford these kind of casualties either. 

The Russian casualties are important as well. Russia's intervention in Syria is not that popular at home and losing even more troops will not be popular for them. Losing them in a battle that can't really be called a victory with so many casualties is not a good sign. 

I have always wondered how the Russian people feel about losing mercenaries in Syria and elsewhere. These men aren't officially part of the Russian military, but they are still Russians and they are dying in large numbers. These five men are just a drop in the bucket to the number lost in other battles but I have to wonder if the Russians care. On the one hand they aren't military and knew what they were getting into by going to Syria. On the other, they are Russian citizens. 

As for ISIS, I can't really call this a victory for them either. Though they managed to kill a large number of fighters, they haven't taken any territory and can not afford to lose so many troops. They are extremely low on fighters and are cut off from foreign reinforcements. They really can't keeping these kinds of casualties and continue to fight. Doing so will just end the war quicker, which is a good thing anyways. 

I do have to say that I have thought for awhile that this was the way the war was going to go at this point. Instead of taking and holding territory, ISIS will conduct raids and terror attacks. They don't have the troops to do much of anything else. Expect more of these kinds of battles in the future. 

Donald Trump secures the release of a US citizen held in Venezuela

Josh Holt's Mother, Laurie Holt, holds up a picture of her son. USA Today/AP.

Josh Holt, an American citizen held in Venezuela, has been released. USA Today. Holt had been imprisoned in Venezuela on weapons an espionage charges and released a video saying that he feared for his life. He had been caught up in a prison riot and though he might be killed. Venezuela released Holt as a goodwill gesture with US Senator Bob Corker. Holt had been in Venezuela to marry his wife, who he met while looking for other Mormons to speak Spanish with. Venezuela has an economic and political crisis due to its socialist government and relations between the country and the United States are not good. 

I am pleased to join Senator Hatch and President Trump in announcing the release of Josh and Thamy Holt. We are on our way home. pic.twitter.com/0Ku2pzwOYL

— Senator Bob Corker (@SenBobCorker) May 26, 2018

My Comment:

Say what you want about President Trump, but he does seem to be very good about getting US citizens held by foreign governments out of trouble. Trump managed to secure the release of several prisoners in North Korea and now has rescued a man from Venezuela. Doing so is a major accomplishment and he, along with the GOP senators that helped make this happen, deserve a lot of credit for this. 

It seems to me that rescuing prisoners like this is a major priority for the Trump administration. The cynical view is that he just wants the positive attention but that explanation could have been used for previous presidents who didn't work this hard at securing these releases. My guess is the Trump administration genuinely wants these people to come home. 

As for Holt himself, he seems pretty lucky to be alive. Venezuela is a mess right now and their prisons are even worse. A prison riot is an extremely dangerous situation regardless of the country, but if you are an American citizen in a country that doesn't like America? It's about as bad as it can be and Holt is very lucky to be alive. 

I don't know too much about the charges against Holt. The USA Today post says he was charged with espionage and weapons charges. The espionage charges seem obviously fake but I haven't heard much about the weapons charges. I kind of doubt that a missionary from Utah was packing heat though. 

Venezuela didn't really strike me as a place that's obviously dangerous to go to for an American. Obviously that isn't true since this case, but before I would have though it wouldn't be anymore dangerous than any other country of the same level of stability. That's not really saying too much but I'd probably put it on the level of Mexico or Brazil. Dangerous if you don't know what you are doing but otherwise safe. The fact that he was arrested shows that Venezuela is, in fact, different. Throwing this man in jail was a political descion by the Venezuelan government and that means that I would not want to travel there under any circumstances.

I don't know how much this will help US-Venezuela relations. Though the release of North Korean prisoners did lead to a cooling of tensions and high level diplomatic contacts, I don't know if that is in the cards with Venezuela. They just aren't a priority compared to other countries, though the US would like it if the country became more stable and less hostile to the United States. Releasing this prisoner may help with that in the long run, but it is too soon to tell.

Of course, given how unstable Venezuela is right now I wouldn't be too surprised if further news stories about the country are about either war or revolution. There have been rumors of both for quite some time and I think there is a very good possibility that the whole country could collapse without us doing anything. That's another reason that securing Josh Holt is a very good thing...

Bombing at an Indian restaurant in Mississauga, Canada wounds 15 people

The Bombay Bhel was bombed. LA Times/AP.

A bombing at an Indian restaurant in Mississauga Canada wounded fifteen people, three of them critically. LA Times. Two suspects are still at large. The men dropped off the bomb and immediately left. They were caught on camera but they covered their faces so they have not been identified. Canadian authorities have said they aren't sure if the attack is a hate crime or act of terrorism but have not ruled those possibilities out. 

UPDATED: Improvised explosive device detonated at Mississauga restaurant injures 15, police say. 2 males now being sought. https://t.co/AN1B3quu0e pic.twitter.com/h3hlcb9IYR

— CBC Toronto (@CBCToronto) May 25, 2018

My Comment:
Very dangerous situation in Canada. These suspects are on the run and could very well carry out more attacks. With the hats, hoods and jackets they were wearing they will be extremely hard to identify. There is a decent chance that it will take a long time to figure out who they are and what they want and until that happens they can strike again.

I am thinking that this is some kind of terrorist incident. Why? Well for one it was a bombing. Bombs aren't something you just make and use on a whim. It takes quite a bit of planning and hard work to make and use them. Getting the materials is difficult as well and you have to do quite a bit of research to pull it off. Still, there have been bombings for no political reason and unconnected to terror groups.

But I don't think this case is one of them. If this was a lone attacker doing this I would find that idea more plausible. Two people working together? Very likely to be terrorism. My guess is that this is some kind of terror cell.

So who are the suspects? I think Islamic terrorism is the most likely suspect. It is Ramadan and historically that has been a major time for attacks to happen. An Indian restaurant isn't that unlikely of a target, especially if the attackers are of Pakistani descent. Islamic terror groups like ISIS tend to like bombings as well, so they are a very likely suspect.

There are other possibilities as well though. Given that this was an Indian restaurant it could be some kind of supremacist group. Some people are racist against Indian people so it is possible that was the motive as well. That doesn't rule out the Islamic angle either since it could be a combination of ethnic and religious motivations.

Without anymore information all of this is speculation. Given the facts of the case it might be some time before we find out the motive of these attackers. We may find out more, as sad as it is to say, if they attack again. With so little to go on it is very possible for them to attack again.

Thankfully, this attack wasn't deadly. The bomb wasn't that powerful even though it wounded fifteen people. We might not be so lucky next time but for the time being we lucked out. Either the weapon wasn't very powerful or it was placed in a bad location. Hopefully these bombers don't learn from their mistake.

Random shooting at Oklahoma restaurant stopped by an armed civilian.

Police respond to the scene of the crime. CNN/KCRG.

A random shooting at an Oklahoma restaurant was stopped by an armed civilian. KCRG. The suspect shot two people, wounding them, before being shot and killed by an armed civilian in the parking lot at Louie's on the Lake in Oklahoma City. Another civilian suffered a broken arm trying to escape. No motive has yet been released and the identity of the attacker is unknown. 

Lake Hefner shooting update: A man walked into the Louie’s restaurant and opened fire with a gun. Two people were shot. One person has been taken to a hospital with serious injuries. A bystander with a pistol confronted the shooter outside the restaurant and fatally shot him.

— Oklahoma City Police (@OKCPD) May 25, 2018

My Comment:

As always I like to make sure that incidents of mass shootings stopped by a good person with a gun don't go under reported. As of this writing only the Washington Post is covering this story, but to be fair it just broke very recently. Still, compared to successful mass shootings, ones put down by armed civilians rarely get coverage, expect when the body count is high. 

Indeed, this incident will likely not even be counted as a mass shooting. Only two civilians were shot in the attack with another injured in a non-firearms related injury. It depends on who is recording it, but for it to count as a mass shooting either three or four people have to have been shot. It's one of those statistical tricks that people use to make defensive gun use seem less useful than it is and it needs to be pointed out whenever it happens. 

There is a huge difference in this case than the various incidents that have taken place in gun free zones. Though I am not sure if this was a gun free zone or not as some people with CCW licenses will ignore no-gun signs. My guess is that it didn't have a no guns sign and that the person armed with a pistol made the difference. Everyone remembers the Luby's Shooting in Texas back in the 1990's before CCW was allowed in the state. 23 people died in that shooting with one of the survivors furious because she couldn't carry a weapon. The difference in the two incidents is obvious. 

There isn't too much else to say about this case. We don't know the motive at this point and there isn't really much else to say besides the CCW angle. Still, I am very glad that this case ended like it did. A good guy with a gun made sure that this incident ended with only a few people hurt instead of a lot of people dead... 

After Trump cancels summit, North Korea says it is still open to a "Trump-style solution".

Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un on Korean TV. Reuters 

After President Trump canceled the June 12th summit in Singapore, North Korea has said they are still open to talks and a "Trump-style solution". Reuters. President Trump canceled the summit after threats from the North Korean government and harsh statements about Vice President Mike Pence. Pence compared North Korea to Libya and said that if the summit didn't happen, Kim Jong Un could end up like Momar Qadaffi, who was raped and murdered by his own people. The North Korean government said they are still open to talks. 

My Comment:

A disappointing event to be sure. It really looked like the North Korea/United States summit would happen. It very well still might, but it doesn't look like it will be happening in a couple of weeks. Things have obviously not gone well. 

So why did Trump back out? The North Koreans changed their tune. Instead of the conciliatory and respectful way they had been acting they started to attack Mike Pence and threatened to pull out of the meeting. That was signaling that they weren't taking the summit as seriously as they should. Trump wants a nuke-free Korean Peninsula and he won't settle for anything else. If the North Koreans were signaling that wouldn't happen, there was little point in meeting with Kim. 

As an aside, I don't think Mike Pence's statement about Qadaffi was a wise one. Considering what happened to him and the context the last thing we need to remind Kim of was his fate. Though such a fate is possible for Kim it is still a bad idea to remind him of what happened in Libya.

Why? Because we betrayed Qadaffi. Well, more specifically, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton did. Qadaffi was a bad man, to be sure, but he gave up his weapons of mass destruction and gave up terrorism. He was doing his part to try and join the international community. And how did Obama and Clinton repay him? By bombing his country and allowing him to be raped to death. Reminding Kim Jong Un that could be his own fate if a deal is made and the next US president decides to invade is a pretty big incentive to not give up North Korea's nuclear arms. It was a dumb move but not for the reason people might think. 

I do think that the threat is being overplayed here. I don't think that diplomacy has failed quite yet. Indeed, I think that Trump's behavior is fairly predictable. In his book, Art of the Deal Trump stressed the importance of walking away when you can't get a good deal. Doing so puts you into a position of power when negotiations begin again. Put into that context, Trump's behavior here isn't surprising. I'd say it's even predictable. 

Kim Jong Un knows this. He has read Art of the Deal as Dennis Rodman, of all people, gave it to him as a gift. I am guessing the Kim will be scrambling to get back into negotiations and open up another summit. And I am betting it will happen sooner rather than later. 

This seems very obvious from the wording of their North Korean governments statement. They are already saying that they are still open to negotiation and aren't acting like they are angry. There is a very good chance that they will attempt to salvage this meeting. If the deal was over completely they would be threatening war. So far that doesn't seem to be the case. 

As for me, I am still hopeful that the meeting will happen. The other regional powers in the area are invested now and China, South Korea and Japan will be pressuring Kim to back down and rejoin the meeting. Both sides have left communication channels open and I think that there is a good chance that a deal will be eventually be made. I view this as more as a temporary setback than anything else. 

NFL changes policy and will fine teams that have players that kneel during the national anthem.

Rodger Goodell. Yahoo/AP

The NFL has changed it's rules on the national anthem so that teams will be fined if players kneel during the anthem. Yahoo Sports. Players will be given the option to skip the anthem if they choose but if they kneel during the anthem their team will be issued a fine. The individual teams could issue fines as well in addition to the league fines. The NFL owners were unanimous in the rule with all 32 teams approving or abstaining from the vote. The NFL has been under pressure from the public and President Trump to do something about kneeling players. 

My Comment:

Too little too late, as far as I am concerned. If the NFL had come up with this policy early last season when the protests really taken off, they might have preserved some of their fans. But now? The fans they have lost won't be impressed by this half measure. 

It also seems like this move is a fairly cynical one, only done because of the massive drop in ratings the NFL suffered last season. To say that the fan base was upset with the kneelers is an understatement. Many people, including myself, were furious that the NFL had been politicized over such a non-issue. 

Keep in mind the whole protest was in favor of Black Lives Matter, a protest movement based on the false narrative that young black men are shot down in cold blood by cops. In reality, such events are extremely rare and many of the cases invoked by the movement were later found out to be completely justified. And let's not forget that the movement has inspired several murders and terrorist attacks against innocent police officers. 

So not only were these football players protesting during the anthem, they were doing for a cause that many disagreed with and consider dangerous. President Trump put the spotlight onto the issue and it appears that he won out in the end. The league seemed to come together in opposition to Trump, reforming the protest a referendum on his presidency, while leaving the original cause behind. 

This, of course, angered football fans even more. It was bad enough when it was just about Black Lives Matter, but when every game turned into another two minutes hate against the Trump administration, people tuned out. Republicans were pissed at the political message while others were just sick and tired of the game turning political. Many were in both camps, including myself. 

People tuned out and the NFL was hemorrhaging money. Some advertisers backed out and viewership slipped quite a bit. It was clear that something had to be done as Vince McMahon was bringing back the XFL and there was a chance that the league would succeed just out of spite. 

Of course now the NFL has put itself in a bad position. Those of us that were angry about the protests are angry that this doesn't go far enough. Instead of firing players who kneel, they will continue to have jobs and will continue to disrespect the anthem by staying inside while it is playing. It's not going far enough. I personally don't know if I will watch the NFL next season and I have seen a lot of talk on social media that people still won't watch despite this rule change. They are either mad that this doesn't go far enough or are just so sick of the league in general they don't care what they do. 

And on the other side of the coin, the political left will be furious with this move and may even boycott the NFL as well. Though I have never though leftist NFL fans were that numerous, they do exist and if more of them drop out than the people that come back the NFL will be in even worse shape this season than they were last season. 

Of course, the players themselves may cause issues for the NFL as well. The union is furious about this and may cause consequences for the NFL. After all, the players are the product and if they aren't happy they can protest, further angering everyone or even stop working. It's a huge mess. 

In short the NFL won't win back many of their conservative fans with this measure and those that are sick of the politicization of the league won't be mollified by this move. They also risk a counter boycott movement from the left and may even piss off their players enough that they might not even play. Could the NFL have handled this any worse? I don't see how. 

The worst thing is that all of this could have been prevented if the NFL had just cracked down on the protest when they first started with Colin Kaepernick. Had they just suspended him right away, made it very clear that other players would be punished if they followed his lead and said something like "we support free speech, but there is a time and place for everything. The anthem and during games is not that time and place". Sure they would have gotten some left wing flack but it wouldn't have turned into this huge issue that we are still talking about today. 

This also has to be seen as a victory for Donald Trump. Though anger with the NFL existed long before Trump even considered running for president, he galvanized the right and made us realize that we really could do something about the way the NFL was acting. Trump used his bully pulpit to create real change in the league and he will probably gain credit for it. 

F-35 sees first combat missions in Israel.

An Israeli F-35. BBC/IDF.

The controversial F-35 has flown its first combat missions in Israel. BBC. The Chief of Israel's Air Force said that the F-35 had been in combat on "two different fronts" but didn't elaborate on which countries that could be. The F-35 has been criticized for being so expensive and has not yet served in combat for the nation that developed the fighter, the United States. Israel has 50 of the fighters and may order an additional 25. The use of the new fighter is seen as a message to Iran. 

My Comment:

I'm kind of surprised that it took this long for the F-35 to make it into combat. I guess I shouldn't be since the F-22 didn't get into combat until 2014. But given the respective role for both fighters you would think that the F-35 would have made it into combat a lot sooner. The F-22 is an air superiority fighter and wasn't needed until we got into the contested air space of Syria. The F-35 is a multi-role fighter and one of those roles, a bomb truck, would have been fine for Syria. 

I think it is fairly embarrassing for the United States that Israel was the one that used the F-35 first. We developed the fighter and paid for most of it but we haven't used it yet. And even though Israel is a close ally, they aren't Americans. Given how much the American taxpayer has paid for this plane it really should have been us that used it first. We have plenty of targets in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan we could have used. 

I'm not sure what target the F-35 hit. The Air Force chief said that they had missions on two different fronts but didn't say what those fronts were. The obvious one is Syria where Israel has conducted several major airstrikes recently. The only other place I can think of is the Palestinian territories, which given current events, makes a lot of sense. 

The F-35 is a good choice for the kind of environment that you would find in Syria. Syria has some air defenses left and their Russian allies are well equipped. The F-35's have stealth capabilities and would be able to avoid Syrian air defenses. Plus if they had tangled up with Syrian fighters they would have been able to shoot them down easily. Their most advanced fighter is the MIG-29 and I doubt their pilots would be of the same quality as the Israelis. 

Still, the criticism of the F-35 doesn't have much to do with the kind of mission they did in Syria. Most of the criticism is on the extreme cost of the plane. The rest is about how it can't seem to win dogfights when compared to even current generation fighters. Nobody disagrees that the plane can drop bombs and launch missiles but as a dogfighter the F-35 has come under criticism.  

It is good though that the F-35 finally got some combat experience. Hopefully the Israelis are nice and let us see detailed information about how the F-35 performed so we can learn from their experience. At the very least it seems that the Israeli strikes were successful as I am sure we would have heard if one was shot down or even damaged.  

A few thoughts on school shootings...

As I am sure you are aware, there was another school shooting last week, this time in Santa Fe Texas. Until this point you didn't see me mention it on this blog. That wasn't because I wasn't paying attention. Indeed, I did tweet about it on my twitter account, so it's not like I didn't know what was happening.

So why didn't I write up a post? Because it is my sincere belief that doing so would help to cause more of these attacks in the future. It seems very clear to me that these attackers are doing these school shootings for attention and everyone in the world seems to be giving them that attention. I don't want to contribute to that unless there is some larger point I can make.

Indeed, I predicted that the intense media coverage of the Parkland shooting would almost certainly inspire copycat attacks. Though I haven't heard for sure that this attack and a few others that have occurred since then have been inspired by that media coverage, I would be surprised if it didn't have a major effect. They made the young man in that attack, Nikolas Cruz, into a massive celebrity and a potential hero to anyone who has a grudge against society. Plus they pushed the very people he was rebelling against, his fellow students, into a huge political role and gave the entire situation months of coverage.

For someone that had no hope of ever mattering it sure looks like the media made Nikolas Cruz into someone that mattered to the entire world, no matter how undeserving and evil he is. This is what is called creating negative incentives. Anyone who wants to feel like they are important enough for the entire news media, all of social media and even heads of state to comment on who they are, the message is clear. Shoot up a school. This is obviously not something we want to happen.

I also think that the memetics around mass shootings has changed once again. We are back to the "troubled young person shoots up a school" as the main public idea of what a mass shooting was. That wasn't the case for a long time and it is very disturbing that the media is pushing so hard to make that the case again.

What was it before? Mass shootings were political for almost the entire 8 years that Obama was President and for most of Trump's presidency as well. Whether it was radical Muslims, like the Pulse nightclub shooting and the San Bernardino attacks, far left activists like the congressional baseball shooting and the various Black Lives Matter inspired shootings, or even racism, like the the Charleston church shooting, these attacks all had very obvious and clear political motives. It was to the point where people didn't accept that the Las Vegas attack, the worst mass shooting in American history, wasn't politically motivated.

But now? We are back to the bad old days of Columbine. And if America believes that the typical mass shooter is a young person who is an outcast and has problems with women again, what are people that fit that description going to think? They fit the profile and they might as well get their revenge on society.

That is a very sick and damaging idea to get out there. It's not like the political violence meme is any better but at the very least those attackers by and large attacked other adults. These new school shooters are not targeting adults but their fellow children and that is not something we as a society should encourage.

I realize that there is next to nothing I can do about mass shootings. Even educating others about the danger of memetically spreading ideas about them being dangerous won't do much to help, but I also feel like I don't need to make things worse. I am going to do my best not to try and make mass shooters that target children famous anymore and I think everyone else should try and do the same thing.

Reports say that ISIS has withdrawn their last fighters from the Damascus area.

A Syrian tank near some rubble. BBC/Reuters. 

A Syrian rights group says that ISIS has pulled out the last Damascus suburb they had fighters in. BBC. The rights group said that the ISIS fighters were evacuated after a cease fire. The Syrian government denies the claim. The rights group said that several buses evacuated the fighters and brought them to Badia, east of Damascus, where ISIS still has some forces. 

My Comment:

Good news from Syria as this was one of the last enclaves that ISIS still had in Syria. It was the one urban area that ISIS still controlled and now they have lost it as well. With ISIS removed and the various secular rebels mostly pushed out as well, Syria now has almost total control of Damascus. 

With Damascus now under government control, ISIS has lost almost all of their territory. They still have pockets of control in the eastern desert and near the Euphrates river. One of their affiliates still controls the tri-border area with Jordan and Israel. Other than that they have lost everything. 

As with everything in Syria there is a lot of confusion in the media as to what exactly happened. The Syrian civil rights group say that there was a deal made that evacuated these fighters. The Syrian government  denies these clams and said that they just eliminated the ISIS fighters. 

I tend to believe the rights group over the government. Why? Because making a deal with ISIS is a bad move from a public relations standpoint, but one that makes sense for the Syrians. Nobody wants these ISIS fighters to escape and everyone wants them dead. That makes me think that the Syrians are lying about a deal and one actually happened. 

So why make a deal with ISIS? What does the government gain from that? Obviously they gain Damascus. Having part of your capital under control of rebels and terrorists does a lot to de-legitimize your claim of control of the country. It also is a major victory to finally get the city under government control. 

The Syrian government can also start to focus on other targets now that ISIS has been pushed out of Damascus. They will likely shift their troops around so they can target Idlib province where the rebels and al-Nusra still control territory. They can also counter Turkish moves in the region and may even move to bring the Kurds back under their control. Getting rid of the last major ISIS threat in areas they control is a big win. 

It seems very clear that ISIS will be completely out of Syria soon. They will probably still exist as a terrorist organization but not as one that takes and holds territory, at least in Syria. And once ISIS is gone it is very likely that the Syrian regime will survive and the United States will pull out. 

United States to end support for rebels in Northwest Syria.

A man walks in a damaged city in Syria. Getty/The Hill

The United States will end support for rebels in Northwest Syria, signaling a willingness to pull out from the country. The Hill. Millions of dollars worth of aid going towards anti-extremism and education will be cut. The funding cut will be the first in Syria where the United States will be pulling out. The money will be transferred to Northeast Syria where US backed forces are still fighting ISIS. ISIS has been eliminated from Northwest Syria and the area is largely under control of the regime or the al-Qadea aligned al-Nusra Front. 

My Comment:

A welcome move from the Trump administration. The Syrian resistance in Northwest Syria is a joke right now. There are almost no secular rebels left in the region and what little remains have fallen under control of al-Nusra. 

Indeed, I have long argued that our support of those rebels was essentially giving help to an al-Qaeda affiliate. Back during the Obama administration, rebels trained in the area regularly betrayed US forces or simply laid down their arms when confronted by al-Nusra. 

We had little incentive to stay in this region of Syria. The rebels there weren't attacking ISIS, they were attacking the Syrian government. Regime change wasn't on the table so we had no reason to help these rebels. 

I don't believe the argument that we should keep funding the programs we had there. It was pretty obvious that we weren't accomplishing anything in the region in the first place. Like I said, al-Nusra was in control of the region anyways so it's not like we were going to change any hearts and minds. 

I do think there is an argument that we should do something about al-Nusra in Syria. We could attack them but the status quo is to do nothing. Why? Well, Turkey is using al-Nusra, indirectly, as a proxy army against the Kurds. We don't want to get involved in that mess. Still, leaving al-Nusra alive and kicking could end up biting us. Right now they are a local terror group but they could always expand to international attacks. 

I think this is a good sign that President Trump was serious about limiting our goals in Syria and eventually leaving the country. Of course, our main goal, defeating ISIS, has not yet happened yet. The terror group still has some territory left in the eastern part of the country and an affiliate controls some of the border with Jordan and Israel. As long as that is the case we will likely keep a presence in the country.

But it does look like when ISIS is finally stopped in Syria we will pull out troops. The hawk wing of the Republican party, along with hawks in the Democrats, want us to take out Assad. Doing so wouldn't help things and I think President Trump agrees with that. But there was fear that the hawks in his administration would convince him otherwise. I think this move proves that isn't going to be the case. Those hawks will hate this move but it is the right thing to do if we want to pull out of Syria. 

Ebola again raises its ugly head and has been reported in a major urban area in DR Congo

Doctors prepare to treat patients. BBC/AFP.

Ebola has once again broken out in Africa, this time in the Democratic Republic of Congo and has already spread to a city with a population of 1 million people. BBC. Health organizations are downplaying the concerns as only one case has been found in the river port city of Mbandaka. A total of 45 cases and 25 deaths are being investigated. Up to 500 people may have been exposed to the virus and they are likely to receive the new experimental Ebola vaccine. The new cases come after a major outbreak in 2014 killed 11,000 people and spread through many countries before burning itself out. 

My Comment:

This story should cause some concern but as of this writing I think that the World Health Organization is correct. This has the potential to be a serious issue but I think that they should be able to handle the virus before it spirals out of control like it did in West Africa a couple of years ago. 

Already some of the lessons learned in that outbreak are being deployed in the DR Congo. The most encouraging news is that the vaccine is going to be deployed. The vaccine came out a little to late to have a major effect on the last outbreak but it could be a game changer this time. If used correctly it can prevent the virus from infecting people and will greatly limit how fast it can spread. It could very well be a trump card against Ebola and could potentially break this outbreak before it has a chance to get started. We have to remember though that the vaccine is new and that Ebola, like all viruses regularly mutate. But at least we have something that could help this time around. 

It also seems like people already know that they have to take Ebola seriously. It is good that people are avoiding contact with each other already and that businesses are setting up hand washing stations. Ebola mostly spreads through contact with infected bodily fluids, so these simple steps could save quite a few lives. That didn't happen until late during the last outbreak and it was a major reason why it spread so far so fast. 

This outbreak seems to have been caught early as well. The 2014 outbreak was allowed to spread unchecked for a short time which really caused the whole problem. It doesn't appear that will be the case this time. 

On the other hand, I am concerned that a major city could have been exposed. Mbandaka had one case and it has a population of 1 million people and is a trade hub. If a major outbreak were to occur there it could rapidly spread to other cities in the region, including the capital, Kinshasha. It could also spread across the globe, much like the last outbreak, as civilians travel and doctors, nurses and aid workers return home, threatening any country that accepts people from the DR Congo. 

Ebola can get really nasty when it gets into urban areas. Had the last outbreak been contained to villages and towns it would not have killed anywhere near the amount of people. Cities have a lot of people all crowded together, which gives the virus a good chance to spread. 

Thankfully, so far there has only been one case in Mbandaka. The doctors in the area will be working very hard to see who that person interacted with. They will give those people the vaccine and monitor them to make sure they don't get sick. If they do, they should be able to keep the virus contained. 

I really don't see Ebola making a comeback but the last time shook my faith in our ability to deal with a major outbreak. In the end we won over Ebola but there were a lot of stupid things that happened along the way. I am just hoping that we took those lessons to heart and this time around we do a better job. 

Four samurai sword wielding ISIS terrorists attack a police station in Indonesia.

Investigators inspect the car the attackers drove into a gate to start their attack. AFP. 

Four samurai sword wielding ISIS terrorists attacked a police station in Indonesia, killing one officer and wounding two others before being shot and killed by police. AFP. The men rammed their vehicle into the police station gates and then began attacking police officers in the station. The officer was killed by the ramming attack. An ISIS affiliate claimed responsibility for the attack. The attack was unrelated from the ISIS attacks in Indonesia earlier in the week that saw an entire family blow themselves up at various churches, as the ISIS affiliate that took credit for that attack was a separate one. The two attacks have Indonesia on edge as the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins on Thursday. Traditionally, ISIS has been very active during Ramadan. 

My Comment:

Another disturbing attack out of Indonesia and one that is starting to show a trend of increased ISIS activity in the country. It comes on the heels of a major bombing spree and a prison riot also claimed by ISIS. It is very clear that though ISIS has been greatly reduced as a global player, its affiliate groups are still a major threat.  Indonesia seems to be especially in danger as they have multiple groups in existence that support ISIS. 

Thankfully, these attackers were kind of stupid. Indonesia has fairly strict gun control laws, though not as strict as some as it appears that some people can get a permit own handguns at least. Still, this is not a country where you can expect to find armed civilians around. If they had attacked almost anywhere else they probably could have done some serious damage. 

So what did these attackers do? They went to the one place where they knew that there would be people there to stop them with firearms. The result was fairly predictable. Only one officer was killed, and he was hit by a car, and all four attackers were shot dead. 

Had these attackers been a little bit smarter and chosen a target where people couldn't fight back they could have killed quite a few people before police or solider arrived to put them down. The news articles I have read described the swords as "samurai" style weapons and if true they had some fairly serious killing potential. But even a rusty knife can kill a large number of people if they can't fight back. 

Even if they had left the swords at home they could have killed more people if they just stuck to ramming people with their van. We have seen how successful those attacks have been globally and I bet if they had done that, plus followed it up with the sword attack, they might have killed 10+ people, assuming they targeted anywhere else but an active police station. Thankfully they did not choose that either. 

It's possible that they had planned to steal the officers weapons but that rarely seems to work out. We have seen that play out a few times in France as well and it always ends with the attacker shot. Police and soldiers rarely work alone and even if you manage to take a gun from them you aren't going to figure out how to use it quickly enough to turn it on any other police or soldiers in the area. It's a fool's errand but one that seems fairly common, thankfully enough. I'm not sure if that is what these terrorists were trying to do but I would not be surprised if that had been their plan.

Still, the entire situation seems a little surreal to me. A bunch of samurai sword armed terrorists attacking a police station sounds like something out of a kung fu movie, not reality. Thankfully, in the real world, a bunch of guys with swords will end up pretty dead if they try to take on people with guns. It's why the military doesn't use swords anymore so these guys probably should have considered that before they attacked. 

As the report mentioned Ramadan starts tomorrow and there already have been some serious attacks. I am hoping that these are not a sign of things to come but given how Ramadan has gone for the past few years I am not holding my breath. I would not be surprised if there is another major attack soon, and this time in Europe or America. I hope I am wrong but if the past is anything to go on we need to stay vigilant. 

About the Israeli/Gaza situation.

As you may have noticed I haven't been talking about the Israel-Gaza conflict. As a major event happening right now, you may wonder why I haven't talked about it. I have, of course, talked about other major events that have occurred in the region, some of them involving Israel, but I have not talked about this one.

Why? Because talking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is never a good idea. It's one of those lightning rod subjects that people can't talk about without losing their minds. Indeed, the first time I got yelled at writing this blog was because I briefly mentioned the conflict. Both sides of the issue tend to be unhinged for reasons I don't want to get into here. I will say that I have never gotten the flack for other ethnic and political conflicts that I have gotten for covering Israel and Palestine.

Plus, there is the fact that I can't make myself care about it. The situation in Israel isn't that unique. There are dozens of conflicts just like it throughout the world. I don't really see much of a difference between Israel vs Palestine and Turkey vs Kurdistan. That alone is enough to get me in trouble with both sides of the conflict because they both want to claim that this struggle is so much more important than every other struggle.

So, yes, I won't be going down the Israeli-Palestinian rabbit hole. It does me no good to write on the conflict and even though controversy does lead to clicks, it's not worth the headache it would cause. I'd rather write about less controversial things, like elections and gun rights. If someone major does happen, I might write something up, but it would have to be something way more serious than what is happening now.

ISIS inspired church bombings were carried out by a family that used children as suicide bombers.

A member of the bomb squad outside of one of the churches that were bombed. The Guardian/Reuters. 

ISIS has taken credit for a series of bombings targeting churches in Indonesia. The Guardian. Eleven people were killed and dozens were injured by a family of suicide bombers. The husband and wife team recruited their four children, ages 9 to 18, to commit the attack. Both parents and the four children, two girls and two boys, blew themselves up at three different churches. It is believed that the family had just returned from Syria. The attack is believed to be related to and ISIS inspired prison riot at a West Java prison which killed five people. 

My Comment:

What an utterly disgusting attack in Indonesia. It disgusts me on multiple levels. First of all it targeted Christians who were worshiping on a Sunday. That would be disgusting enough but the fact that this entire family blew themselves up just to murder a bunch of innocent people is disgusting. 

Unfortunately, it isn't that uncommon for terrorists to use children as living bombs. Boko Haram, ISIS's African affiliate, regularly used children as bombers. Sometimes they didn't even tell them that they were going to be used that way. Using your own small children to do the same thing is even worse and is a level of evil that is hard to even imagine. What kind of parents send their 9 year old daughter off to die like this? It's completely disgusting and horrible. 

I am guessing that ISIS's claim of responsibility is correct. The fact that this family was able to get so many explosives and was so well coordinated shows a level of sophistication that means they have had to have help. This family clearly had links to terror groups as they had traveled to Syria to live with ISIS back when ISIS controlled much of the country. I would be extremely surprised if this was a "lone wolf" attack as opposed to one that was directed by ISIS or one of their affiliates. 

This attack also highlights the danger of returning ISIS fighters. This family clearly saw the writing on the wall in Syria and left while they had to chance to do so. But why were they allowed to come back to Indonesia? My guess is that they fell through the cracks, but you would think that anyone coming back from Syria and Iraq would at the very least be under surveillance. With ISIS largely reduced in Iraq and Syria, I wouldn't be surprised if more returnees commit attacks like this. 

It is also significant that these people attacked a serious of Christian Churches. Islam has always had a rough relationship with Christianity and ISIS especially has been very hostile to Christians. They have targeted Churches wherever ISIS is present and when they don't kill Christians they force them to pay a tax and humiliate them. When it comes to ISIS, if you are a a Christian, the best possibility is that you are treated as a second class citizen. More likely though, they will kill you. 

The presence of ISIS in Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim country, is a disturbing development. Indonesia has had problems with terrorism in the past but they haven't had too many recent attacks. That seems to be changing with this attack and the major prison riot occurring so close together. With ISIS kicked out of the Middle East, Asia has always been a possible backup plan. Afghanistan and The Philippines have had severe problems with ISIS and now it appears that Indonesia joins them. 

I'm expecting an uptick in terrorist attacks. As the Guardian report mentioned, Ramadan is coming up very soon and Ramadan has always been a horrible time of year. Muslims often believe that to die for Allah during Ramadan is blessed, so many horrible terror attacks have occurred during Ramadan. I would not be surprised if we see a few more major attacks in the coming days and weeks and they may even happen in Europe and America...  

French police shoot man after he stabs 5 people, killing one. ISIS takes responsibility.

French Police stand guard near the scene of the attack. USA Today/AFP

French police have shot and killed a man after he stabbed five people, killing one. USA Today. ISIS has taken credit for the attack and called the man one of their "soldiers". The man shouted "Allah Akbar", a common war cry for Muslims. The attack occurred in Paris's opera district which is crowded with bars and restaurants and is popular with tourists. France has suffered several major terrorist attacks and is under high alert for follow up attacks. 

VIDEO: People running, body lying on floor after #Paris stabbing

The attacker stabbed and killed at least one person and injured four others before being shot dead by police, French authorities said. pic.twitter.com/UrcewxQkCw

— The Voice of America (@VOANews) May 12, 2018

My Comment:
Another terror attack hits France, which has already suffered so many attacks recently. This one wasn't as bad as it could be, the cops shot the attacker right away. But still, one innocent person died and four more were injured, two of them seriously.

My guess is that this was a "lone wolf" attacker. That doesn't mean he didn't have links to ISIS. Indeed, given how quickly ISIS took credit for this attack, I bet he had some contact with ISIS. Those links were probably online only, because if core ISIS was helping with this attack he probably would have had more than just a knife. Despite France's draconian gun control, core ISIS had no trouble getting fully automatic Kalashnikovs or bombs. Since he was only armed with a knife, my guess is that he planned and carried out this attack by himself, and only gave ISIS a heads up as to what he was doing. Either that or ISIS just isn't in position to arm their attackers anymore.

The choice of target is important as well. The opera district is a tourist trap place and also is a place where locals go for entertainment and shopping. The attacker knew that this area was a good place to attack. There would be a lot of people close together and some of them might be intoxicated.

The obvious downside is that there were a lot of soldiers and cops running around in Paris right now, and I think that is a major reason why this attack only killed one. It's pretty clear that the attacker chose his target for maximum publicity, not maximum casualties. Paris is more well defended than most cities, even if citizens can't own guns for protection. I don't want to give the terrorists any ideas but it's clear that if this attacker had been a bit smarter he could have killed way more people...

ISIS has not been in the headlines very much lately. It should be very obvious why. They have lost most of their territory in Syria and Iraq and their other outposts, like Libya and Egypt, have been greatly reduced. Many of their soldiers and terrorists are dead or captured and are no longer a threat.

ISIS has also run out of money. Much of their millions of dollars in cash collected from looting, taxation and selling oil was destroyed. And many of the people that could have paid terrorists and bought them weapons are dead. Though ISIS goes cheap when it comes to terrorism, it still costs money to attack. That's why there has been a shift from the major plots like the Paris attacks and the Brussels bombings to these minor lone wolf attacks.

The attacks will probably continue though. ISIS may be largely defeated as a terrorist organization, but their actions will continue to inspire more attacks in the future. ISIS isn't just a terror group, it's a belief system, and that belief system won't just go away...

Editor's Note: Vacation!

I'm going to be off from work for the next week or so. During that time blog posting will be irregular and at odd times. I'm not going anywhere but I do have some things planned that will take priority over posting.

President Trump welcomes back three US citizens formerly held in North Korea.

President Donald Trump and Melania Trump stand with one of the freed US citizens. Reuters. 

President Donald Trump welcomed back three US citizens formerly held in North Korea. Reuters. The three men arrived and were met with Trump early this morning. The three men were Kim Dong-chul, who is a missionary, Kim Sang-duk and Kim Hak-song, both of whom worked at the foreign funded Pyongyang University of Science and Technology. The three men were sentenced to hard labor for "hostile acts" against the North Korean state. They were released by Kim Jong Un and appeared to be in good health compared to the last person released by North Korea, Otto Warmbier, who died shortly after returning to the United States. Trump thanked Kim Jong Un for releasing the men and expressed hope that a nuclear deal could happen. 

My Comment:

Great moment last night with the release of these three men. And quite a bit of excellent diplomacy to get them released. And to see those men in good health and good cheer is also a very good thing after what happened to Otto Warmbier. There was no guarantee that would happen, so to see it is very welcome. These men were not treated well but they were at least in decent health and seem to be very happy to be home. 

This release is also a good sign for the US-North Korea talks. I think this shows that North Korea is acting in good faith and is working hard to make some kind of deal with America over their nuclear program. Releasing these men wasn't a precondition to talks but this is a very powerful gesture. Of course, these men didn't deserve to be imprisoned in the first place, but letting them out helps improve the image of North Korea slightly and shows that they aren't playing games. This was also done without anything expected in return, as far as I am aware so it was done just to make nice. 

This also shows that the minor diplomatic war of words over why North Korea is coming to the peace table is just that. Minor. In the end it doesn't matter if Trump's pressure gets the credit or Kim Jong Un gets it, what matters is that diplomacy is still working. That minor diplomatic scuffle won't be anything but a footnote when they write the history books about this. 

This was a great moment for Trump. It's a major feather in his cap and he accomplished something that Barack Obama was unable to do. I think it will also give Trump some very rare positive mainstream media coverage. It's very hard to spin this in a way that hurts President Trump, even though most outlets are still trying. Even the Reuters report had to throw a few slings at Trump for the Iran deal and the Stormy Daniels (ugh) faux scandal. But the core of the story, Trump administration secures release of three Americans, is one that can't be taken any way except positively. 

I also think that the North Korea situation is a major reason Trump's poll numbers, along with the GOP in general, are starting to rise. Trump's approval rating is hovering around 40-50% depending on which poll you use/trust and the GOP's disadvantage in November is being erased. Trump is getting results foreign policy wise and if he manages to broker a peace deal with the North Koreans, the 2018 blue wave might end up being a red one. 

And that outcome looks even more likely. The release of these three men is only part of it. Of even greater importance is the fact that the North Korean media showed Kim Jong Un and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo together. Kim is going to face domestic pressure now to get results after that picture has come out. He needs to convince his people that talking to a country that has been demonized for years is the right move and the only way I can see him doing that is if he makes a deal. 

Finally, I have to say, it feels pretty good to write about good things happening in the world. So often I have to write about horrible things, like war, terror attacks and senseless violence. Getting to write about the peace process that is happening now is a welcome relief from that, and I for one hope it continues in the future. 

Iranian troops in Syria reportedly attack Israel directly for the first time.

Israeli troops in the Golan Heights. BBC/Reuters. 

Iranian troops in Syria have reportedly attacked Israel directly for the first time. BBC. 20 rockets were fired from Syria into the Golan Heights. No casualties were recorded and some of the rockets were intercepted. Israel has reportedly retaliated for the attack, though details are scares. Syria reports that they shot down two missiles were shot down and two civilians were killed, but a local rights group reports that an Iranian weapon depot was hit instead, with fifteen fighters killed. 

My Comment:

This is a rapidly developing story so I won't go into the details too greatly. There is a lot of fog of war going on with both the attack and retaliation. Obviously, the reports on the ground in Syria are different, with the Syrians saying one thing and the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights saying another. I have also seen some rumors that it wasn't the Iranians at all, but the Syrians. Like all initial rumors these should be taken with a grain of salt. 

Either way, this is a major escalation in the proxy war between Israel and Iran in Syria. For the first time, that we know of, Iranian troops have attacked Israel directly. The fact that the attack failed miserably isn't surprising but it also isn't the main reason this story is important. Israel has pretty good defenses against rocket attacks so it isn't surprising that they didn't suffer any casualties. 

The main problem is that instead of a proxy war, Iran has escalated things to the point where they are attacking Israel directly. That's not the same as an actual war but it's clear that the conflict has entered into a new phase, one that puts Israel itself at risk. 

It seems like the other major players in the Syria conflict aren't going to interfere with either side. Russia probably could have intercepted Israel's fighter jets but they were content to let them attack. And America didn't do anything either to attack the Iranians. Other than the Syrians themselves, this conflict will likely remain one between Israel and Iran. 

A lot of pundits will say this attack was due to Trump pulling out of the Iranian deal. Though I don't doubt that the Iranians see this as a middle finger to him as well, it isn't about the Iran deal. The situation between Iran and Israel has been escalating for quite some time now and this was the logical next step. I am guessing it would have happened no matter what Trump did on the Iran deal. If he had stuck with it, it wouldn't have stopped this attack. 

So what happens next? In the immediate term, probably nothing. Israel already attacked in retaliation, so there isn't much else for them to do. In the longer term though, I could see Israel being much more aggressive in trying to stop these attacks before they happen. I am guessing that they will be more likely to attack masses of Iranian troops if they believe they are going to attack. 

I would also be surprised if Iran didn't try something like this again. Even though this attack failed and failed miserably, it's still a propaganda victory for them. They are showing the Israelis that they can indeed threaten them and that they have the power to possibly kill Israeli civilians. That is a message they are going to want to repeat as much as they possibly can. The proxy war in Syria will continue in a darker and more dangerous place. 

President Trump pulls out of the Iran Deal, issues new sanctions.

President Trump and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. LA Times/AP/EPA. 

President Donald Trump pulls out of the Iran Deal and has issued new sanctions. LA Times. Trump said new sanctions would target Iran's energy, oil and banking industries. The action was praised by some US allies, like Israel and Saudi Arabia, while others, like France, the UK and Germany, condemned the action. Trump said that the current deal was useless because it did nothing to address Iran's ballistic missile program, it's support for terrorism and their major role in the conflicts in Syria and Yemen. 

My Comment:

Zero surprise at this outcome. Donald Trump always hated this deal and campaigned on getting rid of it. It isn't surprising that he kept that campaign promise. It also seemed very clear that Trump was going to pull out after Israel's Benjamin Netenyahu gave a presentation showing Iran's nuclear capabilities were greater than previously realized. 

The fact that the Iran Deal was Barack Obama's signature foreign policy act is also a major reason for getting rid of it as well. Trump has been doing a very good job of dismantling Obama's legacy and even John Kerry violating the Logan Act trying to save this deal was going to do nothing. Trump was elected on a mandate to go after Obama's legacy, such as it is, and he is keeping that promise. 

I think Trump was just as upset about how this deal was made as he was about it's failures. Making a deal with a country that had just recently taken a bunch of sailors hostage was not acceptable. And giving Iran a pallet of cash for no reason was just embarrassing, especially since that money probably went to funding terrorists operating in Syria and Yemen. 

Of course the Iran Deal was very limited in what it actually did. All it did was limit Iran's nuclear program. It didn't do anything about their ballistic missile program would could be used to attack Iran's neighbors with conventional or chemical/biological weapons programs. 

More critically, it did nothing for Iran's activities in Syria and Yemen. In both cases Iran was threatening our allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Iran and Israel are on the brink of war due to the threatening actions Iran is taking in Syria. They are arming Hezbollah terrorists and have launched several violations in Israeli airspace. 

Yemen is an even bigger problem as Iran has been supplying the Houthi rebels there with ballistic missiles, greatly increasing the scale and danger of the conflict. These missiles have been used to attack Saudi Arabia directly and it would be trivial for them to load a chemical or biological warhead. 

Will new sanctions work? Well they seem to have worked with North Korea. Trump cracked down on them hard but gave them a chance to escape, thus leading to the current situation where a peace deal and the end of North Korea's nuclear weapons seem very likely. As that deal shapes up, perhaps Iran will see that the writing on the wall and will rein in their behavior as well.  

I don't agree that this action will lead to war. If anything it may prevent one. Both Saudi Arabia and Israel were chomping at the bit to go to war with Iran because of their actions in Syria and Yemen. Though the danger has not passed, bringing back sanctions may placate both countries.